# AGW: atmospheric physics



## Star (Feb 19, 2013)

.
*Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate* 


SETH BORENSTEIN 
02/18/2013 



WASHINGTON (AP)  With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.

Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.

How can that be? It's been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that's likely to continue with man-made global warming.

Consider:
<*More Here*>
.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 19, 2013)

Or to simply the predictions, wider and wilder swings in the weather with an overall warming trend.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 21, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Or to simply the predictions, wider and wilder swings in the weather with an overall warming trend.


Good morning to You from Manitoba.
I got to know You a little better since we buried the axe and in this spirit I`ll give You a little brain teaser today. 
Yesterday, just outside my kitchen window it was -33. This morning it`s "only" -18 where I live. Only 22 km east from where I am it`s 5 degrees "warmer".


( not much, only slightly off topic remark..So how much sense would it make to average that?)



If there were no difference in temperature over distance there would be no "wild swings" or severe weather events.
Do You agree with that so far ?

Any severe storm regardless if it`s a winter blizzard, a summer hail storm, a tornado or a hurricane  is *triggered by rapid cooling of warm & moist air.*..not by rapid heating.
Do You agree with this statement ?

If You agreed to both then You are in a bit of a bind, because CO2 at the present level is said to slow the rate of cooling.

It`s alright with me if You quote a pro AGW web site, as long as the explanation is included how something that slows the rate of cooling can at the same time enhance the rate of cooling to a degree that triggers a severe weather event.

Don`t worry, I`m not trying to lure You into a "You said" trap for later use...I`m just sincerely interested what Your thoughts are regarding this paradox.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 21, 2013)

Ug.

This is a tough one for alarmists in the global.warming camp.  They yell too much about any one storm.

Please understand though if global warming affects the flow of the gulf stream England may well get colder!

I would think a warmer.atmosphere would be faster moving so maybe another mph or two on winds.

This is not a big part of my belief in the greenhouse effect though.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 21, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Ug.
> 
> This is a tough one for alarmists in the global.warming camp.  They yell too much about any one storm.
> 
> ...


Are You responding to my paradox? I`m only trying to make the AGW subject a bit less confrontational and welcome all comments 

Pretty good answer !
I especially liked the gulf stream reminder, because many are not aware that the gulf stream transports more heat energy from south to north than the heat energy that the air transfers.
It starts out at 30 Sverdrup and increases to 150 Sv north of 55 deg Lat.
That`s 39 600 000 000 gallons per second of warm water heading north & to Europe.

I`m an engineer not a "climatologist". As such I see an analogy between the paradox about a decreased rate of cooling, a prerequisite to  wild temperature swings and  severe weather events..... and how a Stirling engine works. It`s exactly the same factors that make a Sterling engine "tick" that You need for severe storms.





It would seize to function if the rate of cooling would be less than the rate of heating...or if it the cold side were as warm as the heated side.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 21, 2013)

If the wilder and wilder swings were to lead to another mini ice age, would it be politically alright to seek warmth?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 21, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Ug.
> 
> This is a tough one for alarmists in the global.warming camp.  They yell too much about any one storm.
> 
> ...



Besides the massive Gulf stream current, the other thing that casual weather observes don`t consider are the mechanics at play at severe storms, such as hurricanes and tornadoes.
Both are less intense the farther north the event occurs and more violent the farther south.
That`s not so much due to warmer temperature farther south, but rather due to the *latitude specific Coriolis effect *which causes the high circular wind speeds in tornadoes and hurricanes.





Too bad, I was in a hurry and could not find a better Coriolis gif demo.
So just use Your imagination and reverse the direction how that ball moves. In a storm system that ball,...the air moves towards the center and rotates faster just like a figure skater increases "rpm" by drawing in his previously extended arms.


It`s better to demonstrate this effect in numerical form for a hurricane, like "Sandy" and compare "Sandy" to "Katrina", because hurricanes spread out over a larger area.
The Coriolis effect alone will account that "Katrina" which made landfall in New Orleans had higher wind speeds than "Sandy" @ New York.

At the equator the rotational speed is (40 000 000 * cos(0))/( 24*60*60)= 623 m/sec
At Lat 10 N the rotational speed is already down to 456 m/ sec
When an air mass moves from the equator 10 degrees North it retains  the 623 m/sec momentum and is over a ground that has a 456 m/sec speed vector in that direction. That`s a speed difference of *167 meters per second*. Friction is a good thing, because if there was none that`s the kind of wind speeds that would be achieved if there were no friction when an air mass travels from the equator 10 degrees north (=600 nautical miles).

If an air mass travels from 40 deg N to 50 deg N then the speed momentum vector difference is *57* meters per second...almost *3 times slower *than from 0 deg to 10 deg N

It is the Coriolis vector quantity  that contributes a large part of the *mechanical energy *in a severe storm system. 
The rate of cooling, the more rapid the more violent will be the mechanical energy component the storm has drawn from the thermal energy and it *adds up *either to a hurricane category 1-2, 70 to 120 mph wind speeds  (Katrina), or a tropical storm (Sandy)...40 to ~ 75 miles per hour.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 21, 2013)

> A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say.



Absolutely - the more humid it is, the more we get here in Finland. You don't hear people question climate change here.

There was another thread on snow in Russia a couple of weeks back where some of the science behind this was explained. The funny thing was, the thread was started by a Denier!!

_btw - I'd like to warn posters about the Polar Bear - who started posting IP addresses last week after he got particularly humiliated on one thread. The posts were removed by the mods, but I suggest putting the guy on ignore if you value your privacy._


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 21, 2013)

Blizzards have only happened in the last couple hundred years?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 21, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> Blizzards have only happened in the last couple hundred years?



Nope. 

But areas such as the one I live in get more snow and bigger blizzards as the climate becomes warmer and more humid.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 21, 2013)

Here's a nice overview of the science:

As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).

The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various  analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 21, 2013)

I dont understand why people act oblivious to the fact that Earth has cycles. It happens, folks. Regardless if we influenced by a fragment or not, it is still natural. I think it is ignorant to think we are causing "weird" weather, even though weird weather has happened for millions of years. I mean if you blame us, you should also blame the dinosaurs. Ridiculous, ey?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 21, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> I dont understand why people act oblivious to the fact that Earth has cycles. It happens, folks. Regardless if we influenced by a fragment or not, it is still natural. I think it is ignorant to think we are causing "weird" weather, even though weird weather has happened for millions of years. I mean if you blame us, you should also blame the dinosaurs. Ridiculous, ey?



I hear this a lot, but it largely comes down to a kind of misinterpretation of what we are talking about. Climate has always changed - but there has often been a reason WHY it changed. 

Here's another synopsis on this:

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it&#8217;s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.

There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth&#8217;s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.

It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can&#8217;t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can&#8217;t start bushfires because in the past they&#8217;ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth&#8217;s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 21, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> I dont understand why people act oblivious to the fact that Earth has cycles. It happens, folks. Regardless if we influenced by a fragment or not, it is still natural. I think it is ignorant to think we are causing "weird" weather, even though weird weather has happened for millions of years. I mean if you blame us, you should also blame the dinosaurs. Ridiculous, ey?



Ironic isn`t it?
AGW cultists like to call skeptics "flat earth scientists" while they can`t even imagine what a cycle is. Their whole "science" is based on a linear relation ship between ppm CO2 and "average temperature" while the function for CO2 IR absorption is a logarithmic function that almost levels out long before we double CO2 ppm in the atmosphere.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 21, 2013)

Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12.


----------



## Intense (Feb 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*The IP Addresses were only visible to the current user. There was no Security breach. Here is a similar Site. No One can see tha IP Address but you. *


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 21, 2013)

These AGW threads are the funniest ever!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 21, 2013)

Wider swings!  Wheeeeeeeeee


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 21, 2013)

Jesus said, not in all east angelia have we seen faith such as yours. Go! Your faith has warmed the planet...er, I mean changed the climate


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Of course it must be COLD to make snow..you all seem to forget that...


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Suffering from your typical delusions I see.  You couldn't humiliate my 6 year old in the realm of science, much less Polar Bear.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say.
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Feb 22, 2013)

> Of course it must be COLD to make snow..you all seem to forget that...





> Suffering from your typical delusions I see. You couldn't humiliate my 6 year old in the realm of science, much less Polar Bear.



Well, we had -26C here a couple of weeks ago. Is that cold enough?

At that temperature we get very little snow, because that weather tends to also be extremely dry. 

The trend of the past 20 years is warmer, more humid weather - and thus more snow. 

I don't humilate you Westwall - you do it to yourself.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 22, 2013)

Intense said:


> *The IP Addresses were only visible to the current user. There was no Security breach. Here is a similar Site. No One can see tha IP Address but you. *



Thanks, Intense - it was a bit spooky as I didn't know what the guy was up to.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Of course it must be COLD to make snow..you all seem to forget that...
> 
> 
> 
> ...







How does a warm summer equate to more snow when the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days?  Your high priests little theory has a ginormous hole in it with that one simple fact.  And for the record, you are a walking, talking, humiliation all by your lonesome.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 22, 2013)

Westwall - 

Please try and focus. Really. This isn't difficult stuff, you know.

No one - and I reapeat NO ONE - is suggesting more humid weather in summer causes more snow in winter.

Try and post with a little common sense.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Please try and focus. Really. This isn't difficult stuff, you know.
> 
> ...










Yeah, really?  Where is that warmer and more humid weather?  Even the IPCC has now admited that the temps have been flat for the last 17 years


THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.


And with the solar activity we are witnessing it appears he will get his wish...so saigy old boy...how do you get all of these "climate change events" when there has been no warming?

Hmmmmm?


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 22, 2013)

The Sun? LOL

Yeah, the Sun causes "Global Climate Change Warming" 

LOL

here let me introduce you to our AGW Computer models


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Sun? LOL
> 
> Yeah, the Sun causes "Global Climate Change Warming"
> 
> ...



I know that big bright yellow hot thing in the sky makes the temperature climb when it appears.  Very much more noticeable in the spring and summer.  

But I don't believe that daily temperature is the same thing as "climate."

Nonetheless, *if* we do witness increasing global temperatures, not that we have in the past decade or two, then I'd be prepared to guess that the higher temperatures are PROBABLY more related to that big bright yellow hot thing than to trace gasses in our atmosphere.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 22, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Sun? LOL
> ...



To sane people it's "trace gases" but to the AGW Cult...


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Of course it must be COLD to make snow..you all seem to forget that...
> ...



The walleyedretard misses it again. Nobody said that a warm summer leads to more snow, nitwit. It is the general increase in world average temperatures due to AGW that is raising the water vapor content of the atmosphere, and has already raised it by about 4% so far. This increased water vapor in the air is what is causing heavier rainfalls and snowfalls. There is just more moisture in the air now.

And for the record, walleyed, you are a clueless delusional retard and you never cease to unconsciously embarrass and humiliate yourself with your idiotic denial of reality. You are obviously too stupid to be embarrassed by your own stupidity and ignorance but the rest of us often feel something called "*Fremdschämen*" in relation to you and your braindead posts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



And you can show us in a lab how CO2 drives that irrespective of all evidence to the contrary that CO2 lags climate change?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Rises in CO2 don't lag climate change, they produce climate change. Lots of new research confirms that increasing CO2 leads and causes temperature increases. Too bad about your defunct denier cult myths. 

*Study: Carbon Dioxide Increase Caused End of Ice Age*

*Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Shakun is a fucking fraud and you're an idiot for not remembering he's full of crap


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Shakun and his studies are fine. You're just a fucking anti-science retard.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say.
> ...



That just goes to show how dumb this "Saigon" is. If I wanted his IP all it would take is a false label on a URLink which brings him to my web own page where I could embed whatever Java script I want, not just the harmless code tags under the # icon with the HTML editor used in this forum. I`m not interested in collecting other people`s IP. I collect books, guns and coins. But I do know for sure that he does not live in Finland.
All he has to do is run a finger across the keyboard,...if he lives in Finland that will produce an ASCII sequence that keyboards in other countries don`t. He won`t do it because he can`t.
As for :


> A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say.


"*snow experts*"...? Who are they? Silly question...! In the summer they work of course as "rain" or "sunshine experts". 
Any sort of "snow expert" would have jumped off the wagon as soon as we get past "A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture" when it gets to "and dump more moisture, snow, Saigon  a renowned snow expert says"

To "dump moisture" as rain or snow the moist air has to be *cooled *to below the dew point first, before it can "dump" anything.
That happens either with vertical convection or if a moist air mass arrives over *a colder area* !
I wonder if New England "snow experts" will  say  that it`s gotten too warm for all that moisture to stay aloft and that`s why all these AGW "deniers" got dumped on and got punished being stuck in their global warming cars
Major snowstorm headed for New England | Reuters



> *Major snowstorm headed for New England*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One more thing "Saigon"
Where is that thread where YOU "particularly humiliated me" ???


> _*btw - I'd like to warn posters about the Polar Bear - who started posting IP addresses last week *after he got particularly humiliated on one thread_


*Post the link !
Is that the one where You said you put me in "ignore mode"?..the mode YOU have been in since birth.
So now you can`t find it because I`m on your ignore list ...but keep popping up with psychotic & vindictive  accusations wherever I post ?
You don`t even know the difference between "humiliate" and insult...the latter you excel in and the first is self inflicted.
*
You should brush up on word definitions before you attempt to define others


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Both "studies" you posted have been thoroughly ripped to shreds.  Once again your climate "scientists" have been found to be deficient in their mathematical skills.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...









Only to a delusional, libtard, scientifically illiterate troll such as yourself doofus.

What a maroon....


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2013)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








Yeah, I knew he wasn't in Finland either...they are far smarter than this twit.  He's no doubt the sock of oltrakartrollingblunderfraud or one of that ilk.

On a more positive note I am heading to St. Petersburg on Monday for a friends wedding, so if he is in Finland I could arrange to meet him in the flesh!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Too bad You can`t work in a stop-over in Germany. If by any chance You ever plan a trip there I`ll have my ex-classmates roll out the red carpet for You and then you come back and visit me here with a load of  Deli from Munich for me...I`ld kill for the real thing...*But I`ld gladly share it with You, bro !*
Have You ever tried "Leberkaes" or "Weisswurscht" ? 







Actually the stuff they serve up in Milwaukee is just as good as in Munich. The only difference is, in Munich we don`t say "Weisswurst" we say "Weiss*wurscht*"

Maybe I can lure You into a minor schedule change with a few videos from good old Munich ?


Most of my neighbors back home drive cars like that, and they could have You in St.Petersburg before You know it:


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOL......riiiiight...."_thoroughly ripped to shreds_" by ignorant denier cult nutjobs on blogs......not by real scientists in peer-reviewed science journals....too bad you're too stupid to understand the difference, walleyed.....


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







  Yeah, sure.  Tell that to Gergis et all.....you truly are a illiterate nutjob.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2013)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...







My days in Munchen are over (a towering hangover after drinking far too many litres of bier!)!  Now, I go to Sinsheim or Munster to look at tanks!  On the other hand......next time I do go, I will very happily make a detour to bring you some things from the Old Country!

I havn't been to your neck of the woods yet so I will definately get up there one of these years and I will be very happy to savor some good hospitality!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 22, 2013)

Wailing Wall, Frank - 

Perhaps it is time for both of you to accept that you simply can not understand  this topic. 

Both of you seemed to given up trying to understand anything some time back, and are increasingly relying on off-topic abuse and childish smears rather than actually establishing truth. 

Really, Westwall, if you can not understand how raised humidity can mean more snow - there is absolutely no hope for you to ever understand this topic at all. It's just beyond you.



> Yeah, I knew he wasn't in Finland either.



A case in point.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wailing Wall, Frank -
> 
> Perhaps it is time for both of you to accept that you simply can not understand  this topic.
> 
> ...











  Where's the increased temps.  How is it that when the globe was warming the meme was no more snow, then when the globe started cooling the mantra became "oh yes we predicted that" which is an outright lie.

Face it buckwheat, your religion has been exposed as a fraud.  They can't even lie well, and neither can you...


----------



## Saigon (Feb 22, 2013)

> Where's the increased temps.



Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Where's the increased temps.


LOLOLOL....you are _such_ a silly sorry-ass retard, walleyed.....and sooooo delusional......LOLOL.....you're a hoot.....

(Personally highlighted for the benefit of thick skulled denier cult retards)

*2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record, Says NASA*
ABC News
By Ned Potter
Jan 15, 2013
(excerpts)
*The year 2012 was the ninth warmest globally since record keeping began in 1880, said climate scientists today from NASA.  NOAA, crunching the numbers slightly differently, said 2012 was the tenth warmest year, and both agencies said a warming pattern has continued since the middle of the 20th century. NASA had already said last week that for the contiguous United States, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded.  The hottest years on record for the planet, it said, were 2005 and 2010. One more year of numbers isnt in itself significant, said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies in a statement.  What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason its warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

NOAA and NASA scientists said the global temperature in 2012 was moderated by relatively cool temperatures in Alaska, Canada and parts of Asia, and there was also a La Nina  a giant patch of cool water that periodically replaces warmer water in the equatorial Pacific.  But NASA also pointed out that 2012 was a year of extremes, with drought and unusual summer heat, for example, afflicting much of the U.S. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record, NOAA said. Only one year in the 20th century  1998  was warmer than 2012.*








westwall said:


> How is it that when the globe was warming the meme was no more snow,


There is no "_how_" because no such "_meme_" was ever current in the climate science community. Climate science has never claimed that there would be no winters or an absence of snow in winter any time soon, even if one guy in Britain got a little over-enthusiastic a few years ago about the possibility of 'snow' vanishing soon. Do you even understand what the term 'meme' actually means, you senile old fool? 








westwall said:


> then when the globe started cooling the mantra became "oh yes we predicted that" which is an outright lie.


LOLOLOLOL.....how ironic.....you begin with an bald-faced "_outright lie_" about your imaginary "_cooling_", which is apparently only visible to insane brainwashed denier cultists and mad dogs.......and then you deceitfully label as "_an outright lie_" the documented and checkable fact that climate scientists were in fact predicting the probability of regional variations in the AGW driven climate changes, with some areas warming more, others less and some even cooling temporarily as the usual atmospheric wind patterns like the jet stream get moved around and ocean current patterns perhaps change. Here's a clue, little retard, the "_globe_" did not start "_cooling_", not in this millenium. Warming continues, of both the atmosphere and the oceans and that fact is very visible in the melting of the permafrost in the northern regions and the melting of the mountain glaciers all around the world, and the melting of the floating ice sheets in Antarctica.







westwall said:


> Face it buckwheat, your religion has been exposed as a fraud.  They can't even lie well, and neither can you...


Better watch it there, walleyed, you're starting to talk to yourself again. Then again, perhaps your sub-conscious mind can see how screwed up and brainwashed your normal semi-conscious mind is and it is trying to communicate with you this way. Maybe it wants to slap you silly and try to snap you out of this hypnotic trance that you're in.

BTW, old boy, too bad about your little astroturfed cult of reality denial going down the tubes like beer vomit at a frat party.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Both "studies" you posted have been thoroughly ripped to shreds.  Once again your climate "scientists" have been found to be deficient in their mathematical skills.



Climate "scientists" prefer to make statements like "warmer" and "more severe". They don`t like to quantify "more severe", "extreme" etc.
They only thing they do quantify is "average temperature anomaly" and the value they assign is  1 C ...(which is a statistics cheat and a fabrication anyway)
Let`s assume that`s true that it is 1 C and do the math what we get with the   Clausius&#8211;Clapeyron equation for the water vapor pressure increase when the temperature increases from 20 C to 21 C.
at 20 C vP H2O = 17.51 mmHg and at 21 C it is 18.62 mmHg (Torr) saturated vapor pressure.
So let`s whip up a "perfect storm" and use the extreme *maximum possible pressure drop* if all the moisture of air saturated with a 100% vapor pressure condenses.
The Volume shrinks as the moisture condenses and *that`s what`s causing a storm,  *sucking in air into the eye of a hurricane or tornadoes.
At 760 Torr,...standard pressure and 20 C the pressure & volume drops by  2.27 % and at a "temperature anomaly" of 21 C by  2.47 %.
So "extreme" and "more severe" pans out to be *0.2 %* "more severe" for a 1 C "anomaly" than it would have been what climate "scientists" call "normal".
A +1 C "anomaly" does not make a storm "more extreme" or "more severe".
The  thing that does determine how violent a storm will be,  is the rate at which the moisture condenses per time.. and that is pegged to *the rate of cooling*. The *faster moist air cools *& condenses the more violent the event. So how exactly does CO2 which is said *to slow the rate of cooling *make storms "more severe"..???


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2013)

every time I see the title of this thread I expect it to be about atmospheric physics but it is just the usual AGW BS about weather.

smaller temperature differentials leave less energy available to power wild storms. simply check out the weather during the Little Ice Age, when weather really was extreme.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 23, 2013)

Ian C - 

I share your frustation. Whatever the thread topic, every "discussion" is the same. It is frustrating.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Where's the increased temps.
> 
> 
> 
> Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.





SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position. global CO2 has gone up faster than expected while temps have been flat for over a decade. models did not expect this and many famous climate science luminaries have continued to backtrack on their predictions that warming could only stop for a decade, then 15 years, then 17 years, and now the head of the IPCC has said 30 or 40 years, just so they cannot be held accountable for their  failures.






personally I like this graph because to me it looks like pre-1998 temps were somewhat stable with natural variation up and down, then it looks like something 'bumped' the thermostat at the 1998 mega El Nino, then post 1998 temps have been stable with natural up and downs since then.

what bumped the thermostat? I dont know, perhaps the reaction to Pinatubo. there are certainly known 'attractor' balance points in systems, climate or otherwise. 

CO2 is not the control knob for climate or temperature.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I share your frustation. Whatever the thread topic, every "discussion" is the same. It is frustrating.





I actually would like to see a (civil) discussion of atmospheric physics. it would point out the large uncertainties that are present in our understanding of what is going on. I vote for Miskolski (sp) simply because his theory is so beautiful and elegant that it _should_ be true. hahahaha


----------



## polarbear (Feb 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> every time I see the title of this thread I expect it to be about atmospheric physics but it is just the usual AGW BS about weather.
> 
> smaller temperature differentials leave less energy available to power wild storms. simply check out the weather during the Little Ice Age, when weather really was extreme.


You just re-phrased what I`ve been saying. Simply stating "extreme" is a qualitative assertion which evades doing the math to show the quantity.
And when You do the math the vapor pressure curve for H2O applies to an air mass the same as it does to water in a psychrometric vapor pressure instrument. Dry air expands or shrinks only by 1/273 rd. per degree delta K and with a 100% water vapor saturation pressure it shrinks by the partial pressure component %.age of the total pressure carried by the water vapor.
"Extreme storms" are not caused while water evaporates, they happen when the evaporated water/ air mixture is rapidly cooled.
And to evaporate water quicker raising the "average temperature" by only 1 C does not have anywhere near the effect an increased airflow  has.
You can try that out the next time You do Your laundry. Plug up the lint screen and observe how the safety thermostat cuts the power because the drum overheats,...but the clothes are just as wet as before.
The same laws are at play for wind speed and a large body of water or moist terrain. Just "warmer" by itself and only by 1C has no more than 0.2 % impact at standard pressure and temperature


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 23, 2013)

Bay Area environmental group proposes hybrid levees for bay - ContraCostaTimes.com

At least real science is allowing for real efforts to mitgate the effect of climate change, no matter what the cause.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 23, 2013)

> SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position.



I disagree. I am told here everyday that "it is not warming, it has not warmed since 2010" or whatever the blogs say. The mantra is that temperatures are stable, and thus not rising. 

In fact, temperatures are rising, but are rising in waves and plateaus and not in a smooth, even line.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




then you are not reading the skeptics first hand but rather are listening to warmer's restatements that distort what is being said. of course both sides do that.

temps have been warming since the LIA. a gentle rise with almost sine-like natural variation, probably due to ocean currents, etc. CO2 theory basically demands that temps be in lock step with CO2 levels and that has proven to be false. I'll try to find the graph I am talking about


----------



## Saigon (Feb 23, 2013)

Ian C -

I'm going largely by what I see posted here by the geniuses that are Oddball, Frank, SSDD and the Wailing Wall. I don't look at what sceptics say anywhere else. 






This simply does not look like a natural variation to me - or to anyone else, I suspect.






I do not see the natural increase since the LIA that you mention.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2013)

this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea






I find it hard to believe that anyone would not read both sides of the story. do you expect the pro AGW crowd to point out the flaws on their side? or vice versa?


----------



## westwall (Feb 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Where's the increased temps.
> 
> 
> 
> Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.








Good!  I've been trying to sink to your subterranean level for weeks now.  Glad to see I have finally found your absurdly low level.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2013)

super skeptic McIntyre on Muller. First Thoughts on BEST « Climate Audit

does this match your mental image Saigon?


----------



## westwall (Feb 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Overall they are indeed rising from the low levels of the Little Ice Age.  However, what is normal?  If one looks at the history of the planet the "normal" temps are 7 to 10 degrees warmer than the current era.  We are in an abnormally cool period of global temperature and have been for the past several million years.

The current global temps have been flat for the last 15 years for sure, and possibly as many as 17 as Pechauri claims.  What is no longer in doubt though, is CO2 has zero effect on global temps.  Co2 levels have skyrocketed far higher and faster than Hansens worst case scenario and the temps have stabalised and are now appearing to be netering a cooling period.


Thanks to the Sun.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Where's the increased temps.
> ...




Have you noticed what shows up on your browser as it is loading an environment thread from this forum. I can tell just by the "transferring data from sceptikalscience.com"  who has been posting the same usual garbage over and over again...it`s always the same crowd. They read nothing but the same agw freak.org blogs and copy/paste it in here.
Especially these stupid "average temperature" graphs that look like the sales predictions of "Solyndra" & other con artists, when they go public.
*Not a single one of these idiots would be able to figure out what the average temperature for Canada would be for today:*





And the same goes for "climatologists"
*As if anyone *could get a *valid* "global average" with a spatial  distribution like that:





So unless one of these "experts" can tell me what the true & *statistically correct average temperature for Canada is today *from the map above they should shut the fuck up debating with us who`s average is correct.
Just to show how wrong the picture can be..
The map above has the area I`m in represented with -9 C. It`s been all day -15 and it was -17C this morning. There are 102 stations in the warmer (southern) half on this map, ranging from +8 to -14 C and only 42 for the northern landmass, ranging from -12 to -31C.
Applying an arithmetic average for a data set like that is a stupid as stating what the average cross section of a pyramid or a sphere is..or applying the same sampling method as for population demographics.
Assume for a moment that the spatial distribution would be equal and 3.3 million square miles in Canada are at +1C and the other 3.3 million square miles are at -31 C. A "climatologist" would say that the "average temperature for Canada is -15 C. An engineer or any other real scientist  scientist would not even bother doing that, but express it in an entirely different yet valid format and dimension...namely what the total thermal energy of a specified dry air mass would be, say up to 1000 feet a.g.l. would be at standard pressure for the entire system.
That`s how it`s done for everything else in science and engineering, no matter if it`s a large non-homogenous closed system or a large open one for example specifying the yield of a thermo-nuclear device. 





*
Only a climatology moron would say the "average temperature in the Hiroshima Prefects and surrounding area  was"....x degrees C  after downtown Hiroshima  got nuked.*...and if Oppenheimer would have asked such a moron how the bomb yield worked out.


*Climatologists are idiots when it comes to physics! 
* 
When physicists talk about that "space" is at 2.7 deg Kelvin they are *not *talking about *temperature* but the *energy level* that the  *2.7 deg background radiation in outer space represents*.


> The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K,.[3] The spectral density peaks in the microwave range of frequencies. However spectral density can be defined either as (a) dE&#957;/d&#957; (as in Planck's law) or as (b) dE&#955;/d&#955; (as in Wien's displacement law), where E&#957; is the *total energy *at all frequencies up to and including &#957;, and E&#955; is the total energy at all wave lengths up to and including &#955;.


*Of course "Saigon" is not obligated to figure out the Canadian  average (intelligence) physics puzzle*,...after 2 similar simple questions that overtaxed his mental capacity he put me on his "ignore list". But as I said his "ignore list" also includes Math, Physics and Chemistry books and that`s his problem, not mine.

*One could in fact derive the approximate total thermal energy in a 1000 foot layer over Canada and then eqaute that to a degree Kelvin ENERGY Content, representing a scientifically correct dimension and average..and I assure all who are reading this that this value would be nowhere near the equivalent "average temperature"* *that climatologists "compute" the same way simple run of the mill unemployment or income statistical average calculations are done.
*

@Westwall
I hope You have a good trip to St.Petersburg....and hope you "don`t have to call Ralph  over the radio"....(Do you refer like that to the barf-bags too or is that only mil-jargon?)..  It`s a bitch when you are a pilot and ride as a passenger...isn`t it ? You are acutely aware of all the adjustments they make on final approach, especially how poorly some passenger "sched" pilots handle a crosswind. They crab it to the last possible moment and  hope the tires don`t get peeled off the rims. Almost none know how to do a proper side-slip any more, cross controlling ailerons and rudder. I makes me feel very uncomfortable when I notice how many basic skills they have lost since we got "fly by wire" with computer over-ride.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I really find it hard to believe that you think this chart is in some impressive - you must realise yourself how absurd this kind of projection is. "Recovery" from the LIA? Really?

I'm not questioning the fact that the IIPC predictions were off-target, what I am questioning is pretending that steadily rising temperatures can in some be ignored because they are not as great as the IIPC once suggested. 

What matters is that temperatures ARE rising, and will rise further. Even your own chart tells us that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 24, 2013)

MOre after-the-fact theorizing.  Whenever reality blows the claims of the global warming quacks to smithereens, they just make up a new theory.  No matter what the climate does, it's consistent with global warming, according to the quacks.

Only the truly gullible swallow this kind of cheap religion now.





Star said:


> .
> *Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea
> ...



Exactly.  Why would anyone believe anything the IPCC publishes?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

BriPat - 

There are better sources. 

However, all sources agree that temperatures are rising - as Ian's graphic also demonstrates. I pint this out only because I know you have struggled to understand this in the past.

Ian's graphic is deliberately misleading - as anyone who spotted the phrase "recovery" from the Little Ice Age might realise. Since when are rising temperatures a "recovery"?!


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Where's the increased temps.
> 
> 
> 
> Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.



Apparently, "realists" believe the earth was created in the year 1970.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> There are better sources.
> 
> However, all sources agree that temperatures are rising - as Ian's graphic also demonstrates. I pint this out only because I know you have struggled to understand this in the past.



Most sources agree that temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

Pointing out your idiocies and gullibility is not "struggling to understand."


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

> No matter what the climate does, it's consistent with global warming, according to the quacks.
> 
> Only the truly gullible swallow this kind of cheap religion now.



Actually, support for climate science has never been stronger. It is now accepted by all major scientific bodies, by virtually all conservative parties around the world, by oil companies and certainly by the vast majority of people. 

That fact that you do not understand what the term 'climate change' means or what evidence would prove or disprove it is not the fault of science.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Apparently, "realists" believe the earth was created in the year 1970.



Actually, othr graphics on this thread go back thousands of years. Both are useful. 

Try to post honestly about these kind of things.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat -
> ...



Well, actually - you are struggling to understand. 

2012 was the hottest year in American history and the 9th hottest year in global history - how does that equate with "declining" temperatures.? You just don't get this stuff - it's as simple as that. 

Try looking at my graphic of temperatures since 1970 again, and try to understand it, rather than just attacking it blindly.


----------



## westwall (Feb 24, 2013)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...






PB you are absolutely correct.  I remember one time I was flying on Aeromaybe (AeroMexico, and never agaian!) and as we were turning from base to final I felt the flaps drop and the pilots engage full power.  The aircraft was horribly twitchy.  My knuckles were white on the armrests and the woman next to me said "don't like to fly dear?" to which I replied, "I'm a pilot!" and I don't like the way THESE guys are flying!

Ugh I hate commercial flying.  

Anyway I'm off to bed as I have a early start tomorrow!

Cheers!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

> to which I replied, "I'm a pilot!



Wow. 

A pilot and a science teacher. 

Always good to remember what horsehit one posted a week ago!


----------



## westwall (Feb 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > No matter what the climate does, it's consistent with global warming, according to the quacks.
> >
> > Only the truly gullible swallow this kind of cheap religion now.
> 
> ...








The very same bodies who said that Plate Tectonics was wrong.  In other words appeals to authority show just how weak your arhument is.  Thanks for playing but you have a whole lot to learn.

But you never will.


----------



## westwall (Feb 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > to which I replied, "I'm a pilot!
> 
> 
> 
> ...







That's science PROFESSOR nimrod.  And yes I have a private pilots license.  Even have a multi engine rating to boot.  It's a shame your claim to fame is.....well....nothing...


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

Westwall - 

Yeah, sure. I had initially assumed you were tellin the truth about your background in science - but given your bleating of "where are the temperature rises" I think we both know you have no background in science. Or flying, I suspect.

Remember when you claimed we should consult the Innuit as a source of climate information?! 

Or when you insisted Meterology was a much more disciplined field than Climatology?!


btw. Pointing out that there is scientific consensus on this topic is not a "appeal to authority". It's stating a fact.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> That's science PROFESSOR nimrod.



ROTFLMAO.......LOLOLOLOL.....ahhh, walleyed, you are sooooo funny.....you've repeatedly and very conclusively demonstrated that, in matters of science, you don't know your bung hole from your bingo card.....you poor delusional retard.....talk about a fallacious "_appeal to authority_"....on an anonymous forum too.....LOLOLOLOL....you're so sorely afflicted by the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*, you could be the poster boy for the fundraiser....


BTW, you corrected someone's identification of you by saying: "_That's science PROFESSOR nimrod_". So then, you're known 'academically' (in denier cult bizarro-world) as 'Science Professor Nimrod'. You know, you're not supposed to reveal your true name on here, although I have to admit I kinda suspected your name would be Nimrod....or Dillwad....or Lackwit....something like that...


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea
> ...




impressive? no, not really but it does point out a more realistic 'model' of temps for the last 150 years. while the earth continues in a warming phase that is what it probably will look like.

you seem to have a problem with the word 'recovery'. was the Little Ice Age a 'recovery' from the Medieval Warm Period? humans prosper under warm conditions so we probably would choose a different word that points out the negative connotation of cooling.

I remember seeing a plot derived from the Vostock ice cores that showed all the 'recoveries' from LIA temps with at least 1C increases. some were steeper, some lower, some petered out at 1C some went as high as 3 or 4C. our present slope and temperature rise could not be any closer to the average.


out of curiosity, did you read that Climate Audit post that I linked for you?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > to which I replied, "I'm a pilot!
> ...


See what I mean about this dimwit. It`s unthinkable to a hippie like him that someone can be a professor and a pilot. When we were younger almost every farmer or country resident had a Cessna or a Piper parked in their barns. that`s when (red 100) av-gas costed about 25 cents per gallon and there were more  small un-controlled airports  all over North America as there were fast food outlets. Every Prof, dentist, lawyer etc went for his pilot`s license in those years...it was a must have or you were a "nobody" in serious social circles. Now it`s a blackberry, a facebook account, an "enviro car" and sipping Starbuck coffe with  fags.


Here is my good old C-206 and "Bill the Sasquatch", one of my best friends. 






In my off time I volunteered for "medivacs" way up north no matter what the conditions.

The 7 foot 6 tall "Gorilla" next to me is one of my best friends. He is an emergency response volunteer and had no problem carrying invalids weighing over 300 pounds all by himself.

That C-206 was something.. I could get it airborne with 1/2 tanks and 3 passengers in less than 300 yards at 30/30 settings, standing in the toe-brakes then yank the prop-pitch to full course, no flaps...get it off the ground,...and while riding the ground effect for another 100 yards drop 20 deg flaps and climb out at almost 2000 fpm.

This "Saigon" moron also has no idea how much emphasis they put on meteorology before anyone got a license back then...because the number one killer was the weather. But Idiots like that dimwit want to lecture us pilots about atmospheric dynamics....while he would have no idea what a standard lapse rate, density altitude, a dew point etc etc is.

Morons like "Saigon" have a hard time to walk while he is chewing gum while we had to do the head math during an IFR procedure turn in lousy weather to intercept the glide slope, figure out the crab angle and rate of decent to stay on it, while behind me a woman in labor is screaming her head off ever since I picked her up from Norway House.

During sunny summer weekends I used the 206 as a glider tow plane. Even my grand daughter Renee, now D-Jay @ Rez radio was into flying.




The entire glider club consisted of surgeons, dentists lawyers, U-profs, investment brokers  etc etc. "High roller Social networking" was done in pilot`s lounges back then, not on a golf course as it`s done today.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 24, 2013)

@Westwall 
Regarding Saigon & all these enviro threads where he drops his crap.
I`t easier than fakes think it is to spot the real thing and what`s a fake. My friends include people from all walks of life.
I know that  You are indeed a prof  & a pilot for real and that "OldRocks", to name a second example is a millwright for real.
There are certain phrases and habits that people acquire that give them away what they are and what they did for a living.
For example I  only have to glance how some guys tie their shoe laces to know if they had some sort of special forces training. 
There are habits you acquire that aren`t shown in Hollywood movies
or on Wikipedia. It takes one to know one...is the phrase.
The same goes for "civy" engineers. They "give themselves away" by the phrases, sentence structure and the concepts that come to their mind spontaneously.
"OldRocks" wrote me a few e-mails and I`m pretty sure he is what he says he is.
I don`t care if he has to look into Wikipedia for scientific definitions and details...he does not pretend to be something other than what he really is and has what it takes to go way beyond Millwright....and has the brains to actually comprehend concepts even if he had to look it up.
I can respect his opinions about AGW even though I have no respect for pseudo science whatsoever.
I have worked with many Millwrights and have a ton of respect for their guild.
Which by the way is no place for dummies that pretend to be "educated Journalists" in Finland and start mouthing off about atmospheric physics.
I`m not a journalist but I`ve met too many and spent a lot of time with birds of that feather to know that "Saigon" is a complete fake who has nothing better to do than trolling forums all day long every day.
An academic degree is not a measure how intelligent somebody is...
I`ve encountered incredibly stupid people with PhD degrees and met incredibly intelligent people who don`t even have a high school diploma and *I  respect those the most.*
It`s easy to win if  somebody was given superior "firepower" be that mil-hardware  from the Government or a fancy College education paid for by a rich daddy.
It`s a whole other matter for a "dumb Hillbilly" to carve out a living in an unforgiving and highly competitive business-America.
I deliberately went  out of my way to meet  that breed of people and  admire their ingenuity and  skills more than those of the many quacks  that  pass as "scientist" in the last 2 decades. 
*America does not cuddle losers  with the same kind of  entitlements  the losers in  Social-Democratic Europe take for granted...and I hope America stays that way *no matter how hard the professional parasites a.k.a "Democrats" are trying to conform the U.S. to the E.U. and the U.N. utopian dope head society


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> impressive? no, not really but it does point out a more realistic 'model' of temps for the last 150 years. while the earth continues in a warming phase that is what it probably will look like.



One of the problems with the warmists is that they like to keep the time frame short.  If they can keep it short enough, then anything looks like impending catastrophe.  If you put what warmists like to call global warming into a reasonable context, then the "fear factor" drops off the scale.  Here is what the Greenland Ice cores tell us about the climate in the northern hemisphere for the past 10,000 years.







We know what the Vostok ice cores tell us about the climate in the southern hemisphere.  There is no impending climate catastrophe.  What there is is a well funded, politically motivated hoax.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

> One of the problems with the warmists is that they like to keep the time frame short



This appeared shortly before your insightful comment.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > One of the problems with the warmists is that they like to keep the time frame short
> 
> 
> 
> This appeared shortly before your insightful comment.



Your graph is a fraud.  How many published papers would you like from any region in the world that find that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present.  Where is your graph from anyway?  Wiki?  Who put it there? Are you saying that your blog graph trumps the GISP2 ice core data?  Based on what?

You have proven that practically everying you post is a lie...it stands to reason since you get your informatihon from one of the most dishonest blogs on the web.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You have proven that practically everying you post is a lie...


I'm sure the facts always seem like lies to you, you poor deluded brainwashed retard. You're totally clueless about everything. Your denier cult drivel gets debunked constantly but you're too stupid to comprehend that fact.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You have proven that practically everying you post is a lie...
> ...



The same ones who preach the bogus "faith" of AGW are the folks who pretend that the so-called "deniers" have gotten "debunked."

But you guys have long since proved to have no credibility, so your notion of "debunking" is of no particular value.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


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



And another clueless idiot chimes in....


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



No no no.  You had already chimed in.

You can't keep something as simple as timing straight.  Clearly "climate" is far beyond your meager abilities.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Clearly, intelligent debate or meaningful responses are way beyond your extremely meager abilities. I'm amazed that you can even use a computer. Does the day room nurse in your mental hospital help you with that?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Why even bother to post at all if that's the best you can do when you've gotten your clock cleaned in the actual debate?

Fuck, boy.  You can't even flame well.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> I'm sure the facts always seem like lies to you, you poor deluded brainwashed retard. You're totally clueless about everything. Your denier cult drivel gets debunked constantly but you're too stupid to comprehend that fact.



Nope, lies sound like lies to me.  You on the other hand are a mindless cut and paste drone.  I believe you are actually stupid enough to believe the drivel you post while siagon, in my opinion is a deliberate and calculating liar.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


...if all you ever post is utter drivel scraped off of denier cult blogs? Yeah, you should ask yourself that, little retard.





IlarMeilyr said:


> that's the best you can do...


...and the best that I can do is quite obviously way beyond your comprehension, you poor bamboozle dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign.






IlarMeilyr said:


> when you've gotten your clock cleaned in the actual debate?


Another sign of just how extremely delusional you are, IlieMostly, is that you actually seem to believe that that happened. LOLOLOLOL. Too bad you can't come up with any instances of that happening. I post the actual science from reputable sources that debunks that denier cult myths, misinformation, lies, and pseudo-science that you and the other half-witted denier cultists post. Often times you seem far too retarded to be able to comprehend that your nonsense has been debunked but that is your problem, dude.







IlarMeilyr said:


> Fuck, boy.  You can't even flame well.


Oh, I don't know, I seem to be able to toast-to-a-crisp delusional anti-science denier cult retards like you just fine. Come back when you grow a brain; maybe you'll manage to say something that isn't moronic then, 'cause you sure haven't managed that feat here so far.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2013)

Llar, keep this between us but Rolling Thunder is a fucking retard


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Llar, keep this between us but Rolling Thunder is a fucking retard



Coming from ol' CrazyFruitcake, one of the most moronic of the drooling denier cult retards on this forum, that is really funny.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

Ian C - 

I'm sorry - I missed this post you mentioned earlier - the one where you had something you wanted me to look at? 

If you tell me what thread it's on I'll go and find. 

I don't always read these threads very thoroughly - there simply isn't enough intelligent and on-topic posting to make doing so worthwhile. Hence I'll be delighted if you have something interesting!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Your graph is a fraud.  How many published papers would you like from any region in the world that find that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present.  Where is your graph from anyway?  Wiki?  Who put it there? Are you saying that your blog graph trumps the GISP2 ice core data?  Based on what?
> 
> You have proven that practically everying you post is a lie...it stands to reason since you get your informatihon from one of the most dishonest blogs on the web.



Ah, well - you better ignore it then. 

Sigh....


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 25, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ---
> 
> Why even bother to post at all  ---



That is what I asked you.  Why do you bother?  You can't flame worth a shit.  Your post opinions as facts.  You state your beliefs as though they were well-established "science."  And you crumble under any scrutiny.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Llar, keep this between us but Rolling Thunder is a fucking retard



I think the secret is out.  It is hard to keep being a clueless cut and paste drone secret for very long.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your graph is a fraud.  How many published papers would you like from any region in the world that find that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present.  Where is your graph from anyway?  Wiki?  Who put it there? Are you saying that your blog graph trumps the GISP2 ice core data?  Based on what?
> ...



I did, due to the overwhelming amount of published data at my fingertips that refute it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ---
> ...



But he is the smartest guy in the room...just ask him.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 25, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Why even bother to post at all  ...if all you ever post is utter drivel scraped off of denier cult blogs? Yeah, you should ask yourself that, little retard.
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOL....you can't post worth shit, little retard. You haven't yet posted anything but your own worthless uninformed opinions. I post well established science from reputable sources that debunks the lies, pseudo-science, misinformation and propaganda that you denier cult cretins post. You're obviously far too much of an idiot to "_scrutinize_" anything and you certainly have never made me "_crumble_", you delusional little shithead.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



All you've got at your "_fingertips_" is your own feces, you deranged little piece of rancid moldy catshit.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 25, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



RollingFart is quite unoriginal.  Right after I note that he offers his mere opinions as "facts" and that he can't even flame worth a shit, he comes out and says to me, in effect:

"Oh yeah.  Well, YOU too!  Neener neener neener."

Shit. I guess this means he wins the internets.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingFart is quite unoriginal.  Right after I note that he offers his mere opinions as "facts" and that he can't even flame worth a shit, he comes out and says to me, in effect:



I have noticed that.  His insults have the ring of desperation and impotence.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 25, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Yeah, right after you lie about that.....as I said before and as I can easily demonstrate, I post actual science from actual climate scientists and I regularly and thoroughly debunk the idiotic denier cult myths that morons like you cling to......you have never posted anything but your own uninformed and very retarded opinions, you lying sack of shit.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 25, 2013)

How many people are interested in this?

17 ??????


gay


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Yeah, right after you lie about that.....as I said before and as I can easily demonstrate, I post actual science from actual climate scientists and I regularly and thoroughly debunk the idiotic denier cult myths that morons like you cling to......you have never posted anything but your own uninformed and very retarded opinions, you lying sack of shit.




A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science.  But hey, you are a cut and paste drone who lives on the koolaid, I suppose to you, opinion pieces must look like science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, right after you lie about that.....as I said before and as I can easily demonstrate, I post actual science from actual climate scientists and I regularly and thoroughly debunk the idiotic denier cult myths that morons like you cling to......you have never posted anything but your own uninformed and very retarded opinions, you lying sack of shit.
> ...



A quick review of your posts reveals that you just post your own ignorant opinions and a lot of denier cult myths, but never any actual published science. But hey, you are an anti-science denier cult retard who lives inside the rightwingnut echo chamber and never looks at the actual science. I suppose to you, factual news articles that report on scientific research and quote the scientists must look just like the pseudo-scientific drivel that you fall for and parrot on here.

Meanwhile, regarding this claim of yours: "_you mostly post news articles, not published science_", the news articles I cite and quote are about published science and usually quote the scientists involved. Also, just checking back over just this thread, on page 3 of this thread, post #33, I found this bit of "_published science_" and it is not the only one I've cited, by far. 

*Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost*

    Robert M. DeConto,
    Simone Galeotti,
    Mark Pagani,
    David Tracy,
    Kevin Schaefer,
    Tingjun Zhang,
    David Pollard
    & David J. Beerling

*Nature*
    484,
    87&#8211;91
    (05 April 2012)
    doi:10.1038/nature10929

Received
    24 April 2011 
Accepted
    02 February 2012 
Published online
    04 April 2012


----------



## Saigon (Feb 26, 2013)

> A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science


.

It's a shame he hasn't got any blogs from politicians - I know you like those. 

Besides, given you refused to look at the published science of the British Antarctic Survey - why ask for it here? 

We both know you will ignore whatever he posts.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science
> 
> 
> .
> ...



Why do you continue to lie about that?  The blogger was quoting a well qualified climate scientist...not simply making it up as they go as is the case with your blogs.  If you want to question the qualifications of the scientist being quoted, by all means, we can discuss that, but to claim that the info was a bloggers claim is just a lie....why do you keep lying?  Is your case so weak that lying is the only way you can see to give it any weight at all?

And I asked you repeatedly what sort of proof you believed that artcile from the antarctic survey contained...you never answered the question because we both know that there was no sort of proof there as you had originally claimed.  More lies on your part.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science
> ...



Why do you continue to lie.....about everything. Or are you just too retarded to tell the difference between the facts and the bullcrap?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Why do you continue to lie.....about everything. Or are you just too retarded to tell the difference between the facts and the bullcrap?



Feel free to show proof of lying on my part....or stand exposed as a liar yourself.  Of course, we already know the score on that one....don't we.  Your posts reveal that the truth isn't one of your priorities.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, right after you lie about that.....as I said before and as I can easily demonstrate, I post actual science from actual climate scientists and I regularly and thoroughly debunk the idiotic denier cult myths that morons like you cling to......you have never posted anything but your own uninformed and very retarded opinions, you lying sack of shit.
> ...



If you use a browser that shows you all the http connections that are established when a page is loading then you notice that the quotes these "well informed" characters post are all coming from the same 1 or 2 sources. They don`t read any scientific publications across the board only those that are linked to "skepticalscience.org" etc.

I came across an interesting article this morning in the "Spiegel", Germany`s largest News Magazine which also happens to employ  the largest number of fact checkers of any news outlet world wide.
They published an interesting finding from the Max Planck Institute  which has tracked how Sahara sand dust, dust from China, Africa etc in general is responsible for cloud seeding and significant precipitation in America.
Staub aus Sahara und China verursacht Regen in Kalifornien - SPIEGEL ONLINE

It`s got dick all to do with a + next to nothing temperature "anomaly".
I don`t have the time to translate the article, but  found a similar one in English following the links that were embedded:
Dust and Biological Aerosols from the Sahara and Asia Influence Precipitation in the Western U.S.


> *Abstract*
> 
> Winter storms in California's Sierra  Nevada increase seasonal snowpack and provide critical water resources  for the state.                         Thus, the mechanisms influencing precipitation  in this region have been the subject of research for decades. Previous  studies                         suggest Asian dust enhances cloud ice and  precipitation (_1_),  while few studies consider biological aerosols as an important global  source of ice nuclei (IN). Here, we show that dust                         and biological aerosols transported from as far  as the Sahara were present in glaciated high-altitude clouds coincident  with                         elevated IN concentrations and ice-induced  precipitation. *This study presents the first direct cloud and  precipitation measurements                         showing that Saharan and Asian dust and  biological aerosols likely serve as IN and play an important role in  orographic precipitation                         processes over the western United States.                      *


Unless there is a blog on "skepticalscience.org" or the like, which claims that CO2 is causing a "temperature anomaly" which in turn causes dust to be transported from other continents to this one you can`t expect these ignorant idiots to notice it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you continue to lie.....about everything. Or are you just too retarded to tell the difference between the facts and the bullcrap?
> ...



Sure, you claimed to have an "_abundance of undeniable proof_" that scientists all around the world had "_tampered_" with the temperature data in order to falsify the records so they would support the theory of AGW. That was just one of your constant lies. Your supposed 'proof' turned out to be some ignorant crap from denier cult blogs that points to some adjustments scientists have made to the temperature records to make them more comparable. No proof whatsoever of any conspiracy to forge the records. Just the usual ignorance about science that makes you denier cultists so easy for the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry to fool.


Here's the link to your lie.


SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Your denier cult myths and fantasies about temperature record "_tampering_" are as crackpot insane as the rest of your moronic myths. You silly wankers are just more conspiracy theory nutjobs and your particular conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands  of scientists all around the world is an especially idiotic and insane one at that.
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 1, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I came across an interesting article this morning in the "Spiegel", Germany`s largest News Magazine which also happens to employ  the largest number of fact checkers of any news outlet world wide.
> They published an interesting finding from the Max Planck Institute  which has tracked how Sahara sand dust, dust from China, Africa etc in general is responsible for cloud seeding and significant precipitation in America.
> Staub aus Sahara und China verursacht Regen in Kalifornien - SPIEGEL ONLINE
> 
> ...



LOLOLOL.....so what?

This is interesting but it has nothing to do with the facts supporting anthropogenic global warming. So what is your point (aside from the one on the top of your head)?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 1, 2013)

> The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism
> 
> Earths climate is complex and constantly changing
> 
> ...


The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism | One Minute Cases

Worth a read.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> > The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism
> >
> > Earth&#8217;s climate is complex and constantly changing
> >
> ...



"*Worth a read*" only if you are scientifically ignorant and pretty retarded. *Total Bullcrap* to anyone who understands anything about what is happening with the temperatures and the climate.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > impressive? no, not really but it does point out a more realistic 'model' of temps for the last 150 years. while the earth continues in a warming phase that is what it probably will look like.
> ...



I almost forgot about this particular bit of SSoooDDuuumb's inability to tell good science from the bullcrap. If you look at the bogus temperature chart, you see the name 'David Lappi' at the bottom right, and if you check up on that, you find the chart was created by a petroleum geologist working for Unocal Corp which is owned by Chevron Oil. A geologist with a strong financial interest in the development of oil and gas fields in Alaska. 

There are many temperature charts that use the data from the various proxies that scientists use to determine past temperatures patterns and none of the other, peer-reviewed charts matches David Lappi's silly and very bogus chart. Mr. Lappi's chart could only find a home on a denier cult blog and was not peer reviewed or otherwise published. This says something to anyone who isn't lost in the fog of denier cult delusions. The dimwitted deniers of course swallow all of this nonsense without a murmur or even a hint of actual skepticism.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 1, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > > The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism
> ...



The exact opposite is, of course, true.

Sorry it exposes you as the scientifically illiterate boob you are.

AGW.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



No, actually that worthless drivel "_exposes you_" to be scientifically ignorant and pretty retarded. But then everybody who has seen your braindead posts on here already knew that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 1, 2013)

If you really believe in AGW stop posting here.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 1, 2013)

> The blogger was quoting a well qualified climate scientist...



Now that is just lying, son. 

She was a right-wing politician from the Kokoomus Party. 

I tell you what, I'll post the link, and if she isn't - you leave the board. Is that fair?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 2, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If you really believe in AGW stop posting here.



If you're really a human being and not a troll, stop posting here.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 2, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 2, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> .....







*The confused delusional denier cult retard known as the Kookster 
- what meaningless drivel will he post next?*​


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 2, 2013)

The foregoing image, coming from Fart, is ironic.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> The foregoing image, coming from Fart, is ironic.



The ongoing every-post image of your face to the left of your name is....pretty accurate, I bet....except the lighting must be even worse now since you obviously have your head jammed up the same place as ol' kookster and it must be pretty dark two feet up your own colon.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > The foregoing image, coming from Fart, is ironic.
> ...



You mad?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



No, IlieMostly, it is not anger I feel for you, but rather deep pity. It must really suck to be as retarded and ignorant as you obviously are.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



^ Classic projection.

Most everyone sees how angry and retarded you are at this point.

Vent your spleen.  Lash out.  Have a nice cry, Fart.

One serving of Midol for you coming right up.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's the link to your lie.



No lie there.  I asked you for a rational, scientifically sound reason that temperature records prior to 1970 and back to the 1800's might be altered.  You gave no reason because clearly there is no valid scientific reason....the only reason to alter records that far back is to make the present appear to have warmed more than it has.

You see, it is you who lies, not me.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> [I almost forgot about this particular bit of SSoooDDuuumb's inability to tell good science from the bullcrap. If you look at the bogus temperature chart, you see the name 'David Lappi' at the bottom right, and if you check up on that, you find the chart was created by a petroleum geologist working for Unocal Corp which is owned by Chevron Oil. A geologist with a strong financial interest in the development of oil and gas fields in Alaska.



Feel free to prove the graph wrong.  Whining because you don't like who made it is hardly a valid argument.  In fact, it is a great big fat logical fallacy.  We all know that logic isn't your best thing.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The blogger was quoting a well qualified climate scientist...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry siagon, but it really does seem that you simply can't stop lying...about anything.  Here is a link to the original post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6732454-post1.html

The author of the blog was quoting professor Ole Humlum's statements regarding the tampering that is going on with the temperature record.  Professor Humlum's qualifications to make the statement are as follows:

M.Sc., Ph.D., Professor of Physical Geography

Address: The University Courses on Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, Longyearbyen, Svalbard, N9170 Norway. 
Phone: +47 79 02 33 00 (department); +47 79 02 33 20 (direct). Fax: +47 79 02 33 01. 
E-mail: oleh@unis.no Web : UNIS - The University Centre in Svalbard 

Positions: 

Adjunct Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), since 2003. Full time staff member 1999-2003. 

Professor of Physical Geography at the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, since 2003. 

Research Interest: 

Glacial- and periglacial geomorphology, with main emphasis on the climatic control on glacial and periglacial geomorphic activity in cold-climate, high-relief areas, past as well as present. 

Landforms derived from bedrock weathering in high-relief areas, with special emphasis on rock glaciers. 

Climate variability and associated geomorphic response. Reconstruction of Quaternary ice sheets, glaciers and periglacial environments in the North Atlantic region. 

Historical and modern climatology (modern data series as well as the use of documentary and early instrumental records for the reconstruction of late Holocene climate) of the Arctic region, the North Atlantic region, including the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Svalbard and Norway. 

The impact of climate on societies (human dimensions) in the North Atlantic region. 

Comparison and integration of different climate proxy series. 

Scientific applications of numerical modelling in geomorphology; e.g. modelling of active layer and permafrost thermal characteristics. 

Mapping Arctic and Antarctic surface temperature changes and geomorphic effects during the observational period. 

Mapping, monitoring and modelling natural cold-climate geomorphic processes and -hazards. 

Permafrost and periglacial processes. International Permafrost Association. 

Physical Geography of Svalbard 

Snow avalanche risk in Svalbard 

Professional Experience: 

1976-1980: Research fellow, Ph.D. student, Institute of Geography, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 

1980-1982: Research fellow, Post.Doc, Institute of Geography, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 

1982-1983: Post.Doc., Danish Science Research Councils, Denmark . 

1983-1986: Scientific Director, Arctic Station, Qeqertarsuaq (Godhavn), Greenland. 

1986-1996: Associate professor, Arctic Geomorphology, Institute of Geography., University of Copenhagen . 

1995-1999: Pedagogical Mentor, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark . 

1996-1997: Special Consultant, GeoBasis Programme, Zackenberg, NE Greenland, Danish Polar Center (DPC), Copenhagen . 

1997-1998: Visiting Honorary Senior Lecturer, School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, Scotland . 

1998: Visiting Associate Professor, Faroese Natural Museum, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands . 

1998-1999: Associate professor, Arctic Geomorphology, Institute of Geography, University of Copenhagen . 

1999-2003: Full Professor of Physical Geography, The University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Norway. 

2001-2003: Head of the Geological Department, The University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Norway. 

Since 2003 Full Professor of Physical Geography at the Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geoscience, University of Oslo. 

Since 2003 Adjunct Professor at The University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Norway. 

Professional Services: 

Treasurer, Royal Danish Geographical Society (1989-1995). 

Member of the board, Knud Rasmussens Foundation, Denmark (since 1991). 

Water power consultant, Greenland Technical Organization (GTO, 1984-86). 

Editor, Greenland Home Rule Office, Pilersuiffik, Denmark. 

Secretary for the INQUA Working Group on Geospatial Analysis of Glaciated Environments (GAGE, 1994-1999). 

Member of the Commission on Telemetry, the Danish Ministry for Research, 1994-1996. 

Co-opted member of the Executive Committee for the International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG, 1997-2001). 

Co-chair for the Working Group on Periglacial Processes and Environments, International Permafrost Association (IPA, 1998-2004). 

Ex-Officio member IGU (International Geographical Union) Commission on Climate Change and Periglacial Environments (1998-2003). 

Member of the editorial board, Geografiska Annaler, Sweden (since 1996). 

Official IPA (International Permafrost Association) liaison officer to IAG (International Association of Geomorphologists, since 1998). 

Official IAG liaison officer to IPA (since 1998). 

Member of the editorial board, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift (Norwegian Journal of Geography), Norway (since 2000). 

Member of the editorial board, Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, U.K. (since 2000). 

Co-ordination committee member of the ESF-funded network Permafrost and Climate in Europe in the 21th Century (PACE21); since April 2003. 

Head of the Norwegian Research Councils Commision for promotion of Professors in Geography; since May 2004. 

International member of the Advisory Board for the Abisko Scientific Research Station, Northern Sweden . The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, since June 2004. 

Co-chair for the Working Group on Periglacial Processes and Climate, International Permafrost Association (IPA, since 2004). 



Teaching: 
Physical geography, glaciology, glacial geomorphology, periglacial geomorphology, climatic geomorphology, geomorphic mapping using aerial photos, history of geomorphology, statistics for geographers, the physical geography of Svalbard, glacial- and periglacial processes. 

Courses at the University Centre in Svalbard: 

AG 204 The Physical Geography of Svalbard Lecturer; course runs in autumn terms 

AG 324 Glacial and Periglacial Processes Responsible for the course and lecturer; course runs in spring terms 

AG 327 Holocene and recent climate changes in the high arctic Svalbard landscape Lecturer, course runs in summer terms 

AB 203 Arctic Environmental Management Lecturer; course runs in spring terms 

Courses at the University of Oslo: 

GEO 1021 Physical Geography Naturgeografi; Responsible for the course and lecturer; course runs in spring terms 

GEG 2110 Geomorphic Processes Landformdannende prosesser; Co-responsible for the course and lecturer; course runs in spring terms 

GEG 2120 Management of Natural Resources Naturressursforvaltning; Lecturer; course runs in spring terms 

GEG 2130 Landforms in the Nordic Countries Landformer i Norden; Lecturer; course runs in autumn terms 

GEO 4410 Glacial and Periglacial Processes Glasial og periglasial geomorfologi; Responsible for the course and lecturer; course runs in autumn terms 

GEO 4420 Glaciology and Geocryology Glasiologi og geokryologi; Co-responsible for the course and lecturer; course runs in spring terms 

GEO 5410 Arctic Geomorphology Arktisk geomorfologi; Co-responsible for the course and lecturer; course runs in every second summer term 

Ongoing research activities at UNIS: 

Mapping Snow Cover Duration, Avalanches and Other Geomorphic Processes by Automatic Digital Cameras, Longyeardalen, Svalbard 
Monitoring Surface Climate around Longyearbyen, Svalbard 
Monitoring Active Layer Thickness and Temperatures; a CALM-project 
Isotopic Composition of Modern Precipitation in Longyearbyen, Svalbard 
Modeling Energy Balance, Surface Temperatures, Active Layer Depth and Permafrost Thickness around Longyeardalen, Svalbard 
The Climatic and Palaeoclimatic Significance of Rock Glaciers 
Snow Avalanche Activity in Central Spitsbergen, Past and Present 
Snow avalanche modeling in Nordenskioldland 
Holocene Geomorphic Activity in Coastal Greenland at Glacier Equilibrium Line Altitudes 
Linking Land and Sea at the Faroe Islands: Mapping and Understanding North Atlantic Changes (LINK) 
Antarctic temperature changes during the observational period 
A Handbook on Periglacial Field Methods 

Selected publications since 1998:

Humlum, O. 1998. Active Layer Thermal Regime at Three Rock Glaciers in Greenland. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, Vol.8, 383-408. 

Humlum, O. 1998. Rock Glaciers on the Faroe Islands, the North Atlantic. Journal of Quaternary Sciences, 13(4), 293-307. 

Humlum, O. 1998. Active Layer Thermal Regime 1991-1996 at Qeqertarsuaq, Disko Island, Central West Greenland. Arctic and Alpine Research, 30(3), 295-305. 

Humlum, O. and Christiansen, H.H. 1998. Mountain Climate and Periglacial Phenomena in the Faroe Islands, SE North Atlantic Ocean. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 9, 189-211. 

Nielsen, N., Hansen, B.U.H. and Humlum, O. 1998. Meteorological Observations 1997 at the Arctic Station, Qeqertarsuaq (69o15'N), Central West Greenland. Danish Journal of Geography, 98, 81-83. 

Humlum, O. 1999. The Climatic Significance of Rock Glaciers. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 9(4), 375-395. 

Humlum, O. and Christiansen, H.H. 1999. Late Holocene Climatic Forcing of Geomorphic Activity in the Faroe Islands, North Atlantic Ocean. Fróðskaparrit, 46-2, 169-189. 

Christiansen, H.H., Murray, A., Mejdahl, V. and Humlum, O. 1999. Luminescence Dating of Holocene Geomorphic Activity on the Angmassalik Island, SE Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews, 18(2), 191-205. 

Humlum, O. 1999. Late Holocene Climate in Central West Greenland: Meteorological Data and Rock Glacier Isotope Evidence. The Holocene 9, 5, 581-594. 

Humlum, O., Hansen, B.U. and Nielsen, N. 1999. Meteorological Observations 1998 at the Arctic Station, Qeqertarsuaq (69o15'N), Central West Greenland. Danish Journal of Geography, 99, 113-115. 

Hansen, B.U., Nielsen, N. and Humlum, O. 2000. Meteorological Observations in 1999 at the Arctic Station, Qeqertarsuaq (Godhavn), Central West Greenland. Danish Journal of Geography, 100, 85-87. 

Humlum, O. 2000. The Geomorphic Significance of Rock Glaciers: estimates of rock glacier debris volumes and headwall recession rates in West Greenland. Geomorphology , 35, 41-67. 

Nielsen, N., Humlum, O. and Hansen, B.U. 2001. Meteorological Observations in 2000 at the Arctic Station, Qeqertarsuaq (69o15N), Central West Greenland. Danish Journal of Geography 2001, 155-158. 

Christiansen, H.H., Bennike, O., Böcher, J., Elberling, B., Humlum, O. and Jakobsen, B.H. 2002. Holocene environmental reconstruction from deltaic deposits in northeast Greenland. Journal of Quaternary Science 17, 145-160. 

Humlum, O. and Ziaja, W. 2002. Discussion of "Glacial Recession in Sørkappland and Central Nordenskiöldland, Spitsbergen, Svalbard, during the 20th Century"; Comments and response. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 34, 226-229. 

Humlum, O. 2002. Modelling late 20th-century precipitation in Nordenskiöld Land, Svalbard, by geomorphic means. Norwegian Journal of Geography 56, 96-103. 

Ingólfsson, O., Hjort, C. and Humlum, O. 2003. Glacial and Climate History of the Antarctic Peninsula since the Last Glacial Maximum. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 35(2), 175-186. 

Christiansen, H.H. and Humlum, O. 2003. The southern boundary of the Northern Hemisphere periglacial zone at the Faroe Islands . In Phillips, M., Springman, S.M. and Arenson, L.U. (Eds.): Proceedings 8Ith International Permafrost Conference, Zürich , Switzerland . Volume 1, 139-144. 

Hansen, B.U., Humlum, O. and Nielsen, N. 2003. Meteorological Observations 2002 at the Arctic Station, Qeqertarsuaq (69o15'N), Central West Greenland. Danish Journal of Geography 103(2), 93-97. 

Matsuoka, N. and Humlum, O. 2003. Monitoring Periglacial Processes: New Methodology and Technology. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 14(4), 299-303. 

Humlum, O. Instanes, A. and Sollid, J.L. 2003: Permafrost in Svalbard: a review of research history, climatic background and engineering challenges. Polar Research 22(2), 191-215. 

Callaghan, T.V., Johansson, M., Heal, O.W., Saelthun, N.R., Barkved, L., Bayfield, N., Brandt, O., Brooker, R., Christiansen, H.H., Høye, T.T., Humlum, O., Järvinen, A., Jonasson, C., Kohler, J., Magnusson, B., Meltofte, H., Mortensen, L., Neuvonen, S., Pearce, I., Rasch, M., Turner, L., Hasholt, B., Huhta, E., Leskinen, E., Nielsen, N. and Siikamäki, P. 2004. Environmental Changes in the North Atlantic Region: SCANNET as a collaborative approach for documenting, understanding and predicting changes. Ambio, Special Report Number 13, 39-50. 

Humlum, O. 2004. Meteorological stations at the Sermilik Station, Southeast Greenland : physical environment and meteorological observations 2002. Danish Journal of Geography 104, 47-58. 

Humlum, O. 2005. Holocene permafrost aggradation in Svalbard . British Geomorphological Research Group and Joint Association for Quaternary Research. Cryospheric Systems, London, 13-14. January 2003. The Geological Society of London, Special Publications, 242, 119-130. 

Humlum, O. 2005. The Faroe Islands . In M.Nuttall (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Arctic, Routledge, New York and London, Vol.1, 608-611. 

Humlum, O. 2005. Rock glaciers. In M.Nuttall (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Arctic, Routledge, New York and London, Vol.3, 1771-1772. 

Humlum, O. 2005. Svalbard . In M.Nuttall (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Arctic, Routledge, New York and London, Vol.3, 1975-1982. 

Humlum, O., Elberling, B., Hormes, A., Fjordheim, K., Hansen, O.H. and Heinemeier, J. 2005. Late Holocene glacier growth in Svalbard , documented by subglacial rellict vegetation and living soil mocrobes. The Holocene, 15(3), 396-407. 

Lucas, S., Nicholson, L.I., Ross, F.H. and Humlum, O. 2005. Formation, meltout processes and landscape alteration of High-Arctic ice-cored moraines  examples from Nordenskiöldland, central Spitsbergen . Polar Geography 29(2), 79-109. 
Humlum, O. 2006. Titanic i Arktis. Chronicle in Norwegian newspaper 'Nordlys'. 
Romanovsky, V., Smith, S., Brown, J., Humlum, O. and Marchenko, S. 2006. The Thermal State of Permafrost: A Contribution to the International Polar Year. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 8, 05319, 2006. SRef-ID: 1607-7962/gra/EGU06-A-05319. 
Hansen, B.U., Elberling, B., Humlum, O. and Nielsen, N. 2006. Meteorological trends (1991-2004) at Arctic Station, Central West Greenland (69o15N) in a 130 years perspective. Danish Journal of Geography 106(1), 45-55. 
Haeberli, W., Hallet, B., Arenson, L., Elconin, R., Humlum, O., Kääb, A., Kaufmann, W., Ladanyi, B., Matsuoka, N., Springman, S. and Vonder Mühll, D. 2006. Permafrost Creep and Rock Glacier Dynamics. Permafrost and Periglacial Research 17(3), 189-214. 
Humlum, O. 2006. Al Gore er ikke forsker. Kronikk i forskning.no > Forskning.no, 20061003. 
Humlum, O, Christiansen, H.H. and Juliussen, H. 2007. Avalanche Derived Rock Glaciers in Svalbard. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 18, 75-88. 
Farbrot, H., Etzelmüller, B., Schuler, T.V., Guðmundsson, Á., Eiken, T., Humlum, O. and Björnsson, H. (in press). Thermal Characteristics and Impact of Climate Change on Mountain Permafrost in Iceland . Permafrost and Periglacial Processes. 

Etzelmüller, B., Farbrot, H., Guðmundsson, Á, Humlum, O., Tveito, O.E. and Björnsson, H. (in press). The Regional Distribution of Mountain Permafrost in Iceland . Permafrost and Periglacial Processes. 

Juliussen, H. and Humlum, O. (in press). Towards a TTOP ground temperature model for mountain terrain in central-eastern Norway. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes. 

Juliussen, H. & Humlum, O. (in press). Preservation of block fields beneath Pleistocene ice sheets on Sølen and Elgåhogna, central-eastern Norway. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie.


So exactly what was your complaint regarding professor Humlum's qualifications to make such an observation and statement.

You really should stop lying.  You get caught in lie after lie after lie and continue to do it.  What abnormal psychology prompts you to continue to lie after being caught so many times?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> ^ Classic projection.
> 
> Most everyone sees how angry and retarded you are at this point.
> 
> ...



Anger,impotence, and desperation are all he has.  He is emotionally invested in this topic very deeply and any threat to his investment is, in reality, a threat to who he believes himself to be.  Even he must see that the whole hoax is breaking down, but his investment is so great that he simply can't accept that he bet on the wrong horse.  That leaves him with posting the same junk science over and over punctuated by impotent name calling.

Sad really, bu that is what happens when you emotionally invest yourself in pseudoscience.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > ^ Classic projection.
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....talk about "_classic projection_".....LOLOLOLOL....two anti-science retards whose little astroturfed cult of reality denial is sliding down the poop-chute of history as we speak. Every bit of denier cult nonsense they post gets debunked by the scientific facts but they are too retarded and brainwashed to be able to comprehend that fact.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....talk about "_classic projection_".....LOLOLOLOL....two anti-science retards whose little astroturfed cult of reality denial is sliding down the poop-chute of history as we speak. Every bit of denier cult nonsense they post gets debunked by the scientific facts but they are too retarded and brainwashed to be able to comprehend that fact.



Every time you post, you prove my point.  You are unhinged.  Namecalling is what people do when they are scared.  You do nothing but call names when your worldview is threatened and at this point in time, it is threatened every direction you turn.

You call names because you feel threatened, and inferior.  Name calling is a magical attack.  It is impotent, but all you have so you keep on keeping on.  Unfortunately, you aren't even good at it.  You call names like a kid on a school ground.  What are you, 15?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....talk about "_classic projection_".....LOLOLOLOL....two anti-science retards whose little astroturfed cult of reality denial is sliding down the poop-chute of history as we speak. Every bit of denier cult nonsense they post gets debunked by the scientific facts but they are too retarded and brainwashed to be able to comprehend that fact.
> ...



Your attempts at pop psychology are as lame and retarded as you are, SSooooDDuuumb. I call you a retard because you are constantly displaying strong evidence of being too retarded to understand the most basic facts even when they are explained to you, or to tell the difference between good solid peer reviewed science and the half-assed pseudo-science you pull off of those moronic denier cult blogs. The evidence for AGW and the science that supports that conclusion just keep on getting stronger all the time but you live in such an insane little denier cult bizarro-world that you imagine that this "_worldview is threatened_". LOLOLOL. You are sooooo delusional and apparently somewhat unhinged.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Your attempts at pop psychology are as lame and retarded as you are, SSooooDDuuumb.



No attempt is needed on your part thunder.  You wear your problems on your sleeve.  No one who does not feel threatened and inferior calls names as much as you.  Your incessant name calling is a magical attack against those to whom you feel inferior.

One only need look at your posts to see that you have problems that you don't know how to deal with in a rational, mature, adult manner.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Your attempts at pop psychology are as lame and retarded as you are, SSooooDDuuumb.
> ...



Fart may be thin skinned and wicked immature, but then again, lots of us are kind of immature.

But he's so wrong.

I think you may have a point about him SSDD.  It's almost as though he is able to grasp (on some level) that he is full of crap.  It threatens him as a person to be so consistently wrong and exposed as being wrong so often.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Your attempts at pop psychology are as lame and retarded as you are, SSooooDDuuumb. I call you a retard because you are constantly displaying strong evidence of being too retarded to understand the most basic facts even when they are explained to you, or to tell the difference between good solid peer reviewed science and the half-assed pseudo-science you pull off of those moronic denier cult blogs. The evidence for AGW and the science that supports that conclusion just keep on getting stronger all the time but you live in such an insane little denier cult bizarro-world that you imagine that this "worldview is threatened". LOLOLOL. You are sooooo delusional and apparently somewhat unhinged.
> ...


Actually, my "_attempts_" to cure your ignorance are very "_needed_" but unfortunately almost certainly futile. You're just too retarded.






SSDD said:


> You wear your problems on your sleeve.


Actually, I don't have any "_problems_" with calling retards 'retards'. After enduring the tight-ass moderation on some other forums, it is a great relief to come here and actually be able to tell you moronic denier cult nutjobs just how ignorant, brainwashed and outright retarded you all are for falling for the fossil fuel industry's self serving propaganda and lies.







SSDD said:


> No one who does not feel threatened and inferior calls names as much as you.


Sure we do. It's fun to poke fun at evil little rightwingnut retards like you. A good sign of your retardation is the fact that you imagine that all the people who call you retarded (and that number must be huge) are somehow feeling "_threatened_" by you or "_inferior_" to you. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. In reality, intellectually, nobody is 'inferior' to you. Intellectually, you're lower than a pimple on a toad's butthole. And "_threatened_"???? LOLOLOL. Do you imagine that I'm afraid that you will jump down the computer line at me? LOLOLOL. In the debate perhaps? You've lost every encounter when your denier cult myths got debunked by good science. A two week old puppy might conceivably feel "_threatened_" by you but otherwise, you're just in your usual delusional state if you think anyone else ever could feel "_threatened_" by you.






SSDD said:


> Your incessant name calling is a magical attack against those to whom you feel inferior.


Actually, my "_name calling_" is an appropriate response to your stupidity and your foolish arrogance propped up by the Dunning-Kruger Effect,






SSDD said:


> One only need look at your posts to see that you have problems that you don't know how to deal with in a rational, mature, adult manner.


One only need look at our exchanges to see that you got your ass whipped and your cultic myths debunked and you can't handle having your delusions destroyed. It is very humorously ironic to have a denier cultist like you talk about "_rational_", a mental state you are completely unfamiliar with.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Actually, my "_attempts_" to cure your ignorance are very "_needed_" but unfortunately almost certainly futile. You're just too retarded.



You just keep making my case thunder.  If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would just stop trying....if you were half as smart, and secure as you think you are, you wouldn't need to keep trying to prove that you are the smartest guy in the room.

As to trying to cure ignorance...if you think that is what you are doing, then you are even more deeply flawed than I had thought.  Since when is impotent name calling and incessant posting of less than credible material an attempt to cure anything?  It all points back to you thunder and the fact that you are scared, insecure, and have deep feelings of inferiority.




RollingThunder said:


> Actually, I don't have any "_problems_" with calling retards 'retards'. After enduring the tight-ass moderation on some other forums, it is a great relief to come here and actually be able to tell you moronic denier cult nutjobs just how ignorant, brainwashed and outright retarded you all are for falling for the fossil fuel industry's self serving propaganda and lies.



Of course you do and they are glaringly obvious every time you post.  People with no problems are able to communicate without unceasing name calling.  You may tell yourself that you have some justifiable reason for the way you are, but you are just yanking your own chain.  You are scared, intimidated, insecure, and feel inferior and inadeqaute.  That is why you call names.  It gives you a false feeling of superiority but I think on some level, you realize that it is nothing more than an eternally unsuccessful attempt to make yourself feel better about yourself.    You know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over hoping for a different result don't you?




RollingThunder said:


> Sure we do.



No...they don't.  Take a look around the board thunder.  You expend far more words with your impotent name calling and juvenile insult than any other poster on the board.  In fact, there isn't anyone on this board who even comes close to you.  Your issues stand out like a sore thumb whenever you post.  Your style of posting screams out your insecurity and feelings of inadequacy.  Your posts display an obviously abnormal psychology and the sad thing is that you a) are unable to see it and b) are at a loss to change it.  You are locked into a pattern of atypical behavior that you simply can not break.  When you call names thunder, it isn't abou the person whom you are calling a name, it is about you and your obvious attempts to make yourself feel better about yourself.  It isn't working though, is it?  You just keep feeling more and more inferior and therefore ramp up what you know to be a pointless behavior in an attempt to get something that you know it won't provide which causes even more frustration.



RollingThunder said:


> Actually, my "_name calling_" is an appropriate response to your stupidity and your foolish arrogance propped up by the Dunning-Kruger Effect,



Actually, no it isn't.  Look around you if you have that capacity.  There are appropriate responses to challenges to what others believe all over the board, and there is a certain amount of name calling but your responses are abnormal.  You are very threatened by anyone who challenges the beliefs you hold so close and since you can't actually discuss the topic, you call names as a diverting tactic.  Nothing about your posts are normal.

As to dunning kruger, the fact that you can't actually disucss the science in your own words tends to suggest that you are more likely to be a victim but to acknowledge that in the face of your obviously overwhelming sense of inferiority would just be to much to expect. 

You are a textbook case of abnormal psychology and no one could successfully fake it to the degree that you do day after day month after month, year after year.  You are the genuine article and it is sad that you can't acknowledge it to yourself.




RollingThunder said:


> One only need look at our exchanges to see that you got your ass whipped and your cultic myths debunked and you can't handle having your delusions destroyed. It is very humorously ironic to have a denier cultist like you talk about "_rational_", a mental state you are completely unfamiliar with.



Except that isn't what people see when they look at our posts.  They see one person speaking rationally, trying to actually discuss the topic and one person screaming like a crazy person, calling names like a juvenile on a playground, using an abnormal amount of capital letters, and highlighted bold, oversized text.  Clearly the actions of someone who is threatened and seeking some measure of security by engaging in a comforting routine which is, in fact, abberent behavior.  I am not threatened by anyone on this board....I don't feel inferior....and can make my case in my own words which is what I do except when I post published peer reviewed materials to support my case.  I don't need to call names because I see no threat to who I believe myself to be from anyone on this board.  The fact that you attempt to attribute your own flawed personality traits to others suggests that perhaps you might see a bit of dunning kruger in yourself and that is just one more thing for you to feel inferior about and deny to the best of your failing ability.

I feel for you thunder.  I really do.  One can only wonder what events in your life have brought you to this point....literally hanging on by making  impotent magical attacks against all those to whom you feel inferior.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, my "_attempts_" to cure your ignorance are very "_needed_" but unfortunately almost certainly futile. You're just too retarded.
> ...



One of the boys I raised has earned his PhD. in Psychiatry .
So I copied & pasted some lines from "Rolling Thunder" and e-mailed it to Vince`s blackberry. 



> Actually, I don't have any "problems" with calling retards 'retards'. After enduring the tight-ass moderation on some other forums, it is a great relief to come here and actually be able to tell you moronic denier cult nutjobs just how ignorant, brainwashed and outright retarded you all are
> 
> Actually, my "name calling" is an appropriate response to your stupidity







A few minutes later he answered me and told me to Google for *"Coprolalia"
*
Coprolalia definition - Mental Health Disorders on MedicineNet.com


> *Definition of Coprolalia*
> 
> *Coprolalia:* The excessive and uncontrollable use of foul or obscene language, including words related to feces (bowel waste).
> Coprolalia is a typical symptom of Tourette syndrome,  a condition that has its onset in childhood and is characterized by  compulsive arm movements, facial tics, grunting, groaning and shouting.  Aside from coprolalia, there is often echolalia, the involuntary  parrot-like repetition (echoing) of a word or sentence just spoken by  another person. Persons with Tourette syndrome do not usually curse out  of anger or displeasure but out of uncontrollable compulsion. They  cannot help themselves. (The disease is also called Gilles de la Tourette syndrome.)
> ...


Vince pointed also out that "After enduring the tight-ass moderation on some other forums, it is a great relief to come here and actually be able to tell you moronic ..." is indicative that this person has a compulsion to do so and unless such a person has a way to vent they usually go full blown schizo and are highly likely to commit a violent act...
SSDD it is futile trying to have a sane adult discussion with a psycho like that. I put him on my ignore list middle last year when he started posting here 24/7 and I would not be too surprised if "Saigon" is his alter ego.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2013)

polarbear said:


> SSDD it is futile trying to have a sane adult discussion with a psycho like that. I put him on my ignore list middle last year when he started posting here 24/7 and I would not be too surprised if "Saigon" is his alter ego.



I don't expect to have a sane adult discussion with him since he simply isn't capable of having that sort of discussion with people who disagree with him.  He can't handle any challenge to his belief system.  He is terribly insecure and is threatened and intimidated by anyone who questions that belief.  

Any challenge is immediately answered by a magical attack on his part against the percieved threat without regard to whether or not he has any "history" with the person who has challenged him.  It doesn't matter whether it is someone who has been questioning him for months or years or a first time poster on the board who doesn't know him from Adam.  He must lash out at anyone who dares question his belief regarding AGW because his belief is who he believes he is and his attacks always take the same useless, impotent form. 

He is seeking to feel better about himself but his out of control style only further provokes those who he is lashing out against to question him further which denies him the ego massage he is seeking by launching the attack in the first place.  It is a vicious circle.  He wants to feel better about himelf and attempts to get that feeling by a means that is doomed to failure which frustrates him further.  Because of his feelings ofinadequacy and  inferiority, he  can't imagine a means of feeling good about himself in the face of disagreement that doesn't include attacking his antagonists so he keeps repeating a behavior that is always going to fail to deliver the one thing he wants more than anything else.

Siagon isn't his alter ego.  I seriously doubt that thunder could maintain an alter ego for any length of time.  He lacks the self control necessary to compartmentalize which is essential if one wishes to successfully maintain an alter for whatever reason.  If he did attempt an alter ego, it would exhibit the deep emotional problems steming from the ever present problem of his perceived inferiority as he displays himself.  His alter couldn't help but call names and hurl insult because he views that as the only way to put himself on an equal footing with antagonists.  

Siagon's posts exhibit classic feelings of superiority while thunder's exhibit nothing but feelings of inferiority.  They are two different people.  Someone as troubled as thunder couldn't successfully pull off siagon's obvious belief that he is superior to everyone.  Siagon views himself as elite and as such his confidence remains largely uneffected by challenges to his beliefs while thunder is threatened and intimidated by any challenge to his.  Psychologically they are just to far apart to be the same person.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

> I  put him on my ignore list middle last year



If you mean me then...no, that's not quite true, is it?

I put you in ignore a few weeks ago after you started posting threats and trying to post my personal details here.

SSDD - 

If you want to be taken seriously, then posting long-winded rants about every poster who humiliates you is NOT the way to do it. Stop using politicians as sources, start reading excellent science when you have promised to do so and start posting with integrity - that will work.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, my "_attempts_" to cure your ignorance are very "_needed_" but unfortunately almost certainly futile. You're just too retarded.
> ...



That's actually a pretty good suggestion. You are indeed quite hopeless. So OK, I give up on you. I'll still be coming 'round occasionally to debunk your lies and misinformation and poke fun at your cultic insanity, of course, but that will be for the benefit of anyone else reading your drivel who might conceivably be fooled by it. As for you though, you can stew in your own ignorant juices until your tushie turns mushy.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I  put him on my ignore list middle last year



Try reading for comprehension.  




Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> If you want to be taken seriously, then posting long-winded rants about every poster who humiliates you is NOT the way to do it. Stop using politicians as sources, start reading excellent science when you have promised to do so and start posting with integrity - that will work.



Of course we both know that thunder humiliates no one but himself.  People like you, who believe themselves to be elite need people like thunder around and stroke them at every opportunity.  People like him do the scut work for people like you.  You take advantage of people like thunder and their intense feelings of inferiority to do the name calling, and low insult that you see yourself as above.  You then come around, give them a pat on the head (as you did in this post) tell him every thing will be ok and play the high and mighty by pretending to admonish me for pointing out his flaws.  

As to being taken seriously, of course I am being taken seriously by the only person on the board those posts are meant to be taken seriously by.  Observe.  It won't be long before thunder comes around and makes a serious attempt to act reasonable and politely (as politely as is possible for him) tucks tail and runs.  I have gotten to close and he can't afford to antagonize me further.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> That's actually a pretty good suggestion. You are indeed quite hopeless. So OK, I give up on you. I'll still be coming 'round occasionally to debunk your lies and misinformation and poke fun at your cultic insanity, of course, but that will be for the benefit of anyone else reading your drivel who might conceivably be fooled by it. As for you though, you can stew in your own ignorant juices until your tushie turns mushy.



Verry good.   I mean it.  Spoken like a rational human being.  I note than you went to another thread and, again, spoke like a rational person.  I doubt that you got much satisfaction out of it because speaking like that only puts you and your opponent in the relative position of equals and since, inside,  you don't feel equal, that wont be good enough for long.  You will be back to the name calling soon because you can't really do anything else.   It was good to see you try though and if you continue to try like that and perhaps seek a little help, you might just find that speaking to others as equals actually moves a conversation forward.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > That's actually a pretty good suggestion. You are indeed quite hopeless. So OK, I give up on you. I'll still be coming 'round occasionally to debunk your lies and misinformation and poke fun at your cultic insanity, of course, but that will be for the benefit of anyone else reading your drivel who might conceivably be fooled by it. As for you though, you can stew in your own ignorant juices until your tushie turns mushy.
> ...


How on Earth would you know anything about being 'rational', you poor deluded retard? You have yet to demonstrate any rationality in any of your posts.






SSDD said:


> I note than you went to another thread and, again, spoke like a rational person.  I doubt that you got much satisfaction out of it because speaking like that only puts you and your opponent in the relative position of equals and since, inside,  you don't feel equal, that wont be good enough for long.  You will be back to the name calling soon because you can't really do anything else.   It was good to see you try though and if you continue to try like that and perhaps seek a little help, you might just find that speaking to others as equals actually moves a conversation forward.



It's really a shame that you are soooo insane and so clueless about the fact that you are insane.

You repeatedly post the same debunked denier cult drivel and I refute your lies with sound science from reputable sources, and all of your pseudo-science and self deluding pop-psych garbage won't change that basic fact.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 5, 2013)

Fart appears to be in the midst of a crisis.

Complete meltdown imminent.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fart appears to be in the midst of a crisis.
> 
> Complete meltdown imminent.



Hey troll, you've made it quite clear that your pathetic excuse for a brain "_melted down_" a long time ago. Too bad you never post anything but meaningless drivel.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> How on Earth would you know anything about being 'rational', you poor deluded retard? You have yet to demonstrate any rationality in any of your posts.



Like I said, speaking like a rational human being wouldn't satisfy your need so you would be back to hurling insult and calling names in short order.  You are abnormal thunder and have proved that rationality is, at present, beyond your grasp.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fart appears to be in the midst of a crisis.
> 
> Complete meltdown imminent.



Every minute of every day is a crisis for people who feel threatened by everyone as a result of thier deeply percieved impression of being inferior.  His incessant name calling and insult are a melt down and he is always in that state.  Sad, but that is just the way it goes for some.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Fart appears to be in the midst of a crisis.
> ...


LOLOL.....so clueless retards who can't spell are still in denial about the fact that they *really are* indeed inferior....so very predictable.....and so much an attempt to distract attention from the fact that their denier cult myths and misinformation are constantly getting debunked and destroyed by the scientific facts......


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



I can spell.  You are Fart.  F - A - R - T.

You are a fable driven AGW proponent.  You are a denier of reality.

Your cult is thick as thieves.

Hey, Rolling Fart.  Did you know that there were ICE AGES and lengthy WARMING PERIODS that preceded human industry? 

It would appear that man generated CO2 simply does not drive the Earth's climate to anywhere NEAR the degree you AGW faith based mystics want to believe.

That big hot bright yellow orb in the sky, however, appears to have a whole lot to do with it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


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



More braindead clueless nonsense from an idiot. Repeating your cult's myths won't make them real.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Denying reality will not make your cult's bullshit any less dishonest.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Oh, IlieMostly, you're still totally clueless. I don't deny reality, I support the accurate scientific information and conclusions about the reality and dangers of AGW. I post peer-reviewed scientific studies that support those conclusions. You post your own ignorant opinions without any supporting evidence. If I'm in a cult, then it must include the entire world scientific community and many world leaders. You are the one in a cult, very similar to the Flat Earth Society. You reject the scientific consensus in favor of a bunch of crackpot nonsense and idiotic conspiracy theories. You post little tidbits about past climate changes and moronically assume that everyone else, including the climate scientists, are somehow ignorant about this or that it has any significance in relation to the current abrupt warming trend. You're apparently far too stupid to be capable of understanding that just because something happened before due to some natural causes, that doesn't mean that it can't happen now due to human intervention. The sun's influence has also been calculated and it is only having a minor affect on the Earth's rising temperature trend compared to the effect of the massive amounts of additional CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun went down over the last few decades but the warming continued, which shows that it isn't the sun that is driving this current warming trend. Scientists have determined that the cause of this current warming trend is that more heat is being trapped inside Earth's atmosphere by the 40% increase in CO2 that humans have caused. All of that is backed up by sound science and affirmed by the major scientific organizations in every major country. The drivel you and your fellow denier cultists post here, when it is not just purely hot air and stinking bullcrap, is either outright pseudo-science or else twisted and misinterpreted bits of real science that don't actually mean what you've been duped into believing they mean. Your beliefs and myths about this subject are _very_ cult like and pretty much lunatic fringe, if not outright insane. Like most cultists, you are blind to the fact that most of the rest of the world, and pretty near all of the world scientific community, thinks you AGW deniers are crazy or duped. You deniers all keep your heads stuck in some kind of rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber, where FauxNews, Rush, Glenn, and numerous bloggers all tell you the same misinformation and lies and you imagine that it is 'common knowledge' when it is actually carefully crafted propaganda designed to confuse people about the urgency of the climate change crisis in order to delay or prevent any effective restrictions on carbon emissions. Which is the goal of the fossil fuel industry as they struggle to maintain their trillion dollar a year profit stream from locating, mining, extracting, refining, shipping and selling the stuff that is screwing up the climate. You and the other reality deniers are the 'useful idiot' foot soldiers in this politically/economically based propaganda campaign, but you are obviously too ignorant about real science and way too stupid to see how you are being bamboozled and manipulated.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOL.....so clueless retards who can't spell are still in denial about the fact that they *really are* indeed inferior....so very predictable.....and so much an attempt to distract attention from the fact that their denier cult myths and misinformation are constantly getting debunked and destroyed by the scientific facts......



Because you wear your problems on your sleeve thunder, it is about as difficult to predict what you will do as it is to predict which way a rock will fall when dropped.  You have about as little control over your actions as the rock has over which way it falls.  The rock has a reasonable excuse for not being in control...what is yours?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> I post peer-reviewed scientific studies that support those conclusions..



A quick review of your posts over any given 1 month period shows that you mostly don't, and those that you do are almost entirely based on the output of computer models that have been shown in peer reviewed research to have a miserable record.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > I post peer-reviewed scientific studies that support those conclusions..
> ...



Just more of SSooooDDuuuumb's delusions and cultic myths.

*20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists*
LiveScience
09 December 2012
(excerpts)
*Time has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records. The predictions in question come from the first climate assessment report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990. The accuracy of the 1990 predictions is notable because scientists, 22 years ago, relied on much more simplistic computer models than those now used to simulate the future, said one of the researchers behind the current analysis, Dáithí Stone, now a research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He worked on the analysis while at the University of Cape Town and University of Oxford. 

What's more, two decades ago, scientists could not have anticipated a number of potentially climate-altering events. These included the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, which spewed sunlight-blocking particles into the atmosphere, as well as the collapse of industry in the Soviet Union or the economic growth of China, Stone and David Frame, of Victoria University Wellington in New Zealand, write in work published online today (Dec. 9) in the journal Nature Climate Change. But 22 years ago, scientists understood one crucial factor: "The prediction basically depended on how much carbon dioxide was already in the atmosphere, and that has been what's important," Stone said. What matters is the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution; short-term changes in emissions have relatively little effect on overall warming, Frame and Stone write.*


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 6, 2013)

> The 1990 prediction did require an adjustment, since it did not take into account natural variability  which includes the chaotic nature of weather as well as longer-term natural patterns, such as the El Niño/La Niña cycle.
> 
> When Frame and Stone took natural variability into account, they found that the observed warming was consistent with the IPCC's best estimate for warming.



LOL.

So, it may not have been a very good prediction, but when we tweaked it guess what?  We got it to match our "best" _predictions_.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



You just did.

And, you lie incessantly.  

You talk about shit you don't even comprehend.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 6, 2013)

How much has the globe "warmed" in the past 16 years or so?


----------



## MeBelle (Mar 6, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> How much has the globe "warmed" in the past 16 years or so?



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg9YGmmPX6w]Roger Miller "Dang Me" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 6, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> How much has the globe "warmed" in the past 16 years or so?



Quite a bit, actually. Too bad you're too brainwashed and retarded to comprehend that fact, even when you're shown the data.

*Long-Term Global Warming Trend Continues
NASA*
January 16, 2013
*(NOT UNDER COPYRIGHT - Government publication - free to reproduce)*






*Scientists at NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) say 2012 was the ninth warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The ten warmest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998. The last year that was cooler than average was 1976. 

The map at the top depicts temperature anomalies, or changes, by region in 2012; it does not show absolute temperature. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was in 2012 compared to an averaged base period from 19511980. For more explanation of how the analysis works, read World of Change: Global Temperatures.

The average temperature in 2012 was about 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.55°C (1.0°F) warmer than the mid-20th century base period. The average global temperature has increased 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880, and most of that change has occurred in the past four decades.

The line plot above shows yearly temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2011 as recorded by NASA GISS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom. All four institutions tally temperature data from stations around the world and make independent judgments about whether the year was warm or cool compared to other years. Though there are minor variations from year to year, all four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the last decade as the warmest.

Scientists emphasize that weather patterns cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere assures that there will be a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each individual year will not necessarily be warmer than the previous year, but scientists expect each decade to be warmer than the previous decade.

One more year of numbers isnt in itself significant, GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason its warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide traps heat and largely controls Earths climate. It occurs naturally but is also released by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. The level of carbon dioxide in Earths atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades, largely driven by increasing man-made emissions. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year of the GISS temperature record. By 1960, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, measured at NOAAs Mauna Loa Observatory, was about 315 parts per million. Today, that measurement exceeds 390 parts per million.

The continental U.S. endured its warmest year on record by far, according to NOAA, the official keeper of U.S. weather records. NOAA also announced that global temperatures were 10th warmeston record by their analysis methods.

The U.S. temperatures in the summer of 2012 are an example of a new trend of outlying seasonal extremes that are warmer than the hottest seasonal temperatures of the mid-20th century, NASA GISS director James E. Hansen said. The climate dice are now loaded. Some seasons still will be cooler than the long-term average, but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing. It is the extremes that have the most impact on people and other life on the planet.*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Just more of SSooooDDuuuumb's delusions and cultic myths.
> 
> *20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists*



Like I said, little of what you post is actual science.  That post comes from a blog...Do blog entries equal science in your mind?  

Here is some published science regarding the accuracy of the models you place so much trust in.



> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that ensembles of climate models used by the IPCC to predict future climate change "may lead to overly confident climate predictions." The authors find that many models share the same computer code, have the same limitations, and "tend to be fairly similar," resulting in confirmation bias



An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie




> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research in essence reveals climate models are not capable of reproducing the observed climate of the past century, much less the future. According to the paper, "few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940," there are "large differences" in the forcings and feedbacks used in various models and that some of these are "unrealistic."



A balance between radiative forcing and climate feedback in the modeled 20th century temperature response - Crook - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library




> A new paper published in the Journal of Climate finds there has been "little to no improvement" in simulating clouds by state-of-the-art climate models. The authors note the "poor performance of current global climate models in simulating realistic [clouds]," and that the models show "quite large biases...as well as a remarkable degree of variation" with the differences between models remaining "large."



An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie




> A paper published in the technical newsletter of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment finds that climate models suppress the negative feedback from low clouds, which serve to cool the Earth by reflection of incoming sunlight. The paper notes that cloud feedbacks in computer models are not only uncertain in magnitude, but even in sign (positive or negative).



http://www.gewex.org/images/G.Stephens_Feb2010GNews.pdf




> A new paper published in Global and Planetary Change finds that IPCC climate models are unable to reproduce either the El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO] or the Indian summer monsoon, the two most influential  natural weather patterns on Earth, both of which have large effects upon global climate. The authors therefore caution that, given these large uncertainties of natural variation, current models cannot be relied upon to project future global warming from greenhouse gases.



ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - Revisiting the Indian summer monsoon-ENSO links in the IPCC AR4 projections: A cautionary outlook





> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres admits that state-of-the-art climate models exaggerate alleged warming from greenhouse gases, finding the models "overestimate the observed temperature change" in comparison to historical data since 1850. The authors also find the various models have a "large spread" or widely divergent temperature projections.



Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models - Forster - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library





> A new paper published in the the International Meteorological Association journal Tellus finds that state-of-the-art climate models are not able to reproduce atmospheric teleconnections, such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO]. According to the authors, "Due to internally generated [natural] climate variability, the models are not able to reproduce the observed temporal behaviour [behavior over time]." Teleconnections such as ENSO and other natural ocean/atmospheric oscillations dominate climate and extreme weather worldwide.



How well do state-of-the-art atmosphere-ocean general circulation models reproduce atmospheric teleconnection patterns? | Handorf | Tellus A




> A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models "suffer from temperature-dependent biases" which "leads to an overestimation of projections of regional temperatures." According to the authors, "10-20% of projected warming is due to model deficiencies



Temperature dependent climate projection deficiencies in CMIP5 models - Christensen - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So there are 8 peer reviewed published papers stating that models are not to be trusted.  And you are relying on blogs.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Just more of SSooooDDuuuumb's delusions and cultic myths.
> ...


LOLOLOLOL....you can still surprise me with how retarded you are. LiveScience is not what most folks would call a "_blog_". It is a science news website. From their wesite:
*"LiveScience, launched in 2004, is the trusted and provocative source for highly accessible science, health and technology news for people who are curious about their minds, bodies, and the world around them. Our team of experienced science reporters, editors and video producers explore the latest discoveries, trends and myths, interviewing expert sources and offering up deep and broad analyses of topics that affect peoples' lives in meaningful ways. LiveScience articles are regularly featured on the web sites of our media partners: MSNBC.com, Yahoo!, the Christian Science Monitor and others. "*

I guess you're still so retarded that you don't bother to even read the material others post. From the above referenced article that you claim is not "_actual science_":
"*...in work published online today (Dec. 9) in the journal Nature Climate Change*"







SSDD said:


> Here is some published science regarding the accuracy of the models you place so much trust in.


There is some published science listed there but it doesn't say what you've been duped into thinking it says. None of the papers say that climate models don't work or aren't useful; they do critique and criticize different components of the models as part of the continuing scientific effort to improve the models. You have a little paragraph in a quote box before each citation supposedly describing the main findings of the paper but the stuff in those boxes in not from the paper being cited, they are from some denier cult blog and they are propaganda, not a fair description of the science.

Let's look at some of the citations you presented.








SSDD said:


> > A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that ensembles of climate models used by the IPCC to predict future climate change "may lead to overly confident climate predictions." The authors find that many models share the same computer code, have the same limitations, and "tend to be fairly similar," resulting in confirmation bias
> 
> 
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



Actual paper:

*Abstract

Projections of future climate change are increasingly based on the output of many different models. Typically, the mean over all model simulations is considered as the optimal prediction, with the underlying assumption that different models provide statistically independent information evenly distributed around the true state. However, there is reason to believe that this is not the best assumption. Coupled models are of comparable complexity and are constructed in similar ways. Some models share parts of the same code and some models are even developed at the same center. Therefore, the limitations of these models tend to be fairly similar, contributing to the well-known problem of common model biases and possibly to an unrealistically small spread in the outcomes of model predictions.

This study attempts to quantify the extent of this problem by asking how many models there effectively are and how to best determine this number. Quantifying the effective number of models is achieved by evaluating 24 state-of-the-art models and their ability to simulate broad aspects of twentieth-century climate. Using two different approaches, the amount of unique information in the ensemble is calculated and the effective ensemble size is found to be much smaller than the actual number of models. As more models are included in an ensemble, the amount of new information diminishes in proportion. Furthermore, this reduction is found to go beyond the problem of same center models and systemic similarities are seen to exist across all models. The results suggest that current methodologies for the interpretation of multimodel ensembles may lead to overly confident climate predictions.*

Concludes that "_current methodologies for the interpretation_" of the models "_may lead to overly confident climate predictions_". NOT false climate predictions, not too high or too low climate predictions, just maybe "_overly confident climate predictions_".








SSDD said:


> A balance between radiative forcing and climate feedback in the modeled 20th century temperature response - Crook - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library



*Abstract

In this paper, we breakdown the temperature response of coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models into components due to radiative forcing, climate feedback, and heat storage and transport to understand how well climate models reproduce the observed 20th century temperature record. Despite large differences between models' feedback strength, they generally reproduce the temperature response well but for different reasons in each model. We show that the differences in forcing and heat storage and transport give rise to a considerable part of the intermodel variability in global, Arctic, and tropical mean temperature responses over the 20th century. Projected future warming trends are much more dependent on a model's feedback strength, suggesting that constraining future climate change by weighting these models on the basis of their 20th century reproductive skill is not possible. We find that tropical 20th century warming is too large and Arctic amplification is unrealistically low in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory CM2.1, Meteorological Research Institute CGCM232a, and MIROC3.2(hires) models because of unrealistic forcing distributions. The Arctic amplification in both National Center for Atmospheric Research models is unrealistically high because of high feedback contributions in the Arctic compared to the tropics. Few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940. The simulated trend is too low, particularly in the tropics, even allowing for internal variability, suggesting there is too little positive forcing or too much negative forcing in the models at this time. Over the whole of the 20th century, the feedback strength is likely to be underestimated by the multimodel mean.*








SSDD said:


> Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models - Forster - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library



*Abstract

[1] We utilize energy budget diagnostics from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) to evaluate the models' climate forcing since preindustrial times employing an established regression technique. The climate forcing evaluated this way, termed the adjusted forcing (AF), includes a rapid adjustment term associated with cloud changes and other tropospheric and land-surface changes. We estimate a 2010 total anthropogenic and natural AF from CMIP5 models of 1.9&#8201;±&#8201;0.9&#8201;W&#8201;m&#8722;2 (595% range). The projected AF of the Representative Concentration Pathway simulations are lower than their expected radiative forcing (RF) in 2095 but agree well with efficacy weighted forcings from integrated assessment models. The smaller AF, compared to RF, is likely due to cloud adjustment. Multimodel time series of temperature change and AF from 1850 to 2100 have large intermodel spreads throughout the period. The intermodel spread of temperature change is principally driven by forcing differences in the present day and climate feedback differences in 2095, although forcing differences are still important for model spread at 2095. We find no significant relationship between the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of a model and its 2003 AF, in contrast to that found in older models where higher ECS models generally had less forcing. Given the large present-day model spread, there is no indication of any tendency by modelling groups to adjust their aerosol forcing in order to produce observed trends. Instead, some CMIP5 models have a relatively large positive forcing and overestimate the observed temperature change.*

This is just saying that the models aren't correctly modeling the cooling effect of the aerosols that are somewhat offsetting the CO2 driven warming.







SSDD said:


> > A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models "suffer from temperature-dependent biases" which "leads to an overestimation of projections of regional temperatures." According to the authors, "10-20% of projected warming is due to model deficiencies
> 
> 
> 
> Temperature dependent climate projection deficiencies in CMIP5 models - Christensen - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library


*Abstract 
Monthly mean temperatures for 34 GCMs available from the CMIP5 project are compared with observations from CRU for 26 different land regions covering all major land areas in the world for the period 19612000 by means of quantile-quantile (q-q) diagrams. A warm period positive temperature dependent bias is identified for many of the models within many of the chosen climate regions. However, the exact temperature dependence varies considerably between the models. We analyse the role of this difference as a contributing factor for some models to project stronger regional warming than others by looking at the entire ensemble rather than individual models. RCP4.5 temperature projections from all GCMs for two time periods (20212050 and 20712100) are compared against a linear fit to the 50% warmest months from the respective q-q plot for each model and region. Taken together, we find that in general models with a positive temperature dependent bias tend to have a large projected temperature change, and these tendencies increase with increasing global warming level. We argue that this appears to be linked with the ability of models to capture complex feedbacks accurately. In particular land-surface atmosphere interactions are treated differently and with different degree of realism between models.*








SSDD said:


> So there are 8 peer reviewed published papers stating that models are not to be trusted.  And you are relying on blogs.


No, there's 8 more instances of your puppet masters duping and bamboozling you into believing things that just aren't true.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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






not enough info s0n.


But nobody cares anyway.    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Green fatigue sets in: the world cools on global warming - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 6, 2013)

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 6, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....oh lord.....are you still jacking off to that totally debunked denier cult myth???.....you are such a clueless cretin, IlieMostly......

*British Met Office refutes "misleading" claim "Global Warming stopped 16 years ago"*
MPR News
October 15, 2012
(excerpts)
*The Daily Mail piece seems to have "cherry picked" a high point of warming in 1997, and a relative low point in 2012 to get a "level" temperature trend. Here's is the Daily Mail "proof" graph below. As an example of cherry picking, the black lines are my additions selecting other data points along the graph that can be chosen had somebody wanted to misleadingly suggest the strong warming between 2000 and 2012 is the best trend, or the relative cooling between 1997 and 2007.





Source: Daily Mail (My lines in black)

Both of my starting and ending points (black lines) would be misleading and draw inaccurate conclusions for the reader about global temperature trends in the next few years. It's very dangerous, misleading, and scientifically dishonest to pick any one 16 year period and make inferences about where long term climate trends are headed.*
*****

*Met Office*
October 14, 2012
*(Government Publication - not under copyright - free to reproduce)*

*An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released and here is the chart to prove it

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme  you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglias Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Heres a response to your questions. Ive kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As weve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous  so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980  1996 warming.

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2  such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles  may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by external forcings, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade  but this is an area of ongoing research.



The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.*





*Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.
*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> [
> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....oh lord.....are you still jacking off to that totally debunked denier cult myth???.....you are such a clueless cretin, IlieMostly......



Poor damaged inadequate thunder.  I am afraid that it is you who is pushing the myth.  The warming has stalled in the face of ever increasing atmospheric CO2.  Sorry you aren't smart enough, or mature enough to realize that you picked the wrong horse.


----------



## westwall (Mar 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
> ...









Poor deluded blunder......even the head of the IPCC knows it's a loser now....it's a shame you haven't the brain power to realise it too.....



"THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change."



Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 7, 2013)

Rolling Fart appears to believe that after 16 years, when the average temperature is at the same point it began at, that is proof of AGW.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 7, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Rolling Fart appears to believe that after 16 years, when the average temperature is at the same point it began at, that is proof of AGW.



All of Germany is cracking Global Warming jokes today. Only last week climatologists were jubilant that spring arrived early and did their usual victory laps in the media circus.
Guess what happened today:
Wintereinbruch: Jetzt kommt der Frost-Schock - Seite 3


> *                                 Wintereinbruch: Jetzt kommt der Frostschock*


Temperatures are dropping to -5 and -10C depending on the region.
The news media are bombarded with comments like this one:


> Heute 16:41 von
> im-wilke
> 
> 
> ...


He is referring to Mojib Latif, the European Climate Guru who predicted on January 4th 2000 "Winters with frost and snow as we had them 20 years ago in Germany and similar latitudes will be a thing of the past" 
And every German language news paper in Europe printed it. 
Winter ade: Nie wieder Schnee? - SPIEGEL ONLINE
*It`s archived and he can`t pretend now, that he never said it*. The usual wording definition hair splitting won`t work this time around either because
he and his organization were at it the entire time (tweeting, yelling, ringing the big alarm bells... see we warned you)  while Germans enjoyed a pleasant spring






*They just can`t stand it when people want to enjoy 
themselves*...*and sent them on a (global warming) guilt trip*
It`s  an anomaly and it was all predicted correctly 
*Just short of stating Ya`ll soon fry and you deserve it because you haven`t been listening to us
* 

And this morning most Germans woke up to this:














Germans  have been had more than most other countries by CO2 alarmists who pushed through their agenda into legislation.
Many Germans now file mock- compensation claims in the courts.
such as " I bought a property in the Eiffel mountains, because I was assured by the Government that it would soon be beach front property" ..."A promise is a promise!"...and so on.
Last week all week long not a day went by without climatologists pushing their "editorials" on every news paper in Germany when people enjoyed the warm sun a little bit...and as of today day if you wanted to go sunbathing in Germany which looks as if the next ice age had already started you had to do it like this:





Hey for a while I was getting a bit jealous, but now I feel better after I have seen that today Germany does not look much different from Manitoba:


By coincidence I caught anti-oil "auntie" Myrna discarding a bottle of 2 cycle mix- oil not more than 3 yards from the garbage can.
It was still dripping oil when one of my boys picked it up and disposed of it properly.
Myrna is the biggest enviro loudmouth in our community. Every year like clock-work she protests against aerial spraying when we have a mosquito-west-nile-virus problem. 
Later when all this snow will melt and her yard is flooded she will be yelling "global warming...the polar ice is melting"
She is a typical  enviro-ozone-ass-hole example,  voting NDP (New Democratic Party), no matter what, watches David Suzuki (Canada`s Al Gore) on television and quotes him  every time to everyone in the grocery store on a hot summer day when she is in there cooling off, because she is too cheap to buy an air conditioner.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 8, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Rolling Fart appears to believe that after 16 years, when the average temperature is at the same point it began at, that is proof of AGW.



Oh, IlieMostly, you mostly lie. The "_average temperature_" *is not* "_at the same point it_" was 16 years ago, it is appreciably higher, more ice is melting, the Arctic just hit a new record low extent and volume, the oceans are getting warmer and sea levels are rising, the other symptoms of global warming and the accompanying climate changes accumulate faster everywhere. 

When you base your posts on a bogus claim like the one you just made, parroting some demented denier cult myth, you just look even more like an idiot than you usually do (actually quite an accomplishment, now that I think of it, considering how low _that_ bar is). Because you're a rather dimwitted denier cultist and a conspiracy theory nutjob, you reject the testimony of the experts, in this case the climate scientists, no matter how many scientists from a number of disciplines concur or how many countries have scientist involved. For those who aren't as brainwashed and bamboozled as you are, here's the facts.

*NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA*
July 28, 2010
*(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - Not Under Copyright - free to reproduce)*
*The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the active-weather layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earths surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean, said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,





Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming, said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet, said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAAs National Climatic Data Center. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at NOAA Climate.gov. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: BAMS State of the Climate.*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2013)

Since NOAA is known to tamper heavily with their data, the claim doesn't carry much weight thunder.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Since NOAA is known to tamper heavily with their data, the claim doesn't carry much weight thunder.



I'm sure it "_doesn't carry much weight_" with you and the other anti-science, extremely ignorant and very retarded members of your little cult of reality denial. But since your myths about NOAA's supposed "_data tampering_" are too stupid and unsupportable for anybody with any sense to believe, and because this report I just cited is actually based on the work of a lot of other scientists all around the world ("*more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report*"), your quibble is, once again, the insane rant of a clueless retard.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> [
> I'm sure it "_doesn't carry much weight_" with you and the other anti-science, extremely ignorant and very retarded members of your little cult of reality denial. But since your myths about NOAA's supposed "_data tampering_" are too stupid and unsupportable for anybody with any sense to believe, and because this report I just cited is actually based on the work of a lot of other scientists all around the world ("*more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report*"), your quibble is, once again, the insane rant of a clueless retard.




I am still waiting for you to give me a rational, scientifically sound reason why NOAA has cooled 754 months since 2008 with 735 of those months being prior to 1960 and has warmed 793 months since 2008 with 570 of those months being post 1959.

Give me a good, scientifically sound reason for those changes.  Or sling some insult, call some names and stand there as stupid as ever wearing your mental issues like some sort of pitiful armor.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure it "_doesn't carry much weight_" with you and the other anti-science, extremely ignorant and very retarded members of your little cult of reality denial. But since your myths about NOAA's supposed "_data tampering_" are too stupid and unsupportable for anybody with any sense to believe, and because this report I just cited is actually based on the work of a lot of other scientists all around the world ("*more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report*"), your quibble is, once again, the insane rant of a clueless retard.
> ...



I am still waiting for you to give me a rational, scientifically sound reason why you believe that NOAA is making these adjustments for nefarious purposes. Or why "*more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries*" who "*contributed to the report*" are all going along with NOAA in furthering this supposed deception. I mean, what have you got other than some some pathetically insane conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands of scientists all around the world who are all "_tampering_" with the temperature records and other data while they are all keeping the 'code of silence' about the conspiracy better than the Mafia ever could. LOLOLOLOL.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



Nefarious or not, it either took place or it didn't.

If it did, nefarious or not, there should be some valid basis for the "adjustments."

Name them.

Or to repeat the question you were asked by SSDD but which you chose to duck, you are asked to provide



> rational, scientifically sound reason why NOAA has cooled 754 months since 2008 with 735 of those months being prior to 1960 and has warmed 793 months since 2008 with 570 of those months being post 1959.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 8, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


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



Sure, adjustments to the temperature records took place. There are numerous reasons having to do with making the records more comparable by adjusting for certain known factors that result from the fact that the temperature records were taken with differing and improving instrumentation over time, with widely varying station locations, with changes in station locations over time, with differing time of day of the recorded observations, etc, etc..

The difference between us here is that, while neither one of us has the scientific knowledge to judge the validity of the climate scientists' reasons for making these adjustments, except in the most general way, I have some trust in the scientific integrity of the scientific community and see no reason to doubt that they are doing everything for entirely valid reasons, while you (and the other denier dimwits), on the other hand, imagine that there is a huge world-wide conspiracy by tens of thousands of scientists in over a hundred countries to somehow "_fudge_" the records and create an illusion of warming. The motives behind this 'conspiracy' are perhaps clear to you dingbat denier cultists but no one who is sane and rational or who knows anything at all about science or scientists sees your conspiracy theory as anything but utterly nuts and without any foundation in reality. The validity of the science involved though is not affected by your ignorance and denial of reality or by my inability to "_provide_" you with all of the details of the scientific reasoning behind these adjustments. I'm not here to be your tutor; I'm here to debunk your lies, propaganda and misinformation about the reality and dangers of AGW. You're too retarded and filled with misinformation to tutor anyway. If you want to know the fine details, look them up yourself. 

For starters, you might read this.

*Long-Term Monthly Climate Records from Stations Across the Contiguous United States*
United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) - Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)
*(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)*

*Time of Observation Bias Adjustments

Next, monthly temperature values were adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986; Vose et al., 2003). The Time of Observation Bias (TOB) arises when the 24-hour daily summary period at a station begins and ends at an hour other than local midnight. When the summary period ends at an hour other than midnight, monthly mean temperatures exhibit a systematic bias relative to the local midnight standard (Baker, 1975). In the U.S. Cooperative Observer Network, the ending hour of the 24-hour climatological day typically varies from station to station and can change at a given station during its period of record. The TOB-adjustment software uses an empirical model to estimate and adjust the monthly temperature values so that they more closely resemble values based on the local midnight summary period. The metadata archive is used to determine the time of observation for any given period in a station's observational history.

Homogeneity Testing and Adjustment Procedures

Following the TOB adjustments, the homogeneity of the TOB-adjusted temperature series is assessed. In previous releases of the USHCN monthly dataset, homogeneity adjustments were performed using the procedure described in Karl and Williams (1987). This procedure was used to evaluate non-climatic discontinuities (artificial changepoints) in a station's temperature or precipitation series caused by known changes to a station such as equipment relocations and changes. Since knowledge of changes in the status of observations comes from the station history metadata archive maintained at NCDC, the original USHCN homogenization algorithm was known as the Station History Adjustment Program (SHAP).

Unfortunately, station histories are often incomplete so artificial discontinuities in a data series may occur on dates with no associated record in the metadata archive. Undocumented station changes obviously limit the effectiveness of SHAP. To remedy the problem of incomplete station histories, the version 2 homogenization algorithm addresses both documented and undocumented discontinuities.

The potential for undocumented discontinuities adds a layer of complexity to homogeneity testing. Tests for undocumented changepoints, for example, require different sets of test-statistic percentiles than those used in analogous tests for documented discontinuities (Lund and Reeves, 2002). For this reason, tests for undocumented changepoints are inherently less sensitive than their counterparts that are used when changes are documented. Tests for documented changes should, therefore, also be conducted where possible to maximize the power of detection for all artificial discontinuities. In addition, since undocumented changepoints can occur in all series, accurate attribution of any particular discontinuity between two climate series is more challenging (Menne and Williams, 2005).

The USHCN version 2 "pairwise" homogenization algorithm addresses these and other issues according to the following steps, which are described in detail in Menne and Williams (2009). At present, only temperature series are evaluated for artificial changepoints.

    1. First, a series of monthly temperature differences is formed between numerous pairs of station series in a region. Specifically, difference series are calculated between each target station series and a number (up to 40) of highly correlated series from nearby stations. In effect, a matrix of difference series is formed for a large fraction of all possible combinations of station series pairs in each localized region. The station pool for this pairwise comparison of series includes USHCN stations as well as other U.S. Cooperative Observer Network stations.

    2. Tests for undocumented changepoints are then applied to each paired difference series. A hierarchy of changepoint models is used to distinguish whether the changepoint appears to be a change in mean with no trend (Alexandersson and Moberg, 1997), a change in mean within a general trend (Wang, 2003), or a change in mean coincident with a change in trend (Lund and Reeves, 2002) . Since all difference series are comprised of values from two series, a changepoint date in any one difference series is temporarily attributed to both station series used to calculate the differences. The result is a matrix of potential changepoint dates for each station series.

    3. The full matrix of changepoint dates is then "unconfounded" by identifying the series common to multiple paired-difference series that have the same changepoint date. Since each series is paired with a unique set of neighboring series, it is possible to determine whether more than one nearby series share the same changepoint date.

    4. The magnitude of each relative changepoint is calculated using the most appropriate two-phase regression model (e.g., a jump in mean with no trend in the series, a jump in mean within a general linear trend, etc.). This magnitude is used to estimate the "window of uncertainty" for each changepoint date since the most probable date of an undocumented changepoint is subject to some sampling uncertainty, the magnitude of which is a function of the size of the changepoint. Any cluster of undocumented changepoint dates that falls within overlapping windows of uncertainty is conflated to a single changepoint date according to
* a known change date as documented in the target station's history archive (meaning the discontinuity does not appear to be undocumented), or

        * the most common undocumented changepoint date within the uncertainty window (meaning the discontinuity appears to be truly undocumented)​
    5. Finally, multiple pairwise estimates of relative step change magnitude are re-calculated (as a simple difference in mean) at all documented and undocumented discontinuities attributed to the target series. The range of the pairwise estimates for each target step change is used to calculate confidence limits for the magnitude of the discontinuity. Adjustments are made to the target series using the estimates for each shift in the series.

Estimation of Missing Values

Following the homogenization process, estimates for missing data are calculated using a weighted average of values from highly correlated neighboring stations. The weights are determined using a procedure similar to the SHAP routine. This program, called FILNET, uses the results from the TOB and homogenization algorithms to obtain a more accurate estimate of the climatological relationship between stations. The FILNET program also estimates data across intervals in a station record where discontinuities occur in a short time interval, which prevents the reliable estimation of appropriate adjustments.

Urbanization Effects

In the original HCN, the regression-based approach of Karl et al. (1988) was employed to account for urban heat islands. In contrast, no specific urban correction is applied in HCN version 2 because the change-point detection algorithm effectively accounts for any "local" trend at any individual station. In other words, the impact of urbanization and other changes in land use is likely small in HCN version 2. Figure 2 - the minimum temperature time series for Reno, Nevada - provides anecdotal evidence in this regard. In brief, the black line represents unadjusted data, and the blue line represents fully adjusted data. The unadjusted data clearly indicate that the station at Reno experienced both major step changes (e.g., a move from the city to the airport during the 1930s) and trend changes (e.g., a possible growing urban heat island beginning in the 1970s). In contrast, the fully adjusted (homogenized) data indicate that both the step-type changes and the trend changes have been effectively addressed through the change-point detection process used in HCN version 2.





Figure 1. (a) Mean annual unadjusted and fully adjusted minimum temperatures at Reno, Nevada. Error bars indicating the magnitude of uncertainty (±1 standard error) were calculated via 100 Monte Carlo simulations that sampled within the range of the pairwise estimates for the magnitude of each inhomogeneity; (b) difference between minimum temperatures at Reno and the mean from its 10 nearest neighbors.

Station Siting and U.S. Surface Temperature Trends

Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the USHCN has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS).

To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, Menne et al. (2010) compared trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations using both unadjusted and bias-adjusted data. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years (see e.g., Menne et al. 2009). Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (cool) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (warm) bias in minimum temperatures.

Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (cool) bias appears to remain in the adjusted USHCN version 2 CONUS average maximum temperature. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). This network was designed with the highest standards for climate monitoring and has none of the siting and instrument exposure problems present in USHCN. The close correspondence in nationally averaged temperature from these two networks is further evidence that the adjusted USHCN data provide an accurate measure of the U.S. temperature.

The Menne et al. (2010) results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data which do not indicate that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

Four sets of USCHN stations were used in the Menne et al. (2010) analysis, and these are available via the following direct links to the NCDC web site and will open in a separate browser window. Set 1 includes stations identified as having good siting by the volunteers at surfacestations.org. Set 2 is a subset of set 1 consisting of the set 1 stations whose ratings are in general agreement with an independent assessment by NOAAs National Weather Service. Set 3 are those stations with moderate to poor siting ratings according to surfacestations.org. Set 4 is a subset of set 3 consisting of the set 3 stations whose ratings are in agreement with an independent assessment by NOAAs National Weather Service. For further information, please see Menne et al. (2010). The set of Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor (MMTS) stations and Cotton Region Shelter (Stevenson Screen) sites used in Menne et al. (2010) are also available. Access to the unadjusted, time of observation adjusted, and fully adjusted USHCN version 2 temperature data is described in the DATA ACCESS section below.*


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 9, 2013)

Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder.  In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.

Have you ever heard of distilling?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder.  In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.
> 
> Have you ever heard of distilling?



Distilling woud require actually understanding the material.  He doesn't.  He doesn't have a clue that the material he just posted doesn't answer the question or give a valid, scientifically rational reason for lowering temperatures more than half a century old back to nearly a century and a quarter ago.  He simply accepts without rational justification for the change and doesn't grasp the topic enough to wonder why so many months prior to 1960 were cooled while as many months after 1959 were warmed.  If he had even an inkling of actual knowledge, he would be asking the question himself.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder.  In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.
> 
> Have you ever heard of distilling?



Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "_basis for the "adjustments"_" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "_Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?_".

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you nitwits are just toooo funny......


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder.  In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.
> ...



Your whole position is based on the rather insane presumption that that tens of thousands of scientists all around the world are all involved in and keeping silent about a conspiracy to deliberately alter the temperature record data but you're too insane to realize that nobody with any brains or good sense believes your paranoid conspiracy theories. If you actually knew any real scientists or knew anything about science in general, you wouldn't be duped by the fossil fuel industry propaganda on this subject. Unfortunately you are a really, really ignorant and extremely retarded rightwingnutjob who is easily fooled by by nonsense so ridiculous that even ordinary morons would recognize it to be total BS.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 9, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "_basis for the "adjustments"_" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "_Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?_".



I would ask you if you even read what you posted but I am sure that you did.  To bad you didn't understand it.  Here, from your own source:



> The unadjusted data clearly indicate that the station at Reno experienced both major step changes (e.g., a move from the city to the airport during the 1930s) and trend changes (e.g., a possible growing urban heat island beginning in the 1970s).



If they know that they had a growing heat island issue in the 70's, why raise post 1960 temperatures and why lower early temperatures prior to any heat island problem?

Further, they state that most of the adustments are necessary due to a change over to electronic instrumentation 25 years ago.  I am asking about massive cooling of  temperature records prior to 1960...and if 1970 marks the known beginning of a heat island problem, why have so many months post 1960 been warmed?  The adjustments being made are the exact opposite of what should be happening.  The present is being warmed even though a known heat island problem exists.

Now again, describe a rational, scientifically sound reason for lowering the temperatures prior to 1960 and raising the temperatures post 1959.  Here is a clue for you....There is no rational, scientifically sound reason.




RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you nitwits are just toooo funny......



And you are just stupid with obviousl emotional problems.  It isn't funny though.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 9, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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




Thats right s0n......30,000 scientists have taken the oath of secrecy to protect the oil lobbby.


Shit.....they even own decoder rings!!!!!! Heres an ad from their website.........


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 9, 2013)

OK.....denialists must admit......Thunder here has now broken the big secret about the 30,000 scientists having a secret society. Dang.....no wonder he has a magazine in is name!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "_basis for the "adjustments"_" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "_Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?_".
> ...


Why would I know that kind of fine detail about the techniques they're using? I don't need to know that stuff to know that all of these many, many scientists all around the world, working for many agencies and governments and universities, are doing the appropriate things for valid scientific reasons. Your conspiracy theory is incredibly absurd and full of holes but you are just too retarded to grasp that fact. The claims you make about the balance of the temperature adjustments may be just more lies and distortions of fact cooked up by the FFI propagandists or they may even be somewhat true but it makes no difference either way to me. You see everything climate scientists do as 'evidence' of this imaginary conspiracy and I think you're a brainwashed, scientifically ignorant , very retarded crackpot who is also a conspiracy theory nutjob. Of course, studies have shown that denial of AGW is strongly linked to belief in wacko conspiracy theories. LOL.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Why would I know that kind of fine detail about the techniques they're using?



Which cuts right to the chase, doesn't it.  You don't know.  In fact, you know so little that the question never occured to you.  You post some drivel that is describing raising modern temperatures when a known warm heat island bias is equally well known...then they lower past temperatures for no apparent reason....the result?....the artifically warmed present looks even warmer when contrasted to the artifically cooled past.



RollingThunder said:


> I don't need to know that stuff to know that all of these many, many scientists all around the world, working for many agencies and governments and universities, are doing the appropriate things for valid scientific reasons.



You only need to know if you respect the scientific method and want to understand what is being done and why.  Clearly you don't.  It is good of you to finally admit, after all this time that you really don't know jack and simply accept what you are being told on faith rather than any actual knowledge.

Of course we already knew that but it is good of you to finally admit the fact.




RollingThunder said:


> Your conspiracy theory is incredibly absurd and full of holes but you are just too retarded to grasp that fact.



Interesting that you are calling it a conspiracy theory right after having admitted that you dobn't know jack about the issue.  Again, you are making proclamations based on nothing more than your political leanings and faith...not any sort of knowledge.




RollingThunder said:


> The claims you make about the balance of the temperature adjustments may be just more lies and distortions of fact cooked up by the FFI propagandists or they may even be somewhat true but it makes no difference either way to me.



We both know that they are true and everyone knows that it makes no difference to you.  Scientific fact has never made any difference to you.  Your position is based on your political leanings...not what you know and understand about the science.  Of course scientific fact doesn't matter to you.  Even a tacit admission on your part that you realize that the present has been artificially warmed and the past has been artifically cooled doesn't matter to you.  What matters to you is a political agenda and whatever sees it through is fine with you...even if it sets science back a century.




RollingThunder said:


> You see everything climate scientists do as 'evidence' of this imaginary conspiracy and I think you're a brainwashed, scientifically ignorant , very retarded crackpot who is also a conspiracy theory nutjob. Of course, studies have shown that denial of AGW is strongly linked to belief in wacko conspiracy theories. LOL.



I don't see any grand conspiracy.  I see a few bad eggs doing bad science that a whole field accepts as good science.  The result is an error cascade.  That is when bad science is accepted as good science and becomes the basis for most, if not all, future research.  It isn't a conspiracy...it is the result of shoddy work, and acceptance of baseless assumptions as fact coupled with a political agenda.  It has happened in fields that are rightly classified as hard sciences...it is easy to see how it might happen in a soft science field like climatology.

There is no conspiracy...there is an error cascade.  Learn the difference.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 10, 2013)

> Scientific fact has never made any difference to you. Your position is based on your political leanings.



Says the person flat out refusing to read a scientific article on ocean temperatures. 

Give it up, SSDD, you won't read science. Fact.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder.  In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.
> ...



Stop.  You're making an even more enormous fool of yourself.

It's just a fact.  You could post the same information without making the font so large.  Doing it the way you do is visual clutter.  But it serves no legitimate purpose.  You are no more persuasive.

And the fact that you won't distill the torrent of words down to a more discreet snippet is indeed an indication tht you simply lack the ability to understand (or explain) what the words you post mean.

Have you failed , even at this late moment, to realize how silly you come across?  Nobody with a working brain cell buys the bullshit you attempt to re-sell.  You are pretty poor at marketing that AGW nonsense since you don't even understand the most basic of flaws in the "science" it "uses."


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


I suppose it is just another symptom of how extremely delusional you are, IlieMostly, that you can't see you are the one making "_an even more enormous fool of yourself_" with every braindead post you make. I just help that process along by debunking the misinformation, lies, conspiracy theory nonsense, and rightwingnut denier cult myths you parrot on this forum.







IlarMeilyr said:


> It's just a fact.  You could post the same information without making the font so large.  Doing it the way you do is visual clutter.  But it serves no legitimate purpose.  You are no more persuasive.


I do certain things to the information that I am citing as *evidence* in order to emphasize the fact that it is actual EVIDENCE and not just my own words. Although I speak accurately about the science in my own words, many people, like you and the other denier cultists, just try to push a lot of hot air based on nothing but your own very ignorant opinions. I back up what I say with citations and quotes from reputable scientific sources or from mainstream news articles about scientific studies and reports with quotes from the scientists and links to the original research. If you and the other denier dimwits even bother to try to include 'evidence' to support your blather, you quote denier cult blogs or articles from some worthless third rate rag of a tabloid written by some notorious denier cult reporter.

Because you and the other denier nutjobs are so stupid and misinformed and seem to have such thick skulls, I format the info I quote in a similar manner to a newspaper or magazine article, with a headline and an emphasized body of text, to try and drive the points home. I guess you're unfamiliar with this style because you're too retarded to ever read magazines or newspapers. Or else this is just another of your attempts to divert attention to something irrelevant right after your lies get debunked. Too bad you don't like *emphasized facts*, you pathetic little cretin, 'cause I do like doing it this way and I'm going to continue. 






IlarMeilyr said:


> And the fact that you won't distill the torrent of words down to a more discreet snippet is indeed an indication tht you simply lack the ability to understand (or explain) what the words you post mean.


You know, I think you're actually sooooo stupid you don't comprehend the point of posting supporting evidence from actual scientific sources. I understand what the articles and reports I cite mean, which is why I can match the material I use to debunk your lies to the specific lie you're trying to push at the time. I'm providing evidence from the sources to counter the pseudo-scientific drivel you post but you'll have to find someone else to dumb down the scientific reports enough for you to understand them (if that's even humanly possible).








IlarMeilyr said:


> Have you failed , even at this late moment, to realize how silly you come across?


Are you still in high school? We're debating the validity of modern climate science, not trying to win a popularity contest.







IlarMeilyr said:


> Nobody with a working brain cell buys the bullshit you attempt to re-sell.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....that is just so ironically humorous.....and you're soooo blind to the humor.....






IlarMeilyr said:


> You are pretty poor at marketing that AGW nonsense since you don't even understand the most basic of flaws in the "science" it "uses."


I understand that you are a brainwashed retard who's been duped into seeing some supposed "_flaws_" in a vast body of intensively well researched science that is supported and affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community. I understand that you are a poor deluded nutjob who believes in the most absurd conspiracy theories. I understand that you and the other AGW denier cultists are the present day equivalent of the 'Flat Earth Society' in terms of your rejection of science and evidence in favor of faith based circular thinking. I understand that you and the other crackpot deniers are a joke to almost everyone with any knowledge of science or an IQ higher than room temperature.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



You suppose?  Your suppositions are all you have.  And one is worse than another.

You are living proof of life after brain death.

SSDD has thoroughly kicked your ass and you are too dumb to realize how badly you lost.

And I just play with you like a cat plays with a grasshopper, just to see you wet yourself.  You are far too verbose and way the hell too easily rattled.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOL.....just more of your delusional twaddle.....and just as completely meaningless as the rest of your nonsense......poor little retarded troll.....


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



You remain WAY too verbose and you are still much too easily agitated.  

I'll have a visiting nurse bring you some Midol, you poor pathetic substance-lacking dishonest AGW cult full of faith believer whack job.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Scientific fact has never made any difference to you. Your position is based on your political leanings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I read the paper...the entire paper which you clearly didn't otherwise you would have realized that it was typical climate science slop and was in essence a statement on the output of computer models as I stated originally.  

I provided plenty of information about your substandard paper on the thread where it was posted.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> You remain WAY too verbose and you are still much too easily agitated.



Like a train wreck isn't he.  He has these great big red buttons that are so easy to push.  Push the button and watch the monkey over react.  I have seen it for quite some time now and it just never gets boring.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOLOL.....just more of your delusional twaddle.....and just as completely meaningless as the rest of your nonsense......poor little retarded troll.....
> ...



Don't look now but you're starting to lose it, little retard. Watch out, you might have another spaz attack and start twitching and gibbering. Oh, wait, I forgot, that's how you act all the time.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Progress.  I got the idiot to cut down his pussy bitching to just a few lines.

He still has nothing of any value to say.  But now it takes fewer words for him to say nothing.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Progress.  I got the idiot to cut down his pussy bitching to just a few lines.
> 
> He still has nothing of any value to say.  But now it takes fewer words for him to say nothing.



I sort of enjoy the near panicked handwaving, big letters and all.  It is as if he is wearing a clown costume over a monkey costume.  Great entertainment...and the fact that he actually believes he is making a good impression is......well, its just priceless.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I sort of enjoy the near panicked handwaving, big letters and all.  It is as if he is wearing a clown costume over a monkey costume.  Great entertainment...and the fact that he actually believes he is making a good impression is......well, its just priceless.




Not really interested in "_making a good impression_" on worthless retards like you and your denier cult butt-buddies.

I am interested in debunking your lies and myths and I doing a great job on that. Not that a brainwashed retard like you would be able to comprehend just how badly you're getting your ass whipped. You do, after all, specialize in mindless denial of reality.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Scientific fact has never made any difference to you. Your position is based on your political leanings.
> ...



And I thank you for reading it - I think it is the first time in perhaps a year of posting here that you have read material posted by another poster. 

Of course you only read it from a political perspective, but even so....progress!!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I sort of enjoy the near panicked handwaving, big letters and all.  It is as if he is wearing a clown costume over a monkey costume.  Great entertainment...and the fact that he actually believes he is making a good impression is......well, its just priceless.
> ...



Well...you have failed on both accounts.  I am sure in your troubled mind you tell yourself that you are doing just fine.  But what we see is a desperate little kid who can't hide his feelings of inferiority, intimidation,  and fear from the grownups who grossly overcompensates at every chance.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> And I thank you for reading it - I think it is the first time in perhaps a year of posting here that you have read material posted by another poster.
> 
> Of course you only read it from a political perspective, but even so....progress!!



I read all that you post siagon and really can't understand why you continue to lie about it.  I read it and that is why I can state specifically why it isn't convincing and ask you pointed questions that you remain unable to answer.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

SSDD -

Right. If you actually read the science posted here, you would be able to discuss it sensibly. 

By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.

You reaction to any science posted here is rarely more than "no,no,no,no,no". You have a very long list of reasons why you will not read any given document, and I have seen you once concede that a valid point might have been made. 

That proves to me that your interest isn't actually in the science at all. If it was, you'd be keen to read, and keen to learn new things, no?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

SSDD - 

I also have to say that your lack of apparentl interest in science is VERY apparent when you say things like drought not being consistent with climate change science. This shows VERY clearly that you simply aren't listening and aren't reading. 

Closed-mindedness does not help you understand this at all, you know.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. If you actually read the science posted here, you would be able to discuss it sensibly.
> 
> ...



Till you can answer my questions, there is no common ground.  That is why I ask the questions.  Provide reasonable, scientifically sound answers and perhaps there might be some common ground.  But you can't do that, can you?  You don't understand the paper.  You just believe it because of your political leanings.  To you, a discussion of the science is nothing more than a circle jerk where you and your buds talk about how great the science that you don't understand is.

And again, liar...I read it all and ask specific and pointed questions which you remain unable to answer.

At this point you are just mewling and trying unsuccessfully to cover the blatantly obvious fact that you don't get the science and aren't able to discuss it at even a basic level.


----------



## IanC (Mar 11, 2013)

hey SSDD-  TallBloke has gone over to the dark side. hahahahahaha


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> hey SSDD-  TallBloke has gone over to the dark side. hahahahahaha



I saw that Roger, Anthony and Joseph had a triangle going over Joseph's trashing of Willis's rediculous steel greenhouse mind experiment.  I have to say that I think Joseph has them on the ropes because they can't explain the parts of the experiment that they simply assume to be true.  There is a great deal with regards to the physics of radiation that climate science simply assumes to be true with no empirical evidence to support the belief whatsoever.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



Actually, you rarely ask questions at all. 

What you do most is to refuse to read. I can't count how many excuses you have posted to not look at scientific studies, but either way it does ensure debate with you is generally pointless. You simply will not discuss the topic. 

Refusing to read the work of the British Antarctic Survey is smply childish, as you realise yourself, I'm sure.

This isn't a political issue for me at all. Outside the US it rarely is political. Conservative parties here all back the science, and save the arguments for the solutions. 

As for understanding, I don't claim to understand a great deal of physics, which is why I tend to be guided by what excellent professionals in the field tell me. I've met a couple personally, and found their hard work and ethical approach impressive. Certainly I lack the arrogance to assume I know more than the American society of physicists - if you were a little smarter you might wonder why you think you do.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.



Actually, I ask qustions all the time.  You just can't answer them.  As to the conclusions, the conclusions are meaningless if the methodology is substandard.  You clearly can't discuss the methodology which is the science, not the conclusions.  

I ask you lots of questions and you simply move on as if they were never asked...we both know that it is because you can't discuss the science because you don't understand it.  

This is a perfect example.  You want to discuss conclusions because you assume them to be accurate.  You can't discuss the "science" that was used to reach those conclusions.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.
> ...




LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....that is sooooo funny.....you are completely blind to the fact that you aren't any where near being scientifically qualified or competent to judge the methodologies being used by the real scientists, or to realistically "_discuss the science_". You tell Saigon that "_you can't discuss the science because you don't understand it_" but in fact, you are far too ignorant, retarded, misinformed and brainwashed to understand the science. You parrot the anti-science propaganda cooked up by the fossil fuel industry but you're too stupid and ignorant about science to realize how absurd that drivel actually is.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

SSDD - 

I don't see the value in you pretending to know more science than anyone else in the room on one thread - and insisting drought is inconsistent with climate change on another. 

This is not the first time you've shown that you have very little grasp of some fairly basic points - remember when you asked why the Arctic would behave differently from the Antarctic?!

It's like you demanding all sources are peer-reviewed, appear in scientific journals and are genuinely academic - and then using politicians blogs as sources yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I don't see the value in you pretending to know more science than anyone else in the room on one thread - and insisting drought is inconsistent with climate change on another.
> 
> ...



I don't pretend to know more than anyone in the room...that is your position.  I do know from empirical evidence that I know more than you and thunder and rocks since none of you are capable of even beginning to discuss the topic in your own words.  

If you had a grasp of the science you would know that a warmer world will be a more moist world and drought is not characteristic of a more moist world.  Paleorecords show us this over and over.  You are depending on notoriously inaccurate models which predict catastrophic drought in a warmer world because that is what they were told to predict.


----------



## IanC (Mar 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.
> ...




I'm not sure if we can accurately say that he is not capable of discussing the science in his own words. it may very well be that he is clever enough not to answer direct questions because he knows that he will quickly find himself painted into a corner. that is why there have not been any face-to-face debates since Gavin Schmidt was trounced in the IQ2 debate.



> Global Warming is Not a Crisis
> 
> 
> Pre-debate Poll Results
> ...



Global Warming is Not a Crisis ? IQ2 Debates


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

> I do know from empirical evidence that I know more than you and thunder and rocks



And yet you didn't know that Antarctica is a land mass surrounded by water; and that the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. 

Interesting. 

Hilarious, and interesting.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

Ian - 

Globally, around 2/3 of people accept climate change science, rising to more than 90% in areas where the impact is very clear. Countries with stronger education systems show stronger acceptance of the science (Japan, Korea, Scandinavia). 

A recent European survey of 30 countries asked people to list 3 threats facing humanity. Climate change was the 2nd most popular reply (after recession), with around 70% of people listing it. 

Like it or not - the message IS getting through. 

As for answering questions - I only answer those which seem genuine. That excludes almost all of SSDD's.


----------



## IanC (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> Globally, around 2/3 of people accept climate change science, rising to more than 90% in areas where the impact is very clear. Countries with stronger education systems show stronger acceptance of the science (Japan, Korea, Scandinavia).
> 
> ...




concensus means nothing to me. I only care about what makes sense to _me!_ 

I believe the globe has warmed since the LIA. I believe that mankind has introduced CO2 into the air, that any disturbance of equilibrium causes change of some sort, therefore CO2 has some impact.

I also believe that climate has always changed, with the solar influence probably being the most powerful. 

CO2 CAGW theory has been shown to be unskillful in describing reality. it produces large exaggerations, which lead to exaggerated conclusions, which lead to predictions of doom.

a question- if CO2 was to cause one degree warming this century would you be upset enough to spend trillions of dollars while making things worse on the poor of the world? or would you say "I dont like it but at least we will probably develop a new technology in that time to ameliorate conditions"?

do you know what I would do if I was in charge of climate science? even if I was a 'true believer'? I would replace the massively exaggerated predictions of methane with realistic ones that are consistent with reality, thereby knocking off a quarter of the doomsday projections, multiplied out to catastrope.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

Ian - 

I don't disagree with much of your comments there - I would definitely agree that there have been exaggerations. Unfortunately I think some of those exaggerations led people to believe scientists were guessing or were lying, rather than simply seeing them as indicating a correct trend, but with more alarmism than was necessary. 

The 1 degree shift will not influence our life times terribly much, and nor will rising sea levels. But they may have a profound impact on agriculture and infratructure - and already are having in some parts of the world. I don't think the concern about the climate is based on our lifetimes, though. For me it isnt, anyway. But I am concerned about what happens a couple of generations from now. What do our grandchildren need to know to live in their world in the year 2200, and what can we do to ensure their life is tolerable. 

The fact is that rising temperatures already are having a profound effect on the way people live in Spain, Australia, Peru, Bangladesh and Mozambique. Those effects need to be managed, beginning in 2013. 

I simply do not understand why this has become a political issue when the consequences of ignoring those effects amount to committing economic suicide. I'm so glad that in Finland the debate has simply never been a political one.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 12, 2013)

While there are those that exagerate anything, the majority of the scientists making predictions concerning the effects of the warming have been far too conservative. The estimates for the polar ice melt 13 years ago were for an ice free Arctic Ocean by around 2100. Now it looks like that will be by 2020, if not sooner. The predictions for major weather affects on crops was for 2050. We are seeing that right now. Sea level rise is running right at the top of the worst case prediction. 

But, as I have stated many times in the pasts, it will take a devastating catastrophe in this nation before the eyes will be opened to what is obvious. And when that happens, the very first thing out of the mouths of todays sceptics will be "Why didn't the scientists warn us?".


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > I do know from empirical evidence that I know more than you and thunder and rocks
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What pathology makes you lie every time you speak?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> While there are those that exagerate anything, the majority of the scientists making predictions concerning the effects of the warming have been far too conservative. The estimates for the polar ice melt 13 years ago were for an ice free Arctic Ocean by around 2100. Now it looks like that will be by 2020, if not sooner. The predictions for major weather affects on crops was for 2050. We are seeing that right now. Sea level rise is running right at the top of the worst case prediction.
> 
> But, as I have stated many times in the pasts, it will take a devastating catastrophe in this nation before the eyes will be opened to what is obvious. And when that happens, the very first thing out of the mouths of todays sceptics will be "Why didn't the scientists warn us?".



What are we seeing at present that is outside the range of natural variability?  What are we seeing at present that has not happened in the past?  Where is the human fingerprint?

Just actual evidence please...no model simulations.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The 1 degree shift will not influence our life times terribly much, and nor will rising sea levels. But they may have a profound impact on agriculture and infratructure - and already are having in some parts of the world.



Describe these "profound" effects you believe will happen and list those that you believe are already happening and where they are supposedly happening.

The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas The fact is that rising temperatures already are having a profound effect on the way people live in Spain, Australia, Peru, Bangladesh and Mozambique. Those effects need to be managed, beginning in 2013. [/quote]

Describe those effects and state whether you believe the modern temperatures in those places are unprecedented in history.  And how do you manage an effect when you don't know the cause?

The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas I simply do not understand why this has become a political issue when the consequences of ignoring those effects amount to committing economic suicide. I'm so glad that in Finland the debate has simply never been a political one.[/QUOTE]

Money is the cause.  Hundreds of billions rapidly approaching trillions.  It is about money and power and using pseudoscience and fearmongering to grab more of both.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

> Describe these "profound" effects you believe will happen and list those that you believe are already happening and where they are supposedly happening.



I am happy to answer this in some detail, but only at such point that you actually commit to reading the material thoroughly and responding to it sensibly. 

btw, Why do you keep posting;



> The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> We are seeing that right now. Sea level rise is running right at the top of the worst case prediction.



Dangerous sea level rise is a myth.  Here are a few peer reviewed published papers that state as much.  At some point, you guys are simply going to have to realize that model predictions are not actual observational data.

ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review



> new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews is the "First synthesis of post-glacial sea level data around Australia in over 25 years," and shows that sea levels around Australia were from about 1 to 2.5 meters higher than the present 7000 years ago during the Holocene Thermal Maximum [which lasted 4000 years between 9000 to 5000 years ago].




Sea level trends, interannual and decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean - Zhang - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library



> A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that much of the observed variation in Pacific Ocean sea levels is explained by natural ocean oscillations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO]. The authors caution that sea level trends over the short period observed by satellites [less than 20 years] can be erroneously biased by this natural variability.




ScienceDirect.com - Earth and Planetary Science Letters - Nineteenth and twentieth century sea-level changes in Tasmania and New Zealand



> According to a paper published last week in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, the rate of sea level rise in the Southwest Pacific region (Tasmania & New Zealand) dropped by a factor of 6 from 4.2 mm/yr between 1900-1950 to only 0.7 mm/yr between 1951-2000.




http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLe..._NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf



> According to the latest NOAA sea level budget, global sea levels rose at only 1.1 - 1.3 mm/year from 2005-2012, which is less than half of the rate claimed by the IPCC [3.1 mm/yr] and is equivalent to less than 5 inches per century.




An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



> paper published this week in The Journal of Climate finds the "settled" belief that warming due to 'radiative forcing' from 'greenhouse gases' is causing the seas to rise is not supported by observational data.




Boretti, A.A. 2012. Short term comparison of climate model predictions and satellite altimeter measurements of sea levels. Coastal Engineering 60: 319-322.




> A paper published in Coastal Engineering finds the rate of sea level rise has greatly decelerated over the past 10 years, which "is clearly the opposite of what is being predicted by the models," and that "the [sea level rise] reduction is even more pronounced during the last 5 years."


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Describe these "profound" effects you believe will happen and list those that you believe are already happening and where they are supposedly happening.
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to answer this in some detail, but only at such point that you actually commit to reading the material thoroughly and responding to it sensibly.



I didn't really expect an answer from you and you didn't dissappoint.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

SSDD - 

You aren't interested in the topic, and we both know you won't look at the answer. You have just basically said as much.

So why do you ask?

It's just like with the Antarctic material - you demanded I posted the material, and as soon as I did so you spent a week coming up with increasingly hilarious reasons why you could refuse to look at it.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

It's good to see SSDD be honest about:

a) what his last google search was

b) his real interests in life



SSDD said:


> *The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas *The fact is that rising temperatures already are having a profound effect on the way people live in Spain, Australia, Peru, Bangladesh and Mozambique. Those effects need to be managed, beginning in 2013.
> 
> 
> *The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas I* simply do not understand why this has become a political issue when the consequences of ignoring those effects amount to committing economic suicide. I'm so glad that in Finland the debate has simply never been a political one.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> You aren't interested in the topic, and we both know you won't look at the answer. You have just basically said as much.
> 
> ...



You claimed "profound" effects.  When asked what profound effects, you dodge the question because there are no "profound" effects happening anywhere that can be laid at the feet of climate change...much less AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> It's good to see SSDD be honest about:
> 
> a) what his last google search was
> 
> b) his real interests in life



What a petty piece of shit you are.  

If you must know....perhaps because you would like a book so you can see what one looks like.....my wife informed me that it was an item she ordered for a collegue who is retiring soon.  He stated that he is off to begin his second childhood so the people in her section are putting together a "toy box" for one who is in his second childhood and everyone knows how much children like to color.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

SSDD - 

Right. I guess a lot of kids books would have the word "vagina" in the title. It makes sense. 




> The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. I guess a lot of kids books would have the word "vagina" in the title. It makes sense.
> 
> ...








You truly are a loon aren't you.  There have been no "profound" effects anywhere on the planet.  The Met Office, the IPCC, and Hansen have all had to admit that the temps have been flat for at least 16 years so where is all this profound effect originating from....when there is no warming....


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

Westwall - 

2012 was the hottest year in American history, and 9th hottest year globally. 

That is having a profound effect on a dozen countries today, such as Spain, Australia, Bangladesh, Peru, Chile, Mozambique and Argentina. The impact is felt through increased frequency and strength of floods, droughts, glacial melt reducing the availabilibty of water, rising sea levels and so forth. 

Did you know New Zealand had never had a tornado prior to 2005? Now they have had two causing fatalities in the same place in the last five years. This means building codes and emergency services need to factor tornados into their MO's. 

It's not difficult stuff, this. I can't imagine why you guys struggle over things any high school student could explain.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...




weather shaman al gore says snowfall in the wintertime 

is a sure sign of climate change 

it is also note worthy that warm breezes 

in the summertime also signals that the end is near 

is it global warming or climate change 

since daylight savings sprang ahead 

it switches to one or the other 

--LOL

the one thing certain is that the evil republicans with the sequester plan 

has added to it


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> 2012 was the hottest year in American history, and 9th hottest year globally.
> 
> ...







No it wasn't.  Hansen stated that last year was 9th warmest or thereabouts, I don't rmember his exact placement..

As far as your claim about Kiwi tornado's I suggest you try reading some history otherwise it makes you look real, real stupid...of course with you that's a state of being I guess...

"Tornadoes in New Zealand are typically of that size, they're nothing like the size that are observed in the Midwest of the US,'' he told Radio New Zealand.

"So while it's a tragic and devastating event for the area it's passed over, in the broader scheme of things it's a relatively small tornado.''

Another tornado struck Albany 20 years ago in May 1991, killing one man who was hit by debris while he was driving a bulldozer."


Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

> No it wasn't. Hansen stated that last year was 9th warmest or thereabouts, I don't rmember his exact placement..



Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post


Thanks for proving my point with the tornados. NZ had never suffered a fatality from a tornado prior to that first Albany storm. With the 1991 storm, that makes three since then, and all hitting the same area. The torandos might not be mid-west size, but people I know who live in the area are understandably concerned about house prices, safety and the threat of more storms in future. Do you know Albany well? A storm hitting the Hobsonville-Greenhithe bridge could be devastasting, and that is exactly the path the last two tornados took. 

btw. Herald Sun is NOT a New Zealand source. I usually use the NZ Herald.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > No it wasn't. Hansen stated that last year was 9th warmest or thereabouts, I don't rmember his exact placement..
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Ummmm, no.  Amazingly enough NOAA gets their info from this guy and he says different.


An update through 2012 of our global analysis reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998. 
The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the facr that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.



http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

And, of course, he can only make that claim by going back into the historical record and falsifying the temp data from the 1930's which were MUCH warmer than today.  But those are facts and you wipe your ass with facts.

As far as the KIWI tornados go, I proved nothing you fucking idiot.  You claimed they had never had a tornado before and clearly they have.  Furthermore mr. journalist they have had fatalities before.  My gosh but you really are a imbecile.  A simple google search turns up these tornados.  I havn't even bothered to do an in depth search.

People like you really piss me off you know that...you know NOTHING and try and denigrate those who are massively more informed and competent than you.  Go piss off and take your fucking retarded spam with you.  You are worthless, absolutely fucking worthless.


Parnell tornado

December 1863

Parnell, New Zealand

-

0 fatalities, numerous injuries

Tornado passed through part of Auckland suburb of Parnell destroying every building, and
 uprooting every tree it came across causing a total of £5,000 in damage.[101]



Frankton (Hamilton) tornado

25 August 1948

Waikato, New Zealand

-

3 fatalities, 80 injuries

F2 damages; 163 buildings and 50 businesses[citation needed].



Halswell tornado

19 January 1983

Halswell, Christchurch, New Zealand

-

0 fatalities, unknown injured

Part of a severe storm to strike Christchurch. Authorities didn't believe reports made by citizens. Few buildings were damaged.[citation needed]



Albany tornado

May 1991

Albany, New Zealand

-

1 fatality, unknown injured

Local church destroyed. One man driving a bulldozer was killed by flying debris.[102]



Waitara tornado [1]

15 August 2004

Taranaki, New Zealand

-

2 fatalities, 2 serious injured

The casualties occurred when a farmhouse was demolished by the tornado. Several power lines were taken out, affecting 6,662 consumers. Media reports included debris &#8216;spread over an area 400 metres long by 50 metres wide&#8217;, although other media outlets described the track length as being greater than 1 km.



New Plymouth tornado

4 July 2007

New Plymouth, New Zealand

-

0 fatalities

A series of tornadoes ripped through the New Plymouth district of New Zealand, damaging 50 homes and rendering 70&#8211;80% of them uninhabitable. One person was injured, and several were trapped inside vehicles by powerlines.[103]



Auckland tornado

3 May 2011

Auckland, New Zealand

-

1 fatality, 14 injuries

A tornado struck the Auckland suburb of Albany, killing one person, and injuring many others.[104][105]



New Plymouth tornadoes

19 June 2011

New Plymouth, New Zealand

2 confirmed
 1 unconfirmed

0 fatalities

Two tornadoes struck New Plymouth damaging businesses in the Central Business District, St Mary's Church Hall and a hotel.[106]



Auckland tornado

6 December 2012

Auckland, New Zealand

More than 1

3 fatalities, 7 injuries

A tornado struck the Auckland suburb of Hobsonville, killing three people, and injuring at least seven others.[107]


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

Westwall -

So often talking to you I feel like I am talking to a child. 

Again, 2012 was the hottest year in US history. It was the 9th hottest year globally. See post #233. 

Secondly, New Zealand has had minor tornadoes from time-to-time. There had never been a fatality recorded from a tornado prior to the first albany tornado recently. 

You know, if you read with a view to trying to learn you would find this all very easy. It's only because you are obsessed with trying to find fault in what everyone knows are plain and simple facts that you end up working yourself into a spin.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

> the temp data from the 1930's which were MUCH warmer than today.



You have to laugh don't you?

How on earth can you get yourself so confused?

1934 was the 49th hottest year on record, genius. 

The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 49th).

1934 is the hottest year on record


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> So often talking to you I feel like I am talking to a child.
> 
> ...








You really are a simpleton aren't you.

Frankton (Hamilton) tornado

25 August 1948

Waikato, New Zealand

-

3 fatalities, 80 injuries

F2 damages; 163 buildings and 50 businesses[citation needed].

I highlighted the relevent section for your feeble mind.  Please note the first RECORDED fatalities were from 1948

Got it idiot?

No, I didn't think you would.  You're too stupid.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > the temp data from the 1930's which were MUCH warmer than today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There you go.  You made two assertions and I destroyed both in minutes.  See how easy that is when you are deeling with someone of diminished capacity?

And only idiots like you believe falsified data.  But then you thought it was OK to kill the Jews too.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

Westwall - 

What on EARTH are you talking about?

Please try and post with a little common sense and dignity, otherwise talking with you becomes impossible. 

For the 3rd time - 2012 was the hottest year in US history, and the 9th hottest gobally. 1934 was the 49th hottest year on recod - despite your laughable claim that it was "much" hotter than 2012.



> But then you thought it was OK to kill the Jews too.



This comment says A LOT more about you than it does me. It is almost as stupid as it is offensive.


(btw. I have Israeli permanant residency).


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. I guess a lot of kids books would have the word "vagina" in the title. It makes sense.
> 
> ...



Can you comprehend anything that you read?  Do you think a kid is retiring after 40 years of work?  Do you comprehend the notion of a SECOND childhood?  

Guess not.  You liberals are notorious for your abject lack of a sense of humor.  Tight assed, sour, bitter, wretches describes most liberals that I know.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> You truly are a loon aren't you.  There have been no "profound" effects anywhere on the planet.  The Met Office, the IPCC, and Hansen have all had to admit that the temps have been flat for at least 16 years so where is all this profound effect originating from....when there is no warming....



Diversion is the tactic and anything will do if you simply can't defend the position you have taken.  He gloams onto anything he can think of to avoid substantiating his claims.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> So often talking to you I feel like I am talking to a child.
> 
> Again, 2012 was the hottest year in US history. It was the 9th hottest year globally. See post #233.



Saying it doesn't make it so no matter how magically you think you said it.  2012 was not the hottest year on record and westwall has proven it unarguably.  Look for some other piece of falling sky to wave your hands about.  That one turned out to be an acorn.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> 1934 was the 49th hottest year on record, genius.



He is talking about the temperatures prior to the systematic cooling down of the past and warming of the present.


----------



## IanC (Mar 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hey SSDD-  TallBloke has gone over to the dark side. hahahahahaha
> ...



care to argue about Joe and Willis's argument? I havent actually read the comments at TB or CoS but Joe seems to go off the rails early when he talks about 1.5(^Nth iteration) rather than the straight forward infinite series 1+ (.....1/8 +1/4 +1/2) = 2


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> What on EARTH are you talking about?
> 
> ...








I'm pointing out the same mental acuity that supported the Holocaust is the same mentality that supports the draconian measures to deal with the supposed warming....which it turns out hasn't been happening.

Got it numbskull?  The same lack of critical thinking that led to millions being murdered drives your religion now.  You think it's OK that over 60 million people have died due to malaria because a poorly done study on DDT led to its removal.

Your WHOLE mantra is about death.  "There needs to be fewer people on this planet" remember that mantra?  "There needs to be fewer Jews on this planet", see the similarities?

No, I didn't think you would.

And yes, it was MEANT to be as offensive as your ridiculous posts.  You offend all thinking people.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

> I'm pointing out the same mental acuity that supported the Holocaust is the same mentality that supports the draconian measures to deal with the supposed warming...



Then I am sure you will also see that the mental acuity of Holocaust Denial is exactly the same as the mental acuity that supports Climate Denial.

Holocaust Deniers also claim that historians back their claim, of course. Holocaust Deniers also claim to be the only ones to really understand history, as well. Everyone else has been duped, conned, fooled.

In both cases it isn't difficult to figure out which side is closer to reality.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > I'm pointing out the same mental acuity that supported the Holocaust is the same mentality that supports the draconian measures to deal with the supposed warming...
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Yeah, you would like to think so.  Hence the pejorative term applied to sceptics.  That's why I now call you REVISIONISTS.  Another pejorative that has a Holocaust meaning.  Only with you idiots it applies quite well as you have made an industry out of "revising" the historical temperature record.

Holocaust REVISIONISTS resort to cherry picking the historical references they use, alter that which they don't like, threaten those they disagree with, and are generally of low intelligence and education.

Much like you.

Because you see dear child...we don't want to kill people....you do.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

> Holocaust REVISIONISTS resort to cherry picking the historical references they use,



Right.

It's funny because on another thead some complete gimp just chose ONE physicist from the American Physical Society as an example - while ignoring the position of the entire American Physical Society!

And earlier, some complete nob decided 1934 was THE year in climate to discuss!!

Those guys must drive you nuts!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2013)

IanC said:


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



He has a point when he asks why the geometric progression doesn't continue out of control.  I mean, if the output of the ball inside the hollow sphere increases its output due to the "backradiation" why not continue ad infinitum till the whole system reaches an infinite temperature?  He starts with a planet radiating 235 wm2 and suddenly has a planet radiating 470 wm2.  The whole thing is arbitrary with no mathematical proof whatsoever.

Tallbloke takes the discussion a step further Here when he asks where the actual physics can be found to describe the claimed greenhouse effect.  As expected, he doesn't get much in the way of actual information.

I know you believe that CO2 has some effect, but there just isn't a scrap of actual evidence to support the claim and even if there were some effect (which I don't buy into) it would be so vanishingly small as to be lost in the noise of natural variability.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Holocaust REVISIONISTS resort to cherry picking the historical references they use,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not just one physicist...one of the most respected physicists in the society...


----------



## Saigon (Mar 14, 2013)

SSDD - 

He may well be an excellent physicist as well - but this is EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking Westwall is complaining about, and he is right. 

When you have a community of hundreds of excellent physicists - why focus on the one person who disagrees with the scientific consensus?

He may be right, be may be brilliant and I respect his stand - but why not be honest enough to admit that another hundred brilliant scientists think that he is wrong?


----------



## westwall (Mar 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> He may well be an excellent physicist as well - but this is EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking Westwall is complaining about, and he is right.
> 
> ...








Wrong again nitwit.  The LEADERSHIP of the APS has adopted the position in defiance of the membership.  Do you have the mental ability to understand that very important delineation?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



Most of us have the "_mental ability to understand_" that you are a majorly delusional retard making delusional and very fraudulent claims, much like the 'flat earthers' claiming NASA is suppressing the views of all of the thousands of 'real scientists' who know that the Earth is really flat and the moon landing pictures were faked. LOL. You and your cult of AGW deniers are the new 'Flat Earthers", and you are taken about as seriously as them by everyone who doesn't read the National Enquirer or listen to Rush. Or, in other words, everyone who has an IQ higher than room temperature. The only people who buy your bullshit are the ones who are too stupid to know better.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 14, 2013)

SSDD - 

Please don't post nonsense. If the leadership adopted postions contrary to the wishes of the members, they wouldn't have any members. I am not sure if they actually voted on the issue, but given this organisation is one of literally dozens to make similar statements, only  child would suggest this is done without the views of members being considered.


----------



## IanC (Mar 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


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




I dont know if the effect of CO2 is vanishingly small but I certainly agree with you that it is impossible to separate out from the noise of natural variability.

back to the shell problem...equilibrium will converge to 235W/m2 outside radiation just like before the shell was in place. until equilibrium is reached the deficit of outside radiation will charge the heat sink in the planet.

let me ask you a question. would the inside of the planet be warmer if the planet was made out of asbestos or out of steel? Joe wants to argue the question as a strawman mathematical problem but it is really just an insulated heat sink. the surface has been moved out to the shell, which must radiate 235 out but because it is separated by a vacuum that defeats conduction it is also radiating 235 in. therefore it needs a 470 source.


Joe, and others, have mangled the problem by not including the energy needed to charge the heat sink. in the beginning almost all of the source will be used to warm the planet, only as the planet starts to get much warmer does the shell receive enough radiation to be able to shed anywheres close to 235W/m2. if the energy source from the core stopped it would take a long time for the radiation to space to decrease as the heat sink would be giving up its energy.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



*Forget it this dimwit has no clue what`s going on since 2000 where all the hockey stick graphs stop and he only reads "skeptikalscience.org" crap:*


> What on EARTH are you talking about?
> 
> Please try and post with a little common sense and dignity, otherwise talking with you becomes impossible.
> 
> For the 3rd time - 2012 was the hottest year in US history, and the 9th  hottest gobally. 1934 was the 49th hottest year on recod - despite your  laughable claim that it was "much" hotter than 2012.


Stillstand der Temperatur: Erklärungen für Pause der Klimaerwärmung - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> * Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung*


Translation:
Climate researches are baffled why temperatures have remained stabile ( since 2000 even though CO2 went up)
As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes


> *As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit*
> 
> The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis. NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
> Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.
> ...


The hockey stick math is using a geometric average to get an almost  flat line out of a set of numbers, that vary wildly: for example 1, 7, 3, 6.
It`s not an arithmetic average like (1+7+3+6)/4 = 4.25....
The geometric average is the *nth root* of the *product* of n numbers:
4th root of (1*7*3*6)  = 3.35...a much lower number than the arithmetic average 4.25....*and the up and down variations have been washed out as well*
After all that`s how the IPCC`s beloved Apostle * Svante August Arrhenius *did it when he calculated that the average global temperature should be -16 C without CO2...but Mathematicians  also know that Math was not Arrhenius` specialty...nevertheless the IPCC still does it that way to estimate trends.
"Saigon" sure as shit has no idea else he would have noticed that every time there is hot weather the alarmists don`t apply any math at all. 
When it`s a hot summer a single number is applied against the nth root of the product of n elements, the geometric average ...which yields a *much lower average *than a arithmetic average would be..*.and then apply the arithmetic average of a single number *mixed with the geometric average:


> For the 3rd time - 2012 was the hottest year in US history


And when it was a record cold winter, then they parrot their quack-scientists ...that`s not climate, it`s just weather...*because then, they do apply the geometric average to the record low...*and then there is no talk about it being the nth coldest winter.

That`s why climatologists hate being peer reviewed by people that know math and spot a cheat when they see one.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 14, 2013)

Of the 2,500 Scientists who have submitted papers to the IPCC, only
600 looked at the science involving CO2.
Of that 600, only 308 were a part of the second review process.

Of that 308, only 62 reviewed the last chapter which looked at what to attribute the cause of Climate change to.
Of that 62 only 7 reviewers were independent; and
Of the 7, 2 did not agree with the final statement saying they believed there was a 90% certainty CO2 caused climate
change.
So the major statement of the review saying what
climate change can be attributed to was supported by
just 5 independent scientists - a few less than 2,500
*On the other hand there are over 31,000 independent US
scientists who have signed a petition saying there is no
conclusive evidence CO2* *caused global warming*
Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## polarbear (Mar 14, 2013)

IanC said:


> (1)I dont know if the effect of CO2 is vanishingly small but I certainly agree with you that it is impossible to separate out from the noise of natural variability.
> 
> (2)back to the shell problem...equilibrium will converge to 235W/m2 outside radiation just like before the shell was in place. until equilibrium is reached the deficit of outside radiation will charge the heat sink in the planet.
> 
> ...



1.) In any scientific trace analysis the detection limit standard is set at 2 X the background "noise" 
2.) Don`t forget that a warmer body also radiates heat at a higher rate.
Heat Transfer, Heat Transfer Coefficient | Physics@TutorVista.com


> *Stefan Boltzmann Law*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!*


*Even building contractors are aware of that:*
5-Step Heat Loss Calculation


> Assuming that T1 is 72F and T2 is 5F,   Delta T  =  72F  -  (-5F)  =  72F  +  5F  =  77F
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In this example the "greenhouse" was at 72 F and "outer space" was only 5 F cooler. Even though you can see* how much higher the heat loss is* if you increase the "greenhouse" temperature by only 1 F while leaving the "outer space" the same...but now it`s 6 F lower than the "greenhouse"
Note
The above online calculator is for house wives and works in the normal room temperature range when it is expressed in deg Fahrenheit...by numbers coincidence .
That`s why the web site says 


> For actual calculations, contact your contractor or system designer.


*And they do it using (T1)^4 - (T2)^4 in degrees Kelvin* where T1 is *ALWAYS the HIGHER temperature*
and add this:


> Heat loss through roofs should be *added 15% extra because of radiation to space. *(2) can be modified to:
> _H = 1.15 A U (ti - to)_


*Or measure it *using thermal imaging...
*There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!*














But according to Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment" where he has a colder body warming a hotter one , the hotter one looses even less heat *after it got warmer.
There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!
 * 
*The only way that could happen if Roy manages to heat outer space to get a lower (T1)^4  - (T2)^4 temperature differential *
*It works both ways...not just from air+CO2 back down, but up an out also. 
Up and out outpaces the air+CO2 even without using convection
because there is a temperature gradient of 2 F (drop) per 1000 feet...called the "standard lapse rate".*
*I`ve been around this bend with the AGW fanatics in this forum  before,.*..

*It never occurred to Boltzmann that some day there would be people who are too dumb to realize that in his equation T1^4 - T2^4  T1 was always the higher temperature. *
*Now we got "climatologists" who put the lower Temperature where T1 is and generate "back radiation energy".
*I explained all that over a year ago and even plotted the function T1^4 - T2^2 showing the* direction *of heat transfer if *T1 < T2 = blue line*
and if T1 > T2 = green line

http://www.onlinefunctiongrapher.com/?f=-1*x^4|x^4&xMin=-10.03603&xMax=10.03603&yMin=-15723.02&yMax=16343.02






*There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!*

The red roof thermal image from the outside follows the green function and looks red
The same roof would look blue  with thermal imaging because on the inside it follows the blue function

These pictures are hard to find because nobody wants to crawl  in the attic  lay on his back in a bunch of fiberglass and point a camera at the inside of a roof.
Before Christmas I uploaded a video showing what a thermistor, well insulated from the ambient inside   a 6 inch reflector telescope registers at the focal point when you point it at something cold...because I did not have a thermal imaging cam at hand.



*There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!
 Poophead, RollUnder and Saigon replied "Lolololoh"
* 

but in this video you can see what a surface looks like with thermal imaging when it`s loosing heat....blue
The same area would look red outside

*
Obeying the direction* of heat transfer from hot to cold just like in the graph above when T1 is either higher or lower than T2
*There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!*
*Check out the video at 4:19*
*To see the effect of moisture evaporative cooling *
*The thermal imaging shows a temperature drop between 2 and 5 degrees Celsius**..!!!.Something climatologists prefer not to discuss*
*SSDD and I mentioned this many times...*
*Poophead the fake physicist who kept spelling it "physisist" finally shut up, but Saigon and UndertheRoll replied: "Lolololoh"*
If a building contractor/engineer  would do math like climatologists do it he would be out of business or loose his license in no time.
This is why we got over 31 000 and counting engineers and scientists signing this petition:
Global Warming Petition Project






*31,487 American scientists have signed this      petition,
 including 9,029 with PhDs     
*
*There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!! 
If you got a degree in science I urge you to sign as well








*


----------



## whitehall (Mar 14, 2013)

Star said:


> .
> *Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate*
> 
> 
> ...



Warmies have the issue surrounded. It's a freaking religion to them. They even label people who offer legitimate opposing arguments "deniers" as in "heretics". The Lexus driving "scientists" who rely on government grants are paid to come to the conclusion that American decadence is responsible for droughts in Africa. Could it be that the unusually cold weather we have been experiencing in the last few months is an indication of global cooling? Geological evidence indicates the sun is not a constant source of energy. Unfortunately Ice Ages are  far more common and far, far more devastating to humanity and they are not reversible.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 14, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



*It`s the "warmies" who are REALITY DENIERS.*
See what I mean:


polarbear said:


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



*Now we got "snow experts" that are claiming all that is "evidence of global warming"
*
As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes


> *As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit
> 
> **Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning  the ongoing rise in  atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the  ongoing lack of global  temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing  an even worse global  warming crisis than they have been predicting.*


This is why we got over 31 000 and counting, *REAL scientists* signing this petition:
Global Warming Petition Project






*31,487 American scientists have signed this      petition,
 including 9,029 with PhDs
If you have a degree in REAL science please get the form and join us

Of the 2,500 Scientists who have submitted papers to the IPCC, only 600 looked at the science involving CO2.
Of that 600, only 308 were a part of the second review process.

Of that 308, only 62 reviewed the last chapter which looked at what to attribute the
cause of Climate change to.
Of that 62 only 7 reviewers were independent; and of the 7, 2 did not agree with the final
statement saying they believed there was a 90% certainty CO2 caused climate
change.
So the major statement of the review saying what climate change can be attributed to was supported by
just 5 independent scientists - that`s quite a few less than 2,500..!!!!
On the other hand there are over 31,000 independent US scientists who have signed a petition saying there is no conclusive evidence CO2 causes global warming





 *


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 14, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



it works off of daylight savings time 

when the clocks spring ahead it is global warming 

when they fall back it is climate change 

those two things are consistent 

at one time 99.9 percent of the scientists agreed that the earth was flat 

others knew that the sun circled the earth 

it was a consensus 

they also warned that if you sailed too far west 

you would simply fall of the planet 

--LOL


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> He may well be an excellent physicist as well - but this is EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking Westwall is complaining about, and he is right.
> 
> ...



He has shown the mathematical justification for disregarding the claimed greenhouse effect.  How about you show the mathematical justification for accepting it.  Good luck with that because after all this time, and the billions of dollars that have gone down the AGW drain, no mathematical description for the greenhouse effect has ever been put forward.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Please don't post nonsense. If the leadership adopted postions contrary to the wishes of the members, they wouldn't have any members. I am not sure if they actually voted on the issue, but given this organisation is one of literally dozens to make similar statements, only  child would suggest this is done without the views of members being considered.



That was westwall's post, but I agree with him.  The leadership is concerned with money...namely a continuation of funding.  The membership does not get to vote on the public stance the leadership takes and it is true that the bulk of the membership does not hold the same position.  

And the public position was taken without regard to the members postion on the issue.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> let me ask you a question. would the inside of the planet be warmer if the planet was made out of asbestos or out of steel?



Heat isn't the issue....temperature isn't the issue.  Radiation output is the issue and you can not recyle energy within a system to increase radiative output without doing some work.  You simply can't make a power source radiate more energy than it has available by reflecting its own expended energy back towards it.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD - 

Well, obviously you know the thing with funding is just a joke, but I'm curious to see your proof that the majority of physicists do not support climate change science.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Well, obviously you know the thing with funding is just a joke, but I'm curious to see your proof that the majority of physicists do not support climate change science.



Give me the names of 100 who don't depend on grant money in any way whatsoever who are onboard the AGW bandwagon.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD - 

Please try and post with a little common sense. Really. 

I must have explained 20 times that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for climate research to be based on funding because very little climate science is funded on a 'per-project' basis. Universities use bulk funding for most research precisely because it makes fraud impossible. 

It's also worth keeping in mind that where research is funded on a 'per-project' basis, much of it is sold to private companies who are hardly likely to be spending millions of dollars to buy bogus research. This is also true where public institutions do buy research - they are doing so because they need the results of the research - not because they have any political stake in what it says. 

You do actually know this, because I have explained it all before, and I am happy to answer questions about it. My wife is a professional researcher at a university, so I have a fairly good source!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Please try and post with a little common sense. Really.
> 
> I must have explained 20 times that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for climate research to be based on funding because very little climate science is funded on a 'per-project' basis. Universities use bulk funding for most research precisely because it makes fraud impossible.



It doesn't matter how many times you say it...it isn't going to become true.  You are a proven liar and will say whatever you feel is necessary to make your point.  

And if you believe fraud isn't possible in the funding system, then you are even less intelligent than the sort of idiot who would post mann's hockey stick and claim that mann is one of the foremost scientists on earth.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD - 

Your entire argument appears to be based on something which is not true, which could not be true, which you know not to be true and which is, in fact, impossible. 

By all means explained to me how bulk-funded universities could produce fake research results. 

You know they can't. The only question is - are you going to be honest about this?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Your entire argument appears to be based on something which is not true, which could not be true, which you know not to be true and which is, in fact, impossible.
> 
> ...



Funding bias is not possible?  If you believe that then you truely are a blithering idiot.  

Here, from wiki which all you warmists seem to believe.

Funding bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The terms funding bias, sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, or funding publication bias refer to an *observed tendency of the conclusion of a scientific research study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor*. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias is an instance of experimenter's bias.



Note: even wiki acknowledges that it is an observational fact.

Funding bias is well known and observed across all fields of research.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 15, 2013)

Bulk-funded does not mean, necessarily, what the words would suggest.

And there is no reason to doubt that some "scientists" will alter the designs of their studies or their findings in order to curry favor with those who provide the money for the "research."  



> A 2005 study in the journal Nature[11] surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the National Institutes of Health). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.


  See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

One study of the effects of funding suggests, "The highest ratings were received by nations using large-scale research assessment exercises. Bulk funding and indicator-driven models received substantially lower ratings."  -- from the abstract found at:  Models and Mechanisms for Evaluating Government-Funded Research


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD - 

I can see you are going to work very, very hard to hold the house of cards in place, but I don't think for a moment you believe what you are posting. 

To answer your silly post here - yes, there is bias is paid research. No question. That is why most climate research undertaken around the world is not funded on a per-project basis. 

If you have any questions about how funding works, ask me, and I will explain it in detail. 

This is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a very simple matter in which any HONEST person who understands the way it works will agree.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

Ilar - 

Yes, again, when research is paid for, perhaps 15% of researchers would skew results. (We have seen that in climate science with some of the 'studies' the oil industry funded in the past, before realising they had no case.) 

This is why the majority of research is NOT funded on a per-project basis., so that manipulation of results is simply not possible.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ilar -
> 
> Yes, again, when research is paid for, perhaps 15% of researchers would skew results. (We have seen that in climate science with some of the 'studies' the oil industry funded in the past, before realising they had no case.)
> 
> This is why the majority of research is NOT funded on a per-project basis., so that manipulation of results is simply not possible.



WTF?  Of course it's possible.

What a ridiculous thing for you to say.

If you know that your funding comes from "the" government which has some goddamn interest in furthering the fantasy of AGW, then you are far more likely to skew your methodologies and "findings" to suit your "masters."  Well, at least if you want more of that bulk-funding from "the" government next time around.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> WTF?  Of course it's possible.
> 
> What a ridiculous thing for you to say.
> 
> If you know that your funding comes from "the" government which has some goddamn interest in furthering the fantasy of AGW, then you are far more likely to skew your methodologies and "findings" to suit your "masters."  Well, at least if you want more of that bulk-funding from "the" government next time around.



When the conversation gets down to nuts and bolts, it is easy to see who the real deniers are.  How stupid must one be in order to actually believe that funding bias or outright fraud can't happen in academia.

At least the medical community is grown up enough to acknowledge that it has serious problems in this area.  Maybe when climate science grows up a bit and gets over its magical thinking, they too will see the forest.  My bet is that when the AGW hoax becomes competely unsustainable that funding bias will become the whipping boy and suddenly be found to blame for all sorts of shortcomings in the research....like the latest bogus hockey stick for example.    Their data didn't even meet their own criteria...but funding is the life blood so you do what you can to get more.  What do you want to bet that the very people who just finised that joke of a hockey stick don't have any problem getting funding for their next project even though they have proven themselves to be incompetent.


----------



## IanC (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD - it is not recycling. The energy is going from the source to outer space. Radiation is fundementally different from macroscopic events because nothing can interrupt the process. Once created the photon exists until it interacts with matter. 
Two objects, same temperature, still radiate to each other. No work can be accomplished because there is no net flow.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD - it is not recycling. The energy is going from the source to outer space. Radiation is fundementally different from macroscopic events because



And of course it is recycling.  That planet radiating 235 wm2 can only radiate 235...period.  Nothing short of magic bumps it up to 470 wm2 and nothing short of magic stops it from going on to radiate 705 wm2, and then 1057.5 wm2, and then 1586.25 wm2 and on and on ad infinitum.



IanC said:


> nothing can interrupt the process. Once created the photon exists until it interacts with matter.



So you say.  Lets see the proof.  We are never going to agree on this.  The 2nd law says that energy won't move from cool to warm.  I am sure that cool objects radiate but they don't radiate towards warm objects. And don't ask me to describe how that happens because I can't any more than I (or you, or anyone else) can describe the mechanism by which gravity works. There is no law that says that radiation must go in every direction but there is a law that says it can't go from cool objects to warmer objects.



IanC said:


> Two objects, same temperature, still radiate to each other. No work can be accomplished because there is no net flow.



Again, no proof other than questionable mathematical models.  They both radiate.  The warm object radiates toward the cool object but the cool object doesn't radiate towards the warm object.

I am afraid that I find the methods of post modern science less than unconvincing.  Computer models, which are the only "proof" of much of post modern science are no better than the program which is in and of itself questionable.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ilar -
> ...



No, it is not possible, and nor is it something that could really be disputed. 

This is not a matter of opinion - as I said earlier, any honest person who knows how university funding works will agree. It really is as simple as that. 

It is absolutely impossible for a government to 'buy' research, which is exactly why the system exists in the first place. It is IMPOSSIBLE. 

I'm more than happy to explain in whatever detail you like.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

> How stupid must one be in order to actually believe that funding bias or outright fraud can't happen in academia.



Please post honestly - no one said any such thng. 

Of course fraud can exist within academia - but only where research is funded on a per-project basis, or where the university is selling the results to a particular client. 

Bulk-funded research very clearly can not be skewed, because there is no link between the funding and the decision on what to research, nor between funding and the end users of the results.

I am sure you understand this, because I've explained it so much in the past....but can you be honest about it? I don't think you can, myself.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



No.  Not only is it not "impossible," it is flatly ridiculous to make that absurd baseless silly claim.

Further, you are arguing a straw man of sorts.  The question is not whether there is any effort to "buy" the research.  The question is whether the "scientists" might not permit their ultimate conclusions and even their methodologies to be influenced by their perceived interests in keeping the fund-ers happy.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

Ilar - 

Well, I know this for 100% certain fact. I live with this every day. I KNOW this to be true, without reservation. 

It seems to me that the entire basis of Denialism is this massive socialist conspiracy - which was patently ridiculous to anyone who knows how universities work in most of the countries where research is done. 

If you don't understand any aspects of how this works - just ask away.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> If you don't understand any aspects of how this works - just ask away.



Given that you lie about everything, why would anyone ask you anything?


----------



## IanC (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?

Marcott is a fine example. His PhD thesis was a simple temp reconstruction. He is having his 15 minutes of fame because he reworked it to have a temp spike at the end, using dubious methods. No conspiracy theory but why did he step over the line?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?
> 
> Marcott is a fine example. His PhD thesis was a simple temp reconstruction. He is having his 15 minutes of fame because he reworked it to have a temp spike at the end, using dubious methods. No conspiracy theory but why did he step over the line?



Ne is a relatively new PhD.  He needs to assure future funding.  He wants to live in a stylish neighborhood and perhaps drive a beemer.  Future funding assures that and in his mind, what is stepping over a line if it puts him in like flynt with the hockey team?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't understand any aspects of how this works - just ask away.
> ...



You should more properly and accurately be asking yourself that question. Everyone knows that you lie constantly. You have no credibility whatsoever.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

The fact that you make the claim would vindicate me even if it were true.  Being the mentally unbalanced sort yourself who will tell any sort of lie if you believe it will boost your need for self esteem at any cost, the claim means exactly nothing.

You get more pitiful all the time.  Your feelings of intimidation and inferiority rule your life and make you completely irrational.  Seek help.  You don't have to live that way.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2013)

The topic of this thread is...

*"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"*

...so here it is, one picture is worth a thousand words...







Now, for a pretty clear and detailed description of the atmospheric physics of anthropogenic global warming and a better explanation of the chart above, read this:

*Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1*


----------



## westwall (Mar 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The topic of this thread is...
> 
> *"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"*
> 
> ...







Ando your cute little graphic doesn't address the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  I wonder why...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The topic of this thread is...
> ...



That's discussed in that article I cited, but you've already demonstrated many times that you have no understanding of what the second law of thermodynamics actually means and, frankly, I think you're way too retarded to ever grasp it.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?



I would generally support scientific consensus, providing what I saw in the real world matched that science. 

In this case I have seen the impact of melting glaciers, rising sea levels, drought and floods with my own eyes. Every country I go to people talk about how the weather has changed. 

I went through Melbourne a few weeks ago - the previous week the country recorded its hottest EVER temperature, and Sydney its hottest ever temperature. 

Hence, the science seems to fit the reality. 

Given the Sceptic case seems to be built on a massive conspiracy that we know to be impossible, I don't find that theory attractice.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?
> ...



And here you are again presenting a "theory" you know is not true.


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


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







And your theory is not reproduceable in a lab.


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Yeah, just not properly.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The topic of this thread is...
> 
> *"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"*
> 
> ...so here it is, one picture is worth a thousand words...



Cute picture.  Which childrens' work of fiction did it come from.

Here is your chance to actually discuss the topic as you have so often claimed to be able to do.  What do you want to bet that you can't?

We can measure the amount of radiation reaching the surface of the earth from the sun.  We have been able to do it for quite some time now.  According to your picture, twice as much radiation is reaching the surface of the earth as is coming in from the sun.  Why can't we measure that radiation at ambient temperature even though it is a greater amount of radiation than is coming in from the sun?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The topic of this thread is...
> ...



That`s because we are not dealing with photons as in regular physics.
Each one of those is a single quantum of energy and can do only so much..
Any molecule that absorbs a normal physics-photon looses (heat) energy when it re-emits a normal physics photon.
But not so with AGW climatology-photons 
These are an inexhaustible  source of power.
Each one radiates from black body, then heats up the CO2 molecule that absorbed it..then it gets re-emitted from that hot CO2 molecule and heats the next molecule while the molecule that emitted the climatology-photon stays as hot as it got when it absorbed a climatology photon...


----------



## IanC (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


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





saigon- was that your answer to _my_ question?

Marcott changed his PhD thesis so that the last hundred years shows an uptick. he did so by using dubious methods (redating published proxies) to remove negative proxies and extend positive proxies into the present. so far he is being shy with producing answers to the pointed questions being asked about his methodology.

Marcott's thesis received little attention until it was reworked to give an uptick in present times and his new paper has now received much media attention and sure IPCC AR5 citations if it can avoid being retracted. he has gambled away some of his integrity for the chance of being a star in CAGW if only his paper can last long enough to make it into AR5. Gergis failed, but there is still a chance for Marcott. I bet he was hoping McIntyre would stay away a bit longer.

I asked whether you would just accept consensus no matter what, was for a reason. consensus could easily still be natural factors with a smidge of manmade warming. there is a lot of 'play' in proxy reconstructions, temperature database adjustments, satellite measurements, etc. if climate scientists were getting praised and rewarded for finding natural causes, then they would find natural causes. lol, their models would work a hell of a lot better as well!

Mann pulled a swindle with the hockey stick graph and was handsomely rewarded. climategate and the release of more and more data, proxy or otherwise, has made it tougher to ram through inferior papers by 'pal review'. without the manufactured catastrophe via wildly exaggerated conclusions from faulty papers and sychophantic media attention, AGW will return to the small problem it is.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Iac - 

I haven't read Marcott, so aren't going to attempt to discuss the man. 



> I asked whether you would just accept consensus no matter what, was for a reason.



And I answered that I would accept scientific consenus as long as it matched my firsthand experience of climate. In any situation where the scientific community were so sure, I'd be reluctant to dismiss their claims as lightly as many posters do here, but were scientific opinion to clash with my own experience of the world, I'd probably remain neutral.

I have no political opinion on the science, because I don't think it is a political topic. If the evidence I see around me and scientific opinion shift, I can't imagine not wanting to shift my own position as well.


----------



## IanC (Mar 19, 2013)

you may not have read Marcott's paywalled paper but you have certainly read the media frenzy describing 'warmest temps in 4000 years'. mind you I have not seen any media quoting Marcott as saying the results after ~1800 as "not robust". the very part that the media is interested in is not reliable. 

did you read Gergis2012? the southern hemisphere hockeystick? it didnt last long before it was retracted.


----------



## IanC (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Iac -
> 
> I haven't read Marcott, so aren't going to attempt to discuss the man.
> 
> ...





first hand experience? I bet your first hand experience is more confirmation bias than anything else.











before adjustments, and after adjustments by GISS and GHCN. which Iceland says are unneccesary because they have already corrected their data.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Ian - 

Last time I checked, Rejkavik was in Iceland. 

Let me know if it has moved. 

This is my source of local data:  Helsinki - Paikallissää - Ilmatieteen laitos


----------



## IanC (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> Last time I checked, Rejkavik was in Iceland.
> 
> ...



I would love to show the distorted adjustments made to finnish data but GISS wont allow the public to plot graphs anymore.

no comments on the failed hockey sticks by Marcott and Gergis? or the upsidedown Tiljander proxies used by Mann and carried over into other papers that use Mann as a source?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Ian C - 

I have met and interviewed the man responsible for Finnish climate data and was extremely impressed by his integrity and openness. He has an impeccable CV and a background that is hard to fault. 

The idea that people like him are faking data is a non-starter.


----------



## IanC (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> Last time I checked, Rejkavik was in Iceland.
> 
> ...



does that web site graph the historic yearly temps? either from 1881, or 1950 will do. TIA


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Ian -

The site also operates in English. There is more historical data elsewhere, which I can link later.


----------



## IanC (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I have met and interviewed the man responsible for Finnish climate data and was extremely impressed by his integrity and openness. He has an impeccable CV and a background that is hard to fault.
> 
> The idea that people like him are faking data is a non-starter.





who has said he is faking data? I am accusing the big data collection centres like GISS of bad adjustments but I am not accusing them of actually fabricating data.


----------



## IanC (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> The site also operates in English. There is more historical data elsewhere, which I can link later.



sorry but I cannot find historical data on that site. GISS seems to use airport data for Helsinki. they call it Seutula, your site calls it Vantaa, if the gps numbers are correct.

edit- here are two GISS graphs for Helsinki to compare with Finnish data when you find it

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=614029740000&dt=1&ds=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=614029740000&dt=1&ds=2


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Ian -

Seutula means the capital city region, vantaa is the city immediately to the north of Helsinki.

Helsinki's climate is not typical of Finland's, so I wouldn't like to compare the two too closely.


----------



## IanC (Mar 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> Seutula means the capital city region, vantaa is the city immediately to the north of Helsinki.
> 
> Helsinki's climate is not typical of Finland's, so I wouldn't like to compare the two too closely.



24 hrs later. still no links to Finnish historical temperature data. why not? I thought you wanted it seen so that it could be compared to the global databases?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 20, 2013)

Ian C 

Amazingly enough, I sometimes have to work. 

Home - Ilmatieteen laitos

As part of a Centre of Excellence of the Academy of Finland the Finnish Meteorological Institute investigates physical, chemical and biological processes related to climate and climate change. The foundation of this work is the observation program, model development, and scientific expertise of the Finnish Meteorological Institute as well as broad international cooperation. The results of research are applied to the Finnish conditions.

The Finnish Meteorological Institute produces long, homogeneous time series on different climate variables. This is especially important when dealing with phenomena that exhibit changes only in decadal timescales.

When monitoring climate change and air quality of the Northern areas the Finnish Meteorological Institute make use of the concentration measurements of fine particles and greenhouse gases carried out eg. in the Pallas-Sodankylä station. The Finnish Meteorological Institute takes part also in research of air pollution problems in Asia by carrying out ambient air measurements of fine particles in India and China.


Mean temperatures have risen

The annual mean temperature of Finland in the 1981-2010 normal period was almost 0,4 degrees higher compared to the previous normal period of 1971-2000 and approximately 0,7 degrees higher than in the official normal period of 1961-1990. The observed temperature rise is in reasonable agreement with the climate models.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2013)

I love it, their temp records stop in 1961.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I have met and interviewed the man responsible for Finnish climate data and was extremely impressed by his integrity and openness. He has an impeccable CV and a background that is hard to fault.
> 
> The idea that people like him are faking data is a non-starter.



Appeal to authority.  

You were "impressed?"  Well, that should certainly be enough to convince even the most hardened skeptics.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I have met and interviewed the man responsible for Finnish climate data and was extremely impressed by his integrity and openness. He has an impeccable CV and a background that is hard to fault.
> 
> The idea that people like him are faking data is a non-starter.



And generally speaking when serial killers are caught, their neighbors identify them as the "nicest people in the world"


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...









  How true!  Sad but true!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...



It was enough to convince me that he knew more about science than you do. 

I have not named him here and am not suggesting anyone else trust him or use him as a source - but one of the best ways to understand these topics is to go and talk to genuine experts, so when I found I had some questions about climate change I tracked down the most qualified physisicst I could find and spent an hour talking with him. 

Rather than argung over and over and over again against information, you might benefit from exposure to some learning yourself.


----------



## IanC (Mar 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C
> 
> Amazingly enough, I sometimes have to work.
> 
> ...



you just posted up the same website as before! where are the historical numbers? i would prefer it in graphs but numerical data is fine.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 21, 2013)

Ian C 

That site is the official source of climate information. I know it is not great, but many other sites are not in English. When I have time I'll have a look around.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 21, 2013)

westwall said:


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



*Take a look at the insanity:*
Cyprus is the latest domino in the EU crisis:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/energiegesetz-zypern-soll-geldstrafe-zahlen-a-890257.html


> *Zypern soll Geldstrafe zahlen*





>


  The entire EU is heading for bankruptcy despite all the soviet style central planning in Brussels.
Let me re-phrase that to *because of all the soviet style central planning*.
*No sane/rational thinking person would be able to cook up such nonsense unless you look it up in Marx` or Engels` communist bibles how to fuck up an entire continent.*
The only thing these non-elected bureaucrats can come up with is to punish Cyprus on behalf of the UN`s IPCC for not implementing "green energy" quota...which an already bankrupt Cyprus is supposed to pay for with tax subsidies.
Energiegesetz: Zypern soll Geldstrafe zahlen - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *Die EU-Kommission will eine Geldstrafe gegen das Land verhängen.  Der Grund: Zypern habe ein Gesetz zur Förderung erneuerbarer Energien  nicht umgesetzt
> *
> Dem krisengeschüttelten Zypern droht eine Geldstrafe von der EU: Rund  *11.400 Euro täglich *will die EU-Kommission dem Land abverlangen, weil es  ein EU-Gesetz zur Förderung erneuerbarer Energien nicht umgesetzt hat.
> 
> Auch Polen bringt die EU-Kommission wegen des Gesetzes zur Förderung  erneuerbarer Energien vor den EuGH. Hier schlägt sie eine Geldstrafe von  *täglich rund 133 200 Euro *vor


So already bankrupt Cyprus is supposed to pay a "fine" to the tune of 11 400 Euros per day...and Poland is supposed to pay  133 200 Euros per day.

That`s how the green energy money-suction machine works.
No matter where you live in Europe the EU sucks up the  *green * "Carbon" money through your local government and the IPCC that got these idiots to sign the Kyoto accord gets it`s share. From there a smaller share goes to countries in Africa where people shit in the middle of a village, or the like, mostly countries ruled by corrupt dictators who sit in the UN "human rights" and on the environment council. And all they do with all that money is buy more Kalashnikovs for their military which keeps them in power. All the while communist China is burning coal and oil like gangbusters, sells cheap Kalashnikov replicas made in China and  sells solar panels made in communist China for  Obama`s green power dream. The more we get punished by the IPCC for burning oil, the easier it is for the Chinese to get it..Example Canada...
You can see that flag flying in our Alberta oil fields already because Obama keeps blocking the Keystone Pipeline from Alberta to Texas:




http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2013/01/albertans-leery-of-chinese-investment-in-the-oil-patch/


> *Get used to China in the oil sands: former diplomat     *
> 
> 'We can't develop the oil sands alone.'
> The survey was conducted in July, before CNOOC Ltd.&#8217;s $15.1-billion  proposal for Nexen Inc. was approved. Albertans may be more averse now  than they were then to Chinese investment, but Houlden says Chinese  state-owned companies aren&#8217;t a lot different than other foreign  operators in Alberta.


and China`s energy cost portion in manufacturing is as a result a fraction of the cost as it is in the USA today.
If global warming was real then we would not need economic sanctions or military action to topple these dictators, all we would have to do is keep driving our SUV`s to ruin them and China....while our crop yields in Canada for sure, would skyrocket at the same time.
Canada does not need any help to develop it`s own resources. There just aren`t enough Canadians to burn all that oil, gas and coal and use up all the hydro-electric power we produce..
But we would like it  very much if we would not have to wait for a truck to bring us oranges from California and instead could grow them locally...so if AGW was real most Canadians  would do their  best to get a big "CO2 warming bang" out of our buck  along with our oil revenue$..!
For  over a decade now winter has been starting earlier and hangs in longer...Starting in early  October lasting till the end of May. We had to genetically engineer our ("Durham") wheat so that it is frost resistant. Else we would have had to import wheat for the last 15 years from the US and Australia, countries  that can harvest 2 crops every year. The climate has gotten so cold that there are no more apple or other fruit tree orchards any more in central Canada and the only areas that remain, where we can grow vegetables outdoors are along a on a  short and narrow stretch of warm pacific coast in southern BC and a few spots in the Okanagan valley. You can`t even grow grapes that are fit for regular wine in the Okanagan any more. Since ~ 10 years they developed a "frost" wine when the grapes froze on the branch,... just so they don`t go bankrupt like the farmers in central Canada which had to re-locate their grow-ops into heated indoor acres on trays.
All the while useful idiots like "Saigon" keep posting these idiotic temperature graphs that the IPCC discarded years ago.
They have been holding meetings in Hobart Australia since February to *"explain" in September why them temps have stalled despite the CO2 increase.*
*In Canada we are quite sure that here the temperature increase has not just stalled but took a pretty severe dive in the last 10 years
*


----------



## numan (Mar 25, 2013)

'
*Living in a Thin Film of Air* 

I think many people have trouble stretching their minds to comprehend things on a large scale. We human beings are physically very small, so small that we are like bacteria crawling across the face of the earth. The earth and the atmosphere seem inconceivably vast to most of us, and we think that little old us and our small actions cannot possibly change the face of nature. This is an illusion.

For one thing, There are more than six billion of us. How much is a billion? Well, a billion seconds add up to more than thirty-one years. Think of all your obvious and not so obvious consumptions of resources and the pollutions you are responsible for: think of that as one second; then repeat that over and over, non-stop, for more than thirty-one years. Then do the same thing more than six times. Then you may get some idea of what we are doing.

The atmosphere seems so vast to us. After all, we say, "The sky's the limit!" But, in reality, the atmosphere is very, very thin. In relation to the size of the earth, it is far thinner than the insubstantial membrane which you find inside the shell of an egg is to the size of the egg. Most of the earth's air lies below the heigth of five miles. Think of driving five miles in your car to a store. It is a very short distance. Anyone who has flown in an airplane has probably been impressed by seeing vast plumes of smoke rising from factories in the remotest areas, and has seen the smoke spread a smog over a large area. But this is only one installation, and only the most obvious. In reality, the equivalent has been spewing forth all over the globe, decade after decade. It is not hard to see how quickly we might fill this five-mile high thin film of air with our waste. And such is the case. It has been well measured and documented that the percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has risen dramatically over the past few decades.

It is really necessary that we stretch our minds and think, if we are to avoid the disasters which will soon fall upon us unless we start to take serious thought about the consequences of our actions.
.


----------



## westwall (Mar 26, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> *Living in a Thin Film of Air*
> 
> I think many people have trouble stretching their minds to comprehend things on a large scale. We human beings are physically very small, so small that we are like bacteria crawling across the face of the earth. The earth and the atmosphere seem inconceivably vast to most of us, and we think that little old us and our small actions cannot possibly change the face of nature. This is an illusion.
> ...








Who cares.  CO2 is the essential constituent of the atmosphere for life on this planet.  Get the concentration down to 200ppm and nothing grows....which means that all sentient life would end.

There have been times in the past when the atmospheric CO2 levels were 20 times what they are today and the planet was a veritable paradise.  I suggest you do a little more research before you throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



as the planet goes though its cooling cycle 

the C02 levels  drop 

several years after the fact 


as for a warmer or colder earth 

ii prefer a warmer one 

if we could alter it 

the uk is saying this is the longest winter yet 

and has caused 5000 deaths


----------



## SSDD (Mar 26, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> It is really necessary that we stretch our minds and think, if we are to avoid the disasters which will soon fall upon us unless we start to take serious thought about the consequences of our actions.
> .



Minds aren't what is being stretched in climate science.  The truth is what is being stretched.  My mind requires nothing more than repeatable, observed data to convince me that we are altering the global climate.  After billions of dollars spent on the issue, you would think that there would actually be some.  There isn't.

To date, there isn't even a mathematical model of the claimed greenhouse effect, much less any direct measurement of it.  The entire climate crisis is the result of computer model output.

Stop stretching reality and try telling the truth...and consider the consequences of your own actions.  Consider that the cost of buying into the hoax is paid by the people least able to afford it.  Consider how many people have already died as the result of environmental policy...how many more are you willing to accept in the name of this hoax?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 26, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> as the planet goes though its cooling cycle
> 
> the C02 levels  drop
> 
> several years after the fact



And as the planet goes through its warming cycle, CO2 levels rise...sometimes a thousand years after the fact.  Rising CO2 levels are a product of warmer temperatures, not a cause.  Stretch your mind enough to see reality here...every ice core ever done tells us that rising CO2 is a result, not a cause and yet, you guys still believe CO2 is some sort of control knob without the first bit of observed evidence to support the claim.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



What you do is track down another drone who advertises himself as an authority.  Unlike journalists, I have a background in science.  I don't need an "expert" to tell me which theories are credible and which aren't. I can make that determination on my own.  I also have no problems detecting logical fallacies and bullshit.  Almost all the propaganda I see coming from the AGW cult consists of logical fallacies.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > as the planet goes though its cooling cycle
> ...



The fallacy that the ignorant masses are the most susceptible to is the _"post hoc, ergo propter hoc"_ fallacy.  If the witch doctor shakes his rattle and the patient gets better, every ignorant savage will attribute the cure to the efforts of the witch doctor.  The bulk of people living in modern technical societies are little more sophisticated than the savages that inhabit the jungles of Africa and South America.  They swallow all the Voo-doo dispensed by the AGW witch doctors.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 26, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> *Living in a Thin Film of Air*
> 
> I think many people have trouble stretching their minds to comprehend things on a large scale. We human beings are physically very small, so small that we are like bacteria crawling across the face of the earth. The earth and the atmosphere seem inconceivably vast to most of us, and we think that little old us and our small actions cannot possibly change the face of nature. This is an illusion.
> ...



You have a bit of a problem to comprehend things on a large scale as well as comprehending the substance.
vast plumes of smoke rising from factories...
For your information you can`t see CO2 gas these "vast plumes of smoke" you did see that`s water vapor condensate..
The "plumes of smoke" coming out of my car`s exhaust system or any chimney where they are burning fossil fuel are over 50% water vapor condensate.
CO2 combined with water vapor is plant food

These "vast plumes" you are talking about are not anywhere near the size of the average overcast on any given day...

the percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has risen dramatically over the past few decades.

CO2 is at 0.038 %


the atmosphere is very, very thin.  it is far thinner than the insubstantial  membrane which you find inside the shell of an egg 
It is not hard to see how quickly we might fill this five-mile high thin film of air with our waste.

To "fill" this "five-mile thin film"  with CO2 we would need 2631 times 6 billion people  not just the 6 billion we have, doing what we are doing.

Think of driving five miles in your car to a store. It is a very short distance.
Did You ever walk 5 miles ?
Let`s see how "short" of a distance you think it is if  I were to dangle you off the open hatch in a Herc C-130 at only half that height...and your shirt-tail  which I grabbed starts tearing.

Your "mind stretching" maybe works with little kids that don`t know any better. First comparing the atmosphere layer thickness to the earth diameter...then equating it to a fragile  egg membrane which 6 billion people are about to burst with CO2.

We know from neutron stars that our sun`s massive sphere would in reality have a diameter of only 3.6 miles instead of  865 000 miles  if  the sun`s matter would occupy all the voids between particle matter as we understand it.

*According to that you are in reality no more than just 99.999....(+11 more decimal places of 9`s)75  % empty space...and so was your post.
*
*disasters which will soon fall upon us
Mostly verbal wall paper in a Halloween house of horrors designed to scare little kids with childish methods.

*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



You can`t expect simple minded linear liberal minds to grasp the concepts of the non-linear real world.
Besides the earth`s atmosphere is 300 miles thick  and 80%  of the air is inside a 10 mile, not inside a 5 mile radius as he got from some wika worshiping bible.
The volume grows with the third power of the radius...
so that "egg membrane" which he compared with our atmosphere is in fact 1 quarter of the planet sphere volume or almost 200 times the volume of our oceans....


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2013)

polarbear said:


> You can`t expect simple minded linear liberal minds to grasp the concepts of the non-linear real world.
> Besides the earth`s atmosphere is 300 miles thick  and 80%  of the air is inside a 10 mile, not inside a 5 mile radius as he got from some wika worshiping bible.
> The volume grows with the third power of the radius...
> so that "egg membrane" which he compared with our atmosphere is in fact 1 quarter of the planet sphere volume or almost 200 times the volume of our oceans....



Wonder if he can "stretch" his mind far enough to understand that he is just another believer who has no grasp whatsoever of the science?


----------



## whitehall (Mar 27, 2013)

Notice the qualifying word, "may". Global warming is a theory but it is more than that to the true believers. They won't even argue about it. It's a religion and you have to have faith. They lash out with words like "unbeliever" and "heretic" and "denier" when they are faced with logic. It is freaking cold, record cold, and the warmers say to have faith in spite of what we see and feel. The gods (scientists) have determined that cold is warm and you better suffer in silence while the gods enjoy the new found wealth.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Notice the qualifying word, "may". Global warming is a theory but it is more than that to the true believers. They won't even argue about it. It's a religion and you have to have faith. They lash out with words like "unbeliever" and "heretic" and "denier" when they are faced with logic. It is freaking cold, record cold, and the warmers say to have faith in spite of what we see and feel. The gods (scientists) have determined that cold is warm and you better suffer in silence while the gods enjoy the new found wealth.



It isn't even a theory.  In fact, it hardly rises to the status of hypothesis.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 27, 2013)

Denialism is now restricted to a small right-wing fringe, and that only in areas dominated by a corporate conservative English-speaking mass media. Right-wing extremism is the actual cult, while denialism is just one of the many beliefs the cult requires from the cultists.

Such cult beliefs can flip very quickly. For example, the cult leaders recently told the cultists that the previously good drone strikes were now totally bad, thus almost all of the cultists instantly flipped positions on the topic. And most of them will now swear, in proper "We've always been at war with Eastasia" fashion, that they have always believed drones were bad.

In direct contrast, mainstream AGW science is global, and accepted across the entire political spectrum.

The denialists will now proceed to bleat in unison about how the 99% of the planet outside of their herd just doesn't know the RealTruth. That's another sign of cult behavior, the certainty that your little group is endowed with superior knowledge that the rest of humanity lacks. And their near-unanimous demands that those with opposing scientific beliefs be jailed (much like the Soviet Lysenkoists did to mainstream scientists of their day) is a huge red flag that further identifies them as political cultists.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The denialists will now proceed to bleat in unison about how the 99% of the planet outside of their herd just doesn't know the RealTruth. That's another sign of cult behavior, the certainty that your little group is endowed with superior knowledge that the rest of humanity lacks. And their near-unanimous demands that those with opposing scientific beliefs be jailed (much like the Soviet Lysenkoists did to mainstream scientists of their day) is a huge red flag that further identifies them as political cultists.



So lets see some actual observed evidence of the greenhouse effect.  Show us some actual measurements of it.  It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is coming in from the sun.  We can measure the energy coming in from the sun at ambient temperature...why then, can't we measure twice as much that is supposed to be coming from the atmosphere at ambient temperature?


----------



## numan (Mar 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So lets see some actual observed evidence of the greenhouse effect.  Show us some actual measurements of it.  It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is coming in from the sun.  We can measure the energy coming in from the sun at ambient temperature...why then, can't we measure twice as much that is supposed to be coming from the atmosphere at ambient temperature?


No one who is not insane has ever made such a claim. It doesn't even make any sense.

I don't know where you are getting such clap-trap, but it is from somewhere out in the ozone. · · 
.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 27, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see some actual observed evidence of the greenhouse effect.  Show us some actual measurements of it.  It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is coming in from the sun.  We can measure the energy coming in from the sun at ambient temperature...why then, can't we measure twice as much that is supposed to be coming from the atmosphere at ambient temperature?
> ...



You haven't seen the claim.  Maybe.

But that does not mean that lots of shithead AGW Faithers have not MADE the claim, you dope.

,


----------



## numan (Mar 27, 2013)

'
About 5.5 parts per million are added to the Earth's atmosphere every year because of human activity. In the 19th century, the total carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million. Today the figure is 400 ppm.

Of course, the amount added in the 19th century and early part of the 20th century was much less than it is today, and not all of it remains in the atmosphere. A considerable part is, every year, dissolved into the oceans, taken up by the weathering of stone, or absorbed by the metabolism of plants. These are the figures which careful scientific researchers have determined.

Due to a lack of knowledge of the subject, and careless thinking, some people apparently think that the addition of 120 parts per million to the atmosphere is not "significant." However, I assure you that they are wrong.

Many decades ago (indeed, even in the 19th century), *long before this subject became a bone of bogus political contention*, careful researchers had calculated that if the atmosphere did not contain any carbon dioxide, and there were no greenhouse effect, then the average temperature of the Earth would be at about the freezing level, and the Earth's oceans would be one gigantic block of ice frozen all the way through.

So, yes,  the addition of 120 parts per million to the atmosphere may seem, to the ignorant, a very small amount, but, in fact, it is a very significant change.
.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2013)

numan said:


> No one who is not insane has ever made such a claim. It doesn't even make any sense.



Of course t doesn't make any sense....and of course only someone who is insane would make such a claim...and yet, it is the basis for the AGW hoax.



numan said:


> I don't know where you are getting such clap-trap, but it is from somewhere out in the ozone. · ·
> .



Not the ozone...the crowned prince of AGW.  Kevin Trenberth himself.  His model is the basis for the AGW hoax and the resulting model of a flat earth, that doesn't rotate, and is bathed in a weak twilight 24 hours a day is the earth that all climate models today portray.

Look at the energy budget below,  upon which the AGW hoax is based.  See the yellow bar reaching the surface?  That 161 represents the amount of energy from the sun being absorbed by the surface in watts per square meter.  

Now look at the first of the tan colums.  It represents radiation from the surface of the earth in watts per square meter.  Note that it says that 396 watts per square meter of energy is being radiated from the surface of the earth plus 80 as evapotranspiration and 17 as thermals making a total outgoing radiation from the surface of the earth of 493 watts per square meter.  But wait, you might ask.  How can the surface of the earth be radiating 493 watts per square meter when it is only absorbing 161 watts per square meter from its only energy source....the sun?  Doesn't that leave a deficit of 332 watts per square meter?

Good question.  Note the second tan column at the far right clearly labeled at the bottom "absorbed by surface".  It says that that 333 watts per square meter are radiating back to the surface of the earth from so called greenhouse gasses.  Imagine, more than twice as much energy being absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of backradiation from greenhouse gasses as is coming in from the only energy source available....that big glowing yellow ball in the sky.

Of course it is insane to make such claims....and only the most pathetic sort of idiot would believe a claim based on such a moronic energy budget...but here we are.  You believe right along with a whole bunch of equally pathetic srt of idiots.  The only pertinent question is why do you believe?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2013)

numan said:


> About 5.5 parts per million are added to the Earth's atmosphere every year because of human activity. In the 19th century, the total carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million. Today the figure is 400 ppm.



So what.  In comparison to most of earth's history, the atmosphere is postively starved for CO2.  Atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 5000 parts per million with no runaway global warming.  It was nearly 1000 parts per million when the earth began to enter the ice age that it is still climbing out of.  What exactly frightens you about 400 parts per million when we know that it has been well over 2000 parts per million for most of earth's history with no runaway global warming.



numan said:


> Due to a lack of knowledge of the subject, and careless thinking, some people apparently think that the addition of 120 parts per million to the atmosphere is not "significant." However, I assure you that they are wrong.



It isn't signifigant.  In spite of your hysterical claims, CO2 remains a trace gas in the atmosphere.  When it was 5000 parts per million, it was still a trace gas in the atmosphere and then, as now completely unable to cause global warming.



numan said:


> Many decades ago (indeed, even in the 19th century), *long before this subject became a bone of bogus political contention*, careful researchers had calculated that if the atmosphere did not contain any carbon dioxide, and there were no greenhouse effect, then the average temperature of the Earth would be at about the freezing level, and the Earth's oceans would be one gigantic block of ice frozen all the way through.



There is no greenouse effect.  There is an atmospheric thermal effect that is much greater than the claimed greenhouse effect, but the atmospheric thermal effect isn't dependent upon the composition of the atmosphere beyond the atomic weights of the gasses found in the atmosphere.  In short, it isn't profitable so it is ignored in spite of the fact that if that atmospheric thermal effect is applied to any planet in the solar system with an atmosphere it produces an accurate temperature of that planet while if the physics of the greenhouse effect are applied to any planet within the solar system with an atmosphere it doesn't even come close.



numan said:


> So, yes,  the addition of 120 parts per million to the atmosphere may seem, to the ignorant, a very small amount, but, in fact, it is a very significant change.
> .



120 parts per million only seems significant to the ignorant...It seems signifigant to those who don't grasp the science and can be easily tricked.  It only seems signifigant to those who claim to be able to see the emperor's clothes.


----------



## numan (Mar 27, 2013)

'
It would be nice, SSDD, if you could demonstrate that you know what the Greenhouse Effect is.

---As _Rolling Thunder_ did with his link to *Physics of the Greenhouse Effect -- Part I*
.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 27, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> It would be nice, SSDD, if you could demonstrate that you know what the Greenhouse Effect is.
> 
> ---As _Rolling Thunder_ did with his link to *Physics of the Greenhouse Effect -- Part I*
> .



You are asking a guy who recently claimed that conservatism is not a right wing philosophy to demonstrate a knowledge of physics?

Brave.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So lets see some actual observed evidence of the greenhouse effect.  Show us some actual measurements of it.  It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is coming in from the sun.  We can measure the energy coming in from the sun at ambient temperature...why then, can't we measure twice as much that is supposed to be coming from the atmosphere at ambient temperature?



The sheer dishonesty it must have taken to post this is beyond any human measurement!

We have posted this information for you on a dozen threads - on each why you refuse to look at it. 

You know it and I know it. 

The evidence is available. In any country, some of these factors will have been recorded - 

- rising temperatures

- rising sea levels

- melting glaciers

- increased frequency and severity of drought

-  increased frequency and severity of floods

-  increased frequency and severity of particular storm types

- changing ocean pH and coral bleaching


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see some actual observed evidence of the greenhouse effect.  Show us some actual measurements of it.  It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is coming in from the sun.  We can measure the energy coming in from the sun at ambient temperature...why then, can't we measure twice as much that is supposed to be coming from the atmosphere at ambient temperature?
> ...







And yet the chief warmists all say there has been no warming for at least a decade so what is causing all of these things to happen...if in fact they are.  In point of fact, most of the claims if not all, are patently ridiculous.


----------



## tjvh (Mar 28, 2013)

End of March and rain turned to snow today, the ground has about an inch of snow on it now. Global warming you know.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

Westwall - 

I did wonder if you'd bother to crawl back to the board after your meltdown last week. 

All we will ever need to know about your logic processes are defined in my sig line, where you insist that I must support Stalin, because some journalists supported Stalin. 

No one with any interest or background in any hard science or fact-based field could post such an obvious fallacy, surely?

btw. I proved to you last week that in a country YOU chose - we are indeed seeing the droughts, the glacial melts, the rising temperatures, and the floods.


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I did wonder if you'd bother to crawl back to the board after your meltdown last week.
> 
> ...







  My meltdown?  You're the one who was made to look like an absolute  moron.  I love how you try and rewrite history there junior.  Goebbels would be proud of you.  You follow his model perfectly....unfortunately for you he was a lot smarter than you.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

Westwall -

Yes, your meltdown. The one where you insisted that I supported Stalin, remember?

If you think that makes you look cool, then stick with it.


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Yes, your meltdown. The one where you insisted that I supported Stalin, remember?
> 
> If you think that makes you look cool, then stick with it.







So that's your definition of meltdown huh?  I seem to recall my pointing out how it was left leaning journalists who supported him and here you are a left leaning so-called journalist so the shoe fits.  Don't you think?

As far as meltdowns go I think your attempt to use data I presented to you without crediting me for it and getting caught making the catastrophic mistake you did would qualify more...don't you?

Mr. journalist!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

> I seem to recall my pointing out how it was left leaning journalists who supported him and here you are a left leaning so-called journalist so the shoe fits. Don't you think?



What you posted is in my sig-line, genius. 

I have absolutely no idea at all what data you are talking about, but then I doubt you do either.


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > I seem to recall my pointing out how it was left leaning journalists who supported him and here you are a left leaning so-called journalist so the shoe fits. Don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Good I'm glad you did that, people need to KNOW what the journalists thought back then.
Hopefully they will be controlled the next time around.  The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

> Good I'm glad you did that, people need to KNOW what the journalists thought back then.
> Hopefully they will be controlled the next time around. The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.



Opposition to freedom of the press is a hallmark of right wing extremism.


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Good I'm glad you did that, people need to KNOW what the journalists thought back then.
> > Hopefully they will be controlled the next time around. The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.
> 
> 
> ...







I believe in TOTAL freedom of the press.  That means all sides get their say...not just one side moron.  Funny how it's your side that wants to muzzle sceptics and deny us the ability to present our evidence....What was that about extreme rightwing philosophies?  What a nimrod.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

> people need to KNOW what the journalists thought back then.
> Hopefully they will be controlled the next time around





> I believe in TOTAL freedom of the press



Well, obviously not. 

You believe in the freedom of the press that will tow your line - anything else must be suppressed. 

This is absolutely classic right wing extremism.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> It would be nice, SSDD, if you could demonstrate that you know what the Greenhouse Effect is.
> 
> ---As _Rolling Thunder_ did with his link to *Physics of the Greenhouse Effect -- Part I*
> .



There is no greenhouse effect.   The greenhouse effect is an ad hoc construct.  

As I said, there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is much greater than the claimed greenhouse effect but since it doesn't really care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the atomic weights of the various gasses within the atmosphere, there is no money to be made from it as no crisis can be squeezed out of it.

The atmospheric thermal effect is predicted by, supported by, and explained by the ideal gas laws.


Quaint bit of 19th century "science" that thunder posted was very quickly proven false by another 19th century scientist.  In all that time, no measurement has ever been made of a greenhouse effect, no mathematical model has ever been constructed, and no laboratory experiment has ever been devised to prove it exists in an open atmosphere, while literally thousands of experiments, measurements, and observations exist proving the ideal gas laws and they predict the temperature of the earth with startling accuracy as well as the temperatures of every planet inthe solar system with an atmosphere.  The greenhouse hypothesis can predict the temperatures of exactly none of the planets in the solar system with atmospheres including earth.  If it could, then the computer models wouldn't require constant tweaking in order to reflect the temperature here.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



You lie every time you post, don't you.  Why is that?  I said that fascism is socialism and all socialism is to the left of conservativism...and proved my point.  You got your ass kicked over on your idiot thread and aren't even bright enough to know it.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The sheer dishonesty it must have taken to post this is beyond any human measurement!
> 
> We have posted this information for you on a dozen threads - on each why you refuse to look at it.



Sure, you and yours have posted tons of information...but no actual evidence.  



Saigon said:


> You know it and I know it.



Since you have no grasp of the science, I have no doubt that you don't realise that you have not posted any actual evidence of the greenhouse effect.



Saigon said:


> - rising temperatures



Temperatures have been rising for some 14,000 years now...exactly how is that evidence of either a greenhouse effect or AGW?



Saigon said:


> - rising sea levels



Sea levels have risen over 100 feet in the past 14,000 years....exactly how is that evidence of either a greenhouse effect or AGW?



Saigon said:


> - melting glaciers



14,000 years ago, glaciers covered most of the northern hemisphere and since then the ice has retreated almost 2,000 miles....exactly how is that evidence of either a greenhouse effect or AGW?



Saigon said:


> - increased frequency and severity of drought



False claim, although drought is nothing new on planet earth and proves neither a greenhouse effect or AGW.



Saigon said:


> - -  increased frequency and severity of floods



Again, a false claim but since floods of varying frequency and intensity are part and parcel of the climate history of the world, floods neither prove a greenhouse effect or AGW



Saigon said:


> - -  increased frequency and severity of particular storm types



Again, a false claim, but since storms of various frequencies and intensities are part and parcel of the climate history of the world, storms neither prove a greenhouse effect of AGW.



Saigon said:


> - - changing ocean pH and coral bleaching



The pH of the oceans are always changing and as such are neither proof of a greenhose effect or of AGW.

No one is arguing that the climate on planet earth is changing siagon...it is, and has always been changing.  But pointing to things that have always happened neither prove a greenhouse effect, or AGW.

Since you apparently don't have a clue as to what constitutes proof of a claim, let me show you.  Here is some experimental evidence of the ideal gas laws.  They show experimental results that are predicted by the ideal gas laws.  The observed results prove the accuracy of the ideal gas laws.  They constitute evidence of the ideal gas laws.  Show me some such proof of either the greenhouse effect or AGW.

Gas Laws: Ideal Gas Law and the Gas Constant
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/Fall04/phy2053c/labs/gaslaw.PDF
PASCO : Chemistry : Experiments : Online : Ideal Gas Law
Virtual Laboratory: Ideal Gas Law


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You lie every time you post, don't you.  Why is that?  I said that fascism is socialism and all socialism is to the left of conservativism...and proved my point.  You got your ass kicked over on your idiot thread and aren't even bright enough to know it.



Actually, no, you claimed that left wing and right wing both referred to liberalism (you also claimed both referred to socialism in another quote), and that conservatism belonged to neither wing.

I can post the quotes for you if you like...it's interesting that you deny saying them, isn't it?

btw, Evidence of all the aspects of climate change listed here have been presented many, many times. I'm happy to provide them again if anyone missed them.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> My meltdown?  You're the one who was made to look like an absolute  moron.  I love how you try and rewrite history there junior.  Goebbels would be proud of you.  You follow his model perfectly....unfortunately for you he was a lot smarter than you.



Very sad when someone gets their ass kicked as soundly as he did on that thread and still they either don't know it or attempt to bluster the ass kicking away.  You have to just shake your head at the abject intellectual poverty of people like that.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Actually, no, you claimed that left wing and right wing both referred to liberalism (you also claimed both referred to socialism in another quote), and that conservatism belonged to neither wing.



Again with the wings...wings of the same house you poor cretin. Try looking up the definition of the word wing....wings constitute parts of the same structure....ie socialism. Conservatism isn't to be found in that house.

Why do you guys try so hard to distance yourselves from hitler whose killing was paltry in comparison to the other socialist biggies...he was no more totalitarian than stalin, lenin, mao, or pol pot....was it the racism?  You are still racist today with your affirmitive action and such programs...why try and distance yourself from one of your own?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD - 

The thread on Hitler is one of the most interesting and intriguing threads I've ever seen anyway. It was magnetic for many posters, it seems. 

At the end it seemed there were about 5 posters who really struggled to understand why fascism is so irrevocably linked by historians to the right, of which you were quite clearly the poster most lost, because you do not understand what any of the terms involved actually mean. It was good to see quite a number of conservatism posters posting good material and by and large almost everyone agreed, I think. 

Unusually, I do think 2 or 3 of the 5 posters mentioned were able to at least considering the facts by the end of the thread, though none were about to admit so publically. But hopefully they will now go off and do some reading and get up to speed.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, no, you claimed that left wing and right wing both referred to liberalism (you also claimed both referred to socialism in another quote), and that conservatism belonged to neither wing.
> ...



And there you have it. 




There is not a word I can add to such a wonderful, priceless post. This quote should be framed in every school in America as a symbol for young children as to what ignorance looks like.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2013)

For SSDD, if there are no clicking bootheels and sieg hiels, it ain't conservative.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> For SSDD, if there are no clicking bootheels and sieg hiels, it ain't conservative.



Conservative government is by definition small and unobtrusive rocks.  Liberalism is inherently authoritarian as authoritarinanism is the only way to enforce the ideal.

Seems you don't know any more about political philosophy than you know about climate science.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

Well, SSDD, for my money this board has never seen a funnier or more completely stupid post. 

How you could possibly imagine any other poster on the forum could be as confused as you is beyond me. I suggest a little more humility might be in order - at least until a few people have forgotten this one!


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12.



Probably the 40th time that simple-minded graph toy was shown here. Problem is for you and the alarmists -- your theory and models all predict constant linear rates of warming due SOLELY to correlation with CO2 levels. There is no part of AGW theory to explain banking of temperature changes for a decade or so..  Other than hand-waving about masking effects of real pollution which has been steadily declining in our lifetimes. 

So if the silly ass meaningless number of Average Yearly Mean Surface Temperature has barely budged for 12 or 14 years ---- YOU --- need a better theory... THAT'S what that childish animated graph really says to anyone who has has any math or science...


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Well, SSDD, for my money this board has never seen a funnier or more completely stupid post.
> 
> How you could possibly imagine any other poster on the forum could be as confused as you is beyond me. I suggest a little more humility might be in order - at least until a few people have forgotten this one!







You are one to talk there junior.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Well, SSDD, for my money this board has never seen a funnier or more completely stupid post.



Being completely unaquainted with the truth, I can see that it might appear strange to you.  Funny though?  I don't see it, but then you really aren't all there, are you?

Of course modern liberalism is authoritarian in nature.  It has to be.  It is surprising that you are unaware of that fact.  If you were a thinking person, it should have become obvious to you when you realized that you couldn't even name 3 things that you can do in your little socialist hell with no government inerference at either the national, regional, or local level.  Guess that proves that you aren't a thinking person.

Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and live and let live. 

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition  a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that requires equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesnt care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you dont physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things are quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state finds that it must be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with. 

The liberal state will be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.

The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance. 

This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.

Since modern liberalism holds such a narrow and dubious moral theory that very few people indeed actually hold, how then, is it any different from old theocratic systems that it labels as intolerant? Is it better, somehow, to be indoctrinated in the dogma and delusion of all inclusiveness than that of one church or another? A panel of civil rights lawyers is certainly no more forgiving than a panel of robed priests and in all likelihood, less forgiving.

Upon close examination it is obvious that modern liberalism holds all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian;  and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the thought police mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime.  (hate crime law)  In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

I don't believe it is possible to defend the idea authoritarian views are not liberal views.  It may be true that liberals don't see themselves and their philosophy as authoritarian but that, in and of itself, is  just sad evidence that they have not invested much thought into thier philosophy carried it to its logical end. The great leftist tyrants of the 20th century weren't expressing conservative ideals, they were simply men who were able to carry liberal theory to its logical end.


----------



## numan (Mar 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.


Well, I will agree with you on that one.



westwall said:


> I believe in TOTAL freedom of the press.  That means all sides get their say...not just one side....  Funny how it's your side that wants to muzzle sceptics and deny us the ability to present our evidence....


Does that mean those who believe in a Flat Earth should get equal press coverage as those who are sane?

I think educated people are just not very interested  in those who don't know what they are talking about.
.


----------



## depotoo (Mar 28, 2013)

numan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.
> ...


so I guess you claim the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is insane, as well as the over 31,000 other scientists?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

numan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.
> ...






Of course it does.  Intelligent, intellectually honest people are not threatened by loons and fools.  We can argue them under a bus in a New York minute so we aren't afraid of them.

Funny how the warmists are terrified of sceptics getting their message out to the rest of the world isn't it?  Reminds me of something that happened a long time ago...now what was it?????  Oh yeah!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE]No one expects the Spanish Inquisition - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2013)

depotoo said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOL......well, since you ask, YES, they are indeed quite insane, you poor deluded moron, and so are you for falling for their BullCrap.

*Oregon Petition*


----------



## depotoo (Mar 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



oh please.  That source has no verification of their qualifications.


----------



## depotoo (Mar 28, 2013)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


And that's why all of the intelligent, intellectually honest people laugh at you moronic denier cult loons and fools.






westwall said:


> We can argue them under a bus in a New York minute


LOLOLOL.....another one of your laughable delusions. You personally couldn't "_argue_" your way out of a wet paper bag.







westwall said:


> Funny how the warmists are terrified of sceptics getting their message out to the rest of the world isn't it?


Another of your many delusions, walleyed. The only thing that messages from you denier cult nitwits convey is how incredibly deluded and retarded you all are. No one is "_terrified_" by that, unless you've redefined "_terrified_" to mean '*rolling on the floor laughing*'.


----------



## depotoo (Mar 28, 2013)

Obviously you, youself have never taken the time to actually read the research of those that deny it.  Rather you just claim it all to be false.  Fools come in all walks of life...


----------



## numan (Mar 28, 2013)

.
...we might start looking at some facts.

As an example of my typical, open-hearted, generous nature, I will even begin by agreeing with a statement which is often made by those who flail away at the fact of Global Heating.

*The earth has been cooling for the last 70 million years.*



> "Global climate was warm during the Late Triassic. There was no ice at either North or South Poles. Warm Temperate conditions extended towards the poles."



Climate History

First, let us get the chronology straight. The Triassic Period extended from about 250 million years ago to 205 mya. 

70 mya was in the late Cretaceous, just before the dinosaurs went extinct.

As you can see from this chart at the linked site, there have been many ups and downs in climate over the geologic eras [for example, there was a severe ice age in the Permian Period, just before it got hot in the Triassic] --- but it is true that over the last 70 million years the general trend of global temperature has been down, a process which is imperfectly understood:


----------



## numan (Mar 28, 2013)

'
*However, this has no bearing on what is happening presently.*

Anthropogenic global heating is occurring over centuries, and even decades -- not at the majestic, slow pace of hundreds of thousands or millions of years typical of the geologic record. 

Evolution has not prepared the plants and animals (including humans) of our biosphere to adapt at such a pace. This means that there will be "discontinuities" -- which means, at the human level, hideous catastrophes and destruction. 
.


----------



## numan (Mar 28, 2013)

'
What apparently cannot penetrate the skulls of the scientifically illiterate is that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. If you pour them into the atmosphere, they *MUST* raise temperatures --- unless there are countervailing forces present. This is as certain as that a stone will fall when you drop it.

What countervailing forces are present? I have yet to see a convincing case that they exist. However, it is certain that there are processes which exacerbate global heating --- for example, loss of reflectivity in the polar regions, and release of CO2 and methane from the melting tundra.

All denialism is otiose unless someone can make a case for some strong countervailing force which opposes the inevitable heating *which basic physics dictates must arise from human-generated greenhouse gases.*
.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2013)

depotoo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



The bogus "Oregon Petition" has been debunked dozens of times. The fact that you still fall for it says a lot about your obvious gullibility and lack of intelligence.


----------



## depotoo (Mar 28, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> What apparently cannot penetrate the skulls of the scientifically illiterate is that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. If you pour them into the atmosphere, they *MUST* raise temperatures --- unless there are countervailing forces present. This is as certain as that a stone will fall when you drop it.
> 
> What countervailing forces are present? I have yet to see a convincing case that they exist. However, it is certain that there are processes which exacerbate global heating --- for example, loss of reflectivity in the polar regions, and release of CO2 and methane from the melting tundra.
> ...



http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earths Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer*  and William D. Braswell
ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
About « Roy Spencer, PhD
he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAs Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencers work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAs Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2013)

depotoo said:


> List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you poor brainwashed fool....

*Scientific opinion on climate change*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​
The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
    2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
    3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.*


----------



## depotoo (Mar 28, 2013)

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2013)

depotoo said:


> .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
> New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears



Your sources are jokes pushed by professional deniers taking money from the fossil fuel industry. You are truly clueless about all this.

*Marc Morano*

*Marc Morano is a wingnut propagandist and global warming denier. He kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the early '90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. In 2004, he was one of the first "reporters" to hype the John Kerry swiftboating story. In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his "Director of Communications." Morano's position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who "disagreed" with the consensus. Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website "Climate Depot." Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.[1] Supposedly, he exposes the "lies" of the "warmists" and "scientific McCarthy-ites" who do research in that inconvenient thing called science. The site is really more of a denialist-style Drudge Report that links to whatever nonsense it can find. *


*Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano*


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 28, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> What apparently cannot penetrate the skulls of the scientifically illiterate is that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. If you pour them into the atmosphere, they *MUST* raise temperatures --- unless there are countervailing forces present. This is as certain as that a stone will fall when you drop it.
> 
> What countervailing forces are present? I have yet to see a convincing case that they exist. However, it is certain that there are processes which exacerbate global heating --- for example, loss of reflectivity in the polar regions, and release of CO2 and methane from the melting tundra.
> ...



You are aware that this undeniable link between CO2 concentrations and heating is NOT linear aren't you? That to get the same temp rise you must pump twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere? So that an initial doubling of CO2 from 10ppm to 20ppm had the same effect as going from 200ppm to 400ppm?

There is no doubt that the recent climate has been warming. About twice as much as the known cycles of warming accompanying the Oceanic oscillations that we've studied long enough. Just knowing that over decade spans you're panicked about, we have failed to see a tightly coupled warming to CO2 concentration which IMPLIES other extenuating processes.  And we KNOW that in the ancient history you dug up that the earth had 10 times the CO2 concentrations that you've inhaled in your lifetime. And I've yet to see any indictment of Global Jurassic catastrophes tied to monstrous levels of GreenHouse gases..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2013)

numan said:


> Does that mean those who believe in a Flat Earth should get equal press coverage as those who are sane?



Funny that you would phrase it like that.  Present global climate models upon which AGW hysteria is based model the earth as a flat disk, that doesn't rotate, and is bathed across its entire surface with a weak sunlight 24 hours a day.

It is you who literally believes in a flat earth model which must be constantly tweaked in order to produce a temperature even close to the actual temperature.



numan said:


> I think educated people are just not very interested  in those who don't know what they are talking about.
> .



I think you are right, and if your belief in the hoax weren't taking money out of my pocket, I wouldn't be interested at all.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2013)

numan said:


> .
> ...we might start looking at some facts.



Yes, why don't we.

As an example of my typical, open-hearted, generous nature, I will even begin by agreeing with a statement which is often made by those who flail away at the fact of Global Heating.

*The earth has been cooling for the last 70 million years.*



> "Global climate was warm during the Late Triassic. There was no ice at either North or South Poles. Warm Temperate conditions extended towards the poles."



Looking at your chart, which I believe is accurate, tell me, what exactly do you find surprising about the fact that the earth is warming?  Look at the climate history of the earth and tell me what the overall trend of the earth's temperature is likely to be for the next several million years.

Looking at the temperature history of the earth, tell me, do you think there is any possibility at all that the general trend is not going to be warming until such time as there is no ice on earth....anywhere?...because according to your chart,  for most of earth's history, it has been so warm on earth that there was no ice at one or both of the poles...and probably no glaciers either.

Looking at your chart, what would a rational, thinking person think the future climate trend is going to be and at what average global temperature is it likely to reach?  And what would that same rational thinking person who knows where the trend is headed think about a bunch of hysterics lamenting over a 3/4 degree temperature rise in the past century and threatening us with a few more degrees if we don' change our ways?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 29, 2013)

SSDD - 

Do you really see even a hint of irony in the fact that you posture here as someone who knows what they are talking about - despite being probably the only poster on the forum who doesn't understand what terms like 'left wing' and 'right wing' mean?

You simply can not take stands so fantastically extreme that you are forced to reject dictionaries as a concept on one hand - and then pretend to be the voice of informed moderation on the other hand.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> *However, this has no bearing on what is happening presently.*
> 
> Anthropogenic global heating is occurring over centuries, and even decades -- not at the majestic, slow pace of hundreds of thousands or millions of years typical of the geologic record.



Do you have any proof of that claim.  Ice cores show us multiple periods in the past half a million years or so when temperatures have risen much more quickly than they are at present.



numan said:


> Evolution has not prepared the plants and animals (including humans) of our biosphere to adapt at such a pace. This means that there will be "discontinuities" -- which means, at the human level, hideous catastrophes and destruction.
> .



Since we know beyond question that there have been times in the past where temperatures rose faster, and higher than the present without the doom and gloom and apocolyptic consequences you claim...your statement is bullshit.

Here is the data from the vostok ice cores.  One can't help but notice that the present temperature rise is quite tame when compared to several other rises even in the past half a million years.  By the way, have you ever wondered why those ice cores only go back so far?  Could it be that prior to that time it was so warm that there was no ice?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Do you really see even a hint of irony in the fact that you posture here as someone who knows what they are talking about - despite being probably the only poster on the forum who doesn't understand what terms like 'left wing' and 'right wing' mean?
> 
> You simply can not take stands so fantastically extreme that you are forced to reject dictionaries as a concept on one hand - and then pretend to be the voice of informed moderation on the other hand.



Your yapping at my ankles like a very small angry dog doesn't mean much to me you being a liberal intellectual midget and all.  The fact that you could produce no actual recorded history to support your claims just made your argument all the worse.  Did you notice on your thread which side was posting what hitler actually said, and did, and the programs he instituded while your side was posting what leftist historians had told you to think?

It was quite sad, but did illustrate how you people only think what you are told to think like good little bots.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 29, 2013)

SSDD -

I'm not angry at all - I am just surprised that you are still posting here after posting some of the worst gaffes I have ever seen any poster make. 

You might to want to forget the sentence in my sig line, but until there is some evidence that you have learned what the terms do actually mean, of course I will continue to remind you of your mistakes. 

The thing is, SSDD, you CAN learn. Its just not ok to post the same mistakes again and again and again, long after you must have realised they are wrong. Everyone knows you are just bluffing and making up nonsense. You don't fool anyone. 

Anyone of 50 posters on this board could explain what 'right wing' means to you today - you only have to ask. 



> Did you notice on your thread which side was posting what hitler actually said



Yes, obviously almost all of the quotes on the threads came from me. I think were a dozen in the OP alone.

btw, Something very important for you to understand is that the Hitler thread was NOT divided into left vs right posters, nor into socialist vs conservative nor any other political variation. All the books, dictionaries and most conservative posters agree, after all. 

The divide is between the informed vs ill-informed, between those who read vs those who refuse to read, between those who are interested in history and those who are terrified of it. 

Anyone who reads can learn - even you.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I'm not angry at all - I am just surprised that you are still posting here after posting some of the worst gaffes I have ever seen any poster make.



Of course you are angry.  I have gotten under your skin and it pisses you off to no end.  All of these idiot posts you are making regarding left and right wing are for your benefit and no one elses.  You are acting like a child who has had a toy taken away and making sure that everyone knows that you are unhappy about it.

You thought you knew something about politics...found out that you didn't and now are having a temper tantrum.  We are adults here and you are fooling no one.  If you could see how obvious your efforts are, you would be to embarassed to even show up here.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 29, 2013)

SSDD - 

Why would I be angry that you don't know what "right wing" means?

You have to remind yourself occasionally that the dictionaries, the science and history books all agree with me. Whereas actually not a single source of any value in any field seems to agree with you. By all means put it to the test - start a thread about the sentence in my sig line, and see how many posters back your case.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



*Now anybody that has studied this subject is aware of the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 and temperature. As they are also aware that CO2 is just one of the factors involved. You see, when CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas. And that warms the atmosphere even more. Then, in our case, at present, and also in the past, there are sources of stored carbon that can be vented into the atmosphere as methane. 

Now you have a whole new ballgame. We see the evidence of this happening in the PT Extinction.*

Volcanoes Blamed for Greatest Land and Sea Extinctions | Wired Science | Wired.com

Whats striking is how fast the extinction was, says paleontologist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., a co-author on the paper. The event had been seen as lasting half a million years, but the new dating limits it to no more than 200,000 years and quite possibly less than 100,000 years, Erwin says. Were paleontologists studying events 250 million years ago, he adds, so a hundred thousand years sounds like overnight to us.

The dating also establishes that the extinction on land, apparently driven by extreme drying and warming, happened simultaneously with the marine extinction. And the new age for the extinction of 252.28 million years puts it within a mere few tens of thousands of years of the humongous lava outpourings that formed large deposits of volcanic rock known as the Siberian Traps. We think the timing is consistent with the Siberian Traps eruptions being the major cause of the extinctions, Erwin says.

Its quality data, says Paul Wignall, a paleontologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. There was something going on with the eruptions, though we still dont understand the interaction with living things. The new study may help answer that question, too. It also refined the timing of geochemical changes, which may hold clues to exactly how the eruptions trigged the biggest extinction. However it happened, the eruptions belchingwhich included greenhouse gases and acid-generating sulfurmust have done in much of the life on land and in the sea.

This story provided by ScienceNOW, the daily online news service of the journal Science

*As much as we can tell, we are increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere at about ten times the rate that those gases were increased prior to that extinction. We have, in the last 150 years, increased the CO2 by nearly 40%, and the CH4 by 250
%. And now we are seeing kilometer wide areas of CH4 bubbling out of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

So there is much more to the story than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 creates feedbacks that are even more powerful as GHGs than the CO2. *


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 29, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Volcanic extinctions are the same as AGW? WTF? The experiment of throwing mountains of slimy pollution and chemicals into the atmosphere IS THE SAME as CO2 emissions?

Now THAT'S science goldirocks style...


----------



## numan (Mar 29, 2013)

Here is a link to the United States Geological Survey:

*Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.*



> *Do the Earths volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, No.*
> 
> Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the worlds degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
> 
> The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).


*Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate)·······0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected)····························35.0

Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2····························700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2·············3500*
.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 29, 2013)

20 year hiatus:

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

How to not be puzzled:

AGW is bullshit.

Case solved.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



Saigon knows a lot about politics.  The problem is that everything he knows is wrong.  It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> 20 year hiatus:
> 
> Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled.


*10 warmest years on record* 
*2010 	
2005 	
1998 	
2003 	
2002 	
2006 	
2009 	
2007 	
2004 	
2012 	*


*NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years*
July 28, 2010
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
*The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the active-weather layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earths surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean, said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming.





Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming, said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.*


*Globe Continues Hottest Decade Ever
National Geographic Magazine*
by Dan Stone  
January 15, 2013
(excerpts)
*New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures. Although average worldwide temperatures in 2012 did not break records, the average global temperature last year was 58.3°F (14.6°C), more than a degree warmer than the historic baseline set in the 1950s. Since 1880, the average global temperature has increased 1.4°F (0.8°C), the new data showed. Taken all together, 2012 was the ninth warmest year in modern history. Every year has been above average since 1996, Thomas Karl, director of NOAAs Climatic Data Center, told reporters Tuesday afternoon on a conference call to announce the new findings.

U.S. temperatures were no exception. The former record surface temperature in America was 54.3°F (12.3°C), recorded in 1998. Last year beat the record by an entire degree Fahrenheit, an unprecedented year-over-year increase in temperature monitoring. Not only did [the U.S.] break the record for the warmest year, we literally smashed the record, said James Hansen, who heads NASAs Goddard Space Institute. Despite ongoing debate about the precise impact humans have on a changing climate, the U.S. governments top climatologists have specifically indicted fossil fuels that release greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere. Even though scientists expect ongoing fluctuations that vary by seasonrather than a linear continuation of warmingthey expect the longer-term trend will be more warming at a more dramatic rate.*









IlarMeilyr said:


> Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


Short excerpts from the article you cited.
*
Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India. Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming. But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem. "Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says. Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. "The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.*
(source: The Australian)






IlarMeilyr said:


> How to not be puzzled:


In your case, IlieMostly, "_not being puzzled_" would involve you actually growing a brain and, since you obviously haven't managed to do that yet, it is highly unlikely that you ever will. You should probably just resign yourself to a life of puzzled confusion.


----------



## numan (Mar 29, 2013)

'


bripat9:eusa_whistle:643 said:


> Saigon knows a lot about politics.  The problem is that everything he knows is wrong.  It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.


Well -- especially in the USA -- there must be very few people whose brains aren't pickled in some form of propaganda.

It's too bad more people don't try to see through the propaganda and make some effort to re-hydrate their brains.

· · ·


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 29, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> 
> bripat9:eusa_whistle:643 said:
> ...



^ nuderp is one of those pant loads that thinks he's smart and that he alone is smart.  

Everyone else who doesn't agree with his derpy views is, in nuderp's estimation, kinda dumb.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 29, 2013)

Rolling Fart:

repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 29, 2013)

numan said:


> Here is a link to the United States Geological Survey:
> 
> *Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.*
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone here but oldierocks is fixated on volcanoes as part of the conundrum.  However -- you probably ought to look at how much CO2 is emitted by the oceans and the land every year.. Granted -- they are sinking more CO2 than they emit --- however THOSE emissions are on the order of 20 times the man-made contributions. And if we're off by 10% on those estimates of balance in the CO2 cycle --- well ----- you do the math.. 

PS -- you got a handle on the CO2/methane emissions for termites??? It'll jar your solid faith in witchcraft..


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.



I posted the science. You post discredited claptrap. Too bad you're soooooo retarded that you can't tell the difference.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 29, 2013)

I'll take AGW seriously when the Warmers stop posting about it


----------



## numan (Mar 29, 2013)

'
It is a matter of simple physics that this build-up of carbon dioxide *must* produce an increase in the greenhouse effect. Only if there were opposite physical effects, such as an increase in the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere, or an increase in cloud cover, could global warming not occur. But the world is, in fact, warming measurably.

 Indeed, other effects promote global warming, they do not counter it. Ice cover in the arctic is disappearing. The white ice used to reflect sunlight back into space; now the dark, open waters absorb the sun's rays, increasing the temperature of the ocean.

 In Siberia and the Canadian North, the permafrost is melting, releasing carbon dioxide and methane; this will lead to a run-away greenhouse effect: more heat, more carbon dioxide and methane; more methane and carbon dioxide, more heat.

Back in the late 1960's, I remember reading an article in Scientific American magazine which discussed the issue of the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The authors of the article noted that the oceans could absorb vastly more carbon dioxide than humanity could ever produce. They thought, therefore, that global warming would not occur. They were right about the physics, but wrong about the rate of absorption. The oceans will, eventually, take up all the carbon dioxide produced by man: but, by that time, the Web of Life will have been torn asunder, and the survival of the human race become problematical.
.


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> 
> bripat9:eusa_whistle:643 said:
> ...







Yes, I suggest you that.  In the real world of science when a theory is not supported by observation IT IS WRONG!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0]Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## minimalist (Mar 29, 2013)

The price to pay for our planet in terms environmental and social to maintain a consumerist lifestyle and to wonder whether all those things that we believe are essential to really, begin to see things from a different prospective and with a minimalist lifestyle is rewarding  to know  that we do good even a little to our  planet.      

Google MINIMALIST  GENERATION


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 29, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.
> ...



No.  You post discredited AGW Faither claptrap.

It has little relationship to actual science.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 29, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > repeating your discredited claptrap is not exactly persuasive.
> ...




^ doesn't have the first clue of how massively ridiculous he is to defend the voodoo bullshit that poses as "science."

You have FAITH, little feller.  Faith is fine, but it's not science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Well, dumb fuck, post some science of your own. You do know what peer review means, correct?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> It is a matter of simple physics that this build-up of carbon dioxide *must* produce an increase in the greenhouse effect.



You say that and yet, there doesn't exist a single shred of actual observed evidence to support the claim.

.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Saigon (Mar 30, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...


[/QUOTE]

you mean there doesn'r exists a single shred of actual observed experience that you will not ignore. 

For anyone else there are rising temperatures, melting glaciers, the collapse of the Arctic, increased patterns of droughts and floods.....

It is important that you can separate out your own politically based opinions from actual facts.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon knows a lot about politics.  The problem is that everything he knows is wrong.  It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.



And I am sure you can explain why books and dictionaries agree with me - and not with you. 

Because it's not as if the fact that you hold such extreme political views that you have stated monarchy is a better system of government than democracy could be considered "pickled", is it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon knows a lot about politics.  The problem is that everything he knows is wrong.  It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.
> ...



It has already  been established that they don't all agree with you.   However, all the books you read agree with you.  That's why you read those books.



Saigon said:


> Because it's not as if the fact that you hold such extreme political views that you have stated monarchy is a better system of government than democracy could be considered "pickled", is it?



Yes, monarchy has proven to be a better system than democracy.  Tax rates were far lower under democracy and economic growth was higher.  The standard of living improves faster under a monarchy than under democracy.  All the worlds leading democracies are headed swiftly towards economic collapse.  That's no accident.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 30, 2013)

BriPat - 

Given that you hold far, far more extreme political views than I do - why do you not think that extremism has "pickled" your owns views - particularly given no dictionaries or history books back your case?


It always seems so funny to me that you lbal anything everything around you as 'leftist' and 'pinko', despite the fact that you must know that they aren't. It really is just any excuse at all NOT to read, isn't it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I suggest you apply for Saudi citizenship. You certainly will never be happy here in America.


----------



## westwall (Mar 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> Given that you hold far, far more extreme political views than I do - why do you not think that extremism has "pickled" your owns views - particularly given no dictionaries or history books back your case?
> 
> ...









When are you going to answer my question on what your goals are to "control" CO2?  Then we'll see who the REAL EXTREMISTS are...won't we.


----------



## numan (Mar 30, 2013)

'
As usual, humans have dawdled and lied to themselves. Beyond the political trivialities, the raw facts emerge: we are all doomed. May the Fat Earth Goddess have mercy on our souls.

*Point of No Return for the Arctic Climate?*



> In the case of the Arctic, that could mean a complete disappearance of ice in the region during the summer months. Such an eventuality would then further magnify global warming, due to the fact that bright white ice reflects sunlight back into the atmosphere, whereas dark colored land and ocean absorbs heat....
> 
> "In the case of Arctic Sea ice, we have already reached the point of no return,"....
> 
> ...


----------



## numan (Mar 30, 2013)

'
I hope that readers here have enough knowledge and/or imagination to realize how appalling this news is. Accelerating and irreversible warming in the Arctic means that that melting of the permafrost will release more and more carbon dioxide and methane, creating run-away global warming.

The future effects are well known: sea rise, flooding of sea coasts, climate disruptions unparalleled in human history, environmental disasters, massive stress to the biosphere and species extinctions, etc. The speed at which these processes will occur guarantees that homeostasis cannot be maintained. "Discontinuities" will occur which will destroy the present order (or disorder) of human society.

Moreover, global warming is hardly the only crisis facing us. The mainstream rhetoric about global warming, perhaps purposely, crowds many other environmental problems out of the mass consciousness: deforestation, destruction of aquifers, soil destruction, paving over with cities the most fertile areas of the planet, human over-population, resource depletion, suicidal over-harvesting of the oceans, and on and on.

Most of these problems were well understood in the 1960's. If humans really deserved their epithet of being "sapiens", at that time they would have conceived and implemented the "one family, one child" policy which China has pursued with only partial success.

Whatever the intelligence of individual humans may be, the intelligence of the species as a whole is infinitesimal. I know that in the 1960's I was ready to change my habits and strive to preserve what was of value in human society and the world as a whole. Obviously, my fellow hominid anthropoids were not.

 Too bad -- our numbers were half of what they are today. We would have had a fighting chance then.
.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 30, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> I hope that readers here have enough knowledge and/or imagination to realize how appalling this news is. Accelerating and irreversible warming in the Arctic means that that melting of the permafrost will release more and more carbon dioxide and methane, creating run-away global warming.
> 
> The future effects are well known: sea rise, flooding of sea coasts, climate disruptions unparalleled in human history, environmental disasters, massive stress to the biosphere and species extinctions, etc. The speed at which these processes will occur guarantees that homeostasis cannot be maintained. "Discontinuities" will occur which will destroy the present order (or disorder) of human society.
> ...



Don't fret, noman.  Nobody WITH a brain buys your alarmist AGW Faither nonsense.

,


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



As usual, IlieMostly, you are soooo retarded that you get everything  backwards. It is the ones like you who are WITHOUT a brain who deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming. The intelligent and educated people accept the science and the evidence and the testimony of the experts. It is only the brainwashed nutjobs like you and the other denier cultists who reject the science and mountains of evidence, and that is only because you are all such ignorant, uneducated, rightwingnut retards.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 30, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



Since you are one of the brainless ones to whom I made reference, your stupid reply comes as no surprise.

We expect you mentally defective idiots to say such stupid shit.

I mock your Faith.  AGW Faithers tend to be really tragically stupid goobers, like you.


----------



## numan (Mar 30, 2013)

'
Here is a youtube link to a talk by Bill McKibben, the author of the well-known book, *The End of Nature*.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Citd9RH7kbU]*Earth's Tipping Point*[/ame]

Interesting tidbits:

The oceans of the Earth, by the end of thils century, will be at least six feet higher than they are today. Most of the coastal cities of the planet will be New Orleans, and New Orleans will be Atlantis.

There has been some very robust research at NASA that when the concentration of CO2 reaches 350 parts-per-million, We will begin to enter the regime of irreversible, run-away global warming. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at present 400 parts-per-million.

Many regions of the Earth are in a regime of permanent drought. Australia has been in a severe drought for several years. The Australian Meteorological Service says officially that it is no longer a drought: it is the New Normal.

The Southwest of the USA is in Australia's predicament. Drought is the New Normal. Say goodbye to all the golf-courses around Phoenix, Arizona. Indeed, say goodbye to Phoenix! It is unlikely that Lake Powell on the Colorado River will ever be full again. Say goodbye to Los Angeles, at least as a large city. Definitely say goodbye to Las Vegas.

It would be nice to think that future ages will be impressed by the ruins of Las Vegas, like the ruins of Palmyra. However, the city is made of such shoddy materials, it will be merely a hump of debris in the desert, like Ur of the Chaldees.

*My name is "The Godfather, Mafioso of mafiosi!"
Look on my works, Ye Mighty, and despair!*
_[with apologies to Percy Bysshe Shelley]_
.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



No surprise, you got everything backwards again.

But then, we expect you mentally defective idiots in the cult of AGW denial to say such stupid shit.

I mock your faith in the fossil fuel industry propaganda, you retarded denier cultist. AGW denier cultists tend to be really tragically stupid goobers, like you.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 30, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



^ naturally a brain dead mindless Faither would fuck up like that, again and repeatedly.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Talking to yourself again, I see, you poor deluded retard.


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Here is a youtube link to a talk by Bill McKibben, the author of the well-known book, *The End of Nature*.
> 
> *Earth's Tipping Point*
> ...



\





Yeah, I've talked to Bill.  The problem is what he says can't happen.  At the most accelrated rate of glacial melt that has been recorded it would take over 10,000 years for the ocean levels to rise to the levels he claims we will see in 100.  When somebody gets their facts so completely wrong, on something that is so easily checked, one should look at EVERYTHING they say with a very critical eye.

I suggest you look at every prediction made by the radical environmentalist fringe in the last 30 years.

Paul Ehrlich is my favorite, some of his claims have been that hundreds of thousands of Americans would starve to death along with millions of others in the 1970's, smog disasters would kill hundreds of thousands in New York and LA, He bet that England would cease to exist by the year 2000, and the one I found most idiotic that minerals would be scarce by 1985....etc. etc. etc.

The man is a world class failure.  And yet, like McKibben you guys lap up everything they say with girlish groupie-like beating hearts and ignore the simple fact thet they've NEVER BEEN PROVEN CORRECT IN ANY PREDICTION THEY HAVE EVER MADE!

That is simply astonishing to me.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 31, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



No.  I was talking to you, you sub-cretin brain dead AGW Faither nitwit.  

I understand your mistake however.  Nobody expects a complete simpleton like you to get anything right.  And you never do.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 31, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOL....somehow though I manage to thoroughly debunk all of the braindead denier cult bullshit you post, you deluded imbecile. I have the entire world scientific community behind what I post and you have only the propaganda and lies of the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 31, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Don`t waste your time talking to that fence post. He`ll bury everything you say with his 24/7 on duty junk data garbage truck because he is obsessed with having the last word like a 5 year old problem child.
Try this thread...he has`nt discovered it yet:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...climate-scientists-puzzled-4.html#post7026909


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...










Fence Post...I quite LIKE that!  Fits him to T as well!


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> At the most accelerated rate of glacial melt that has been recorded it would take over 10,000 years for the ocean levels to rise to the levels he claims we will see in 100.



Those outside the cult instantly see the big screwups in that statement, assuming melt rate won't keep increasing, and ignoring the thermal expansion of seawater.



> When somebody gets their facts so completely wrong, on something that is so easily checked, one should look at EVERYTHING they say with a very critical eye.



Hence why no one takes Westwall seriously.

Science consists using the data to make a hypothesis, making predictions based on the hypothesis, and then seeing those predictions comes true. AGW science has been succeeding at that over and over for decades now, which is why it has so much credibility.

Denialists? In general, they're too cowardly to even make predictions. On the rare occasions they've tried, they've failed hard. They don't do science, they just scream at people, hence why they're considered a cult.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 31, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> I hope that readers here have enough knowledge and/or imagination to realize how appalling this news is. Accelerating and irreversible warming in the Arctic means that that melting of the permafrost will release more and more carbon dioxide and methane, creating run-away global warming.
> 
> The future effects are well known: sea rise, flooding of sea coasts, climate disruptions unparalleled in human history, environmental disasters, massive stress to the biosphere and species extinctions, etc. The speed at which these processes will occur guarantees that homeostasis cannot be maintained. "Discontinuities" will occur which will destroy the present order (or disorder) of human society.
> ...



Aint it a bitch when you're the passenger on the bus that sees the train coming? And All  of your superior intellect and sensibilities are not as useful as SHOUTING LOUDER?.. Must be a betting man to bring in so many dire consequences into one post. 

Can you explain how the mental midget masses somehow just STUMBLED on a way to roll back the US CO2 emissions to 1990s levels WITHOUT your help and services? Without MASSIVE taxation or cutbacks in Yearly GDP. OR -- without your armed shocktroopers with guns enforcing a "one child policy"?? 

Just dumb luck I guess...


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > At the most accelerated rate of glacial melt that has been recorded it would take over 10,000 years for the ocean levels to rise to the levels he claims we will see in 100.
> ...








Typical anti-science response from the religious kooks.....  Here is a report in the good old Hufpo that deals with the Eemian period when temps were 14 degrees warmer than today and guess what the ice cap survived for THOUSANDS of years.  They of course then blame the rise of seawater on the loss of Antarctic ice, but that has been growing for the last two years minimum....

Just like it would today...but that's cience and you clearly don't do science.




"The enormous sheets of ice that lie atop Greenland may not be as prone to catastrophic melting as many scientists thought, even if the planet continues to warm and temperatures remain high for hundreds of years. But while that may sound like good news, new evidence also suggests that parts of the even vaster ice sheets that lie atop Antarctica could be more unstable than once believed.

Thats the conclusion of scientists who have been drilling deep into the Greenland ice sheet since 2007, in a Danish-led project known as the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM). Their results, published Wednesday in a landmark paper in Nature, show that temperatures rose some 8°C (14.5°F) higher than they are today during the so-called Eemian period, a stretch of natural global warming that occurred between about 115,000 and 130,000 years ago."






Greenland's Ice Sheet More Stable Than Once Believed


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 31, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



So you imagine that some group of people in America, the "_mental midget masses_", which I suppose would be you and your friends and those like you, have somehow caused this 8% decline in American carbon emissions? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....that's precious.... 
Of course the economists tend to point to other factors. One long term factor over the last couple of decades has been the transfer of a major part of the manufacturing base from the US to China and other places. In effect, America outsourced some of our pollution including CO2 emissions to other countries where it still goes into the common atmosphere we all share. Shorter term, the experts at the Federal Energy Information Administration say that this decline in CO2 emissions results from "*a combination of three factors: a mild winter, reduced demand for gasoline and, most significant, a drop in coal-fired electricity generation because of historically low natural gas prices.*" A reduced demand for gasoline is mostly due to the bad economy and I guess you could say that some 'mental midgets' crashed the financial sector and created the depression, they aren't the same "_mental midget masses_" that you seem to think are responsible for lowering CO2 emissions. So, I'm curious, fecalton, just what was the method that you and the "_mental midget masses_" "_just STUMBLED on_" as "_a way to roll back the US CO2 emissions to 1990s levels_"??? Did the "_masses_" cause a "*mild winter*"? Did the "_masses_" crash the economy and reduce the demand for gas? Did the "_masses_" discover new natural gas deposits and develop new techniques for extracting the gas, thus causing a reduction in the use of coal fired power plants?

It's all a big fuss over very little. The US still pumped 1.34 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in just the first quarter of this year. Until the country gets serious about supporting and facilitating the switch-over to renewable, zero carbon emission energy sources, these emission figures will just rise again. Burning natural gas still puts vast quantities of CO2 in the air; it's just a bit lower quantity that burning coal would produce. Moreover the process of fracking seems to releasing large quantities of methane, which more than offsets any CO2 reductions from switching to natural gas.

*A 20-Year Low in U.S. Carbon Emissions*
The New York Times
(excerpts)
*Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States from January through March were the lowest of any recorded for the first quarter of the year since 1992, the federal Energy Information Administration reports. The agency attributed the decline to a combination of three factors: a mild winter, reduced demand for gasoline and, most significant, a drop in coal-fired electricity generation because of historically low natural gas prices. Whether emissions will continue to drop or begin to rise again, however, remains to be seen, experts said Friday. Carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption totaled 1.34 billion metric tons in the first quarter, down nearly 8 percent from a year earlier, the Energy Information Administration said. Although natural gas is a more efficient fossil fuel than coal, burning it still produces carbon dioxide emissions.

The extraction of large natural gas deposits in the Marcellus Shale has contributed to the rise of inexpensive natural gas, causing prices to decline in the last four years and making it a far cheaper option than burning coal. In 2005, coal accounted for half of all electricity generated in the country. But the embrace of natural gas, which now accounts for about 30 percent of electricity generation, has caused coals share to retreat to 34 percent, a 40-year low. Yet Michael Mann, a climate scientist who directs the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, emphasized on Friday that, in addition to carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas wells contribute to other ills. When shale gas is taken from the earth, researchers suggest, fugitive methane  a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide  can escape into the atmosphere through fissures in the ground. We may be reducing our CO2 emissions, but it is possible that were actually increasing the greenhouse gas problem with methane emissions, he said. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the means by which much of the shale gas is being acquired, also raises questions about potential environmental effects like groundwater contamination, critics say.*


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 31, 2013)

One of the most elegant explanations for the disagreement between qualified climate scientists on the issue of AGW is summarized as:



> * * * * Science deals with facts, experiments and numerical representations of the natural world around us. Science does not deal with emotions, beliefs or politics, but rather strives to analyse matters dispassionately and in an objective way, such that in consideration of a given set of facts two different practitioners might come to the same interpretation; and, yes, I am aware of the irony of that statement in the present context.
> 
> Which brings us to the matter of Occams Razor and the null hypothesis. William of Occam (1285-1347) was an English Franciscan monk and philosopher to whom is attributed the saying Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates as Plurality should not be posited without necessity. This is a succinct statement of the principle of simplicity, or parsimony, that was first developed by Aristotle and which has today come to underlie all scientific endeavour.
> 
> ...



Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not? | Watts Up With That?

The frauds and charlatans who actually advance the AGW Faith are not at all scientific.

And they cover their inadequacies by pretending that the ones they label the "denialists" are the ones who are not properly "scientific."  

We see evidence of their canard throughout the numerous posts in threads like this by the AGW Faither hacks like Rolling Fart and his unpersuasive petty ilk.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 31, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Here is a youtube link to a talk by Bill McKibben, the author of the well-known book, *The End of Nature*.
> 
> *Earth's Tipping Point*
> ...



You've really avoided ALL discussion of ANY of these alarmist assertions you make on this forum.. As I've tried to engage your smug superior intellect several times.. But perhaps with this post -- *you might want to take a breath and show us some back-up for the assertion that the oceans are gonna rise 6 ft by the end of this decade*.. 

Then maybe we can discuss if it's time to have a "one child policy" to avoid drowning.

Mamooth (another of the "enlightened") just told me NO ONE on the warming side spouts alarmism. Particularly not the elite of illuminated like yourself..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2013)

> Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.



Totally wrong. Here are just two of the failures of the "It has to be natural!" theory.

1. It fails to explain why past natural cycles in the past all have an identifiable cause, but the current warming has no identifiable natural cause.

2. It fails to explain why we can directly observe the energy imbalance of the earth, caused by the outward IR flux squeezing down around the CO2 absorption bands.

Since it fails to explain the observed data, Occams' Razor says to reject the "Natural Cycle!" theory. And since AGW theory is the simplest theory that does explain all of the observed data, Occam's Razor says it is most likely to be correct.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 31, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Mamooth (another of the "enlightened") just told me NO ONE on the warming side spouts alarmism.



Crying about me won't convince me to go any easier on you, ya big sissy. That just encourages me to mock you more.


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> > Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






What "identifiable cause"?  It's an instant PhD if you could prove what caused the HTM, MWP, RWP, And MWP again.  My gosh but you really are one of the most deluded individuals ever on this board.  You must be Gleick, only a true nimrod like him could post the absolute utter bullshit you post with a straight face.


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Mamooth (another of the "enlightened") just told me NO ONE on the warming side spouts alarmism.
> ...







Oh yes, your mocks are so powerful


----------



## Oddball (Mar 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Since it fails to explain the observed data, Occams' Razor says to reject the "Natural Cycle!" theory. And since AGW theory is the simplest theory that does explain all of the observed data, Occam's Razor says it is most likely to be correct.


Except that the AGW fairy tale is one of the most convoluted piles of unreproducible, unfalsifiable, misanthropic crap since at least  "An Essay on the Principle of Population".

Occam's razor indeed.


----------



## SMP (Mar 31, 2013)

Moron One:  Global Warming is Real because People are now Farting at ever increasing rates thus GW is man made and must be stopped by Taxing Farting and creating and Index to Trade counting farts as Carbon Emissions.   We can't tax cows for their farting but we can Tax all Dairies and other Slime who kill and capitalize on Cows who fart as well.....Also we must tax those damnable anti peta folks who buy milk and steaks......

Moron Two:  Well as long as you don't tax my whiskey so I can continue to not fart it will be ok.....Elite Republican response before the Tea Party.....

Moron Three:  Government is opposed to ALL FARTING and will Tax anyone who does so....because we believe the Folks who fart the most need to fart their fair share.....

Final Moron:  Only fart as you are passing through the First Class Cabin to get to Coach.....that will show those nasty 1 percenters....


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SMP - 

It is worth noting that some countries are looking at ways to reduce the amount of farting from farm animals. Funny as it sounds, for agricultural countries it is one way they can reduce emissions quickly and hopefully easily. 

One way to do it is to channel cow shit at milking sheds into underground tanks and using it to produce methane that can then be used on the farm.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> you mean there doesn'r exists a single shred of actual observed experience that you will not ignore.



I mean that there doesn't exist a single shred of evidence to support the claim.  If you believe some exists, by all means, please bring it forward.  

You have already shown that you don't have the slightest idea of what constututes evidence...you have said rising sea levels prove the claim...sorry, they don't as sea levels have risen over a hundred feet in the past 14000 years with low levels of CO2...you have claimed that retreating glaciers prove the claim...sorry, they don't as the ice cap has retreated almost 2000 miles in the past 14,000 years with low levels of CO2....and on and on.  Learn what proof is then admit that there is none.



Saigon said:


> For anyone else there are rising temperatures, melting glaciers, the collapse of the Arctic, increased patterns of droughts and floods.....



Those things might constitute proof for idiots, or people who want to believe (still idiots) but not for rational thinkers.  Temperatures have been on the increase for 14,000 years and the greatest part of that temperature increase was when atmospheric CO2 was at "safe" levels..  This tells a thinking person that CO2 isn't the cause.  

The ice cap has retreated almost 2000 miles in the past 14,000 years with 19,800 miles of that retreat being when atmospheric CO2 was at "safe" levels.  This tells a thinking person that CO2 is not the cause.

The arctic was ice free during the holocene maximum, during the roman warm period, and had much less ice than the presen during the medieval warm period...all these periods had atmospheric CO2 in the "safe" level..   This tells a thinking person that CO2 is not the cause.

Drought and flood are part of the earth's climate....more sever drought and flood have occurred at times when atmospheric CO2 was at the "safe" level.  This tells a thinking person that CO2 is not the culprit.

I gave you examples of what constututes scientific proof.  Refer to them and then try giving an actual example of proof that raising atmospheric CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm up.



Saigon said:


> It is important that you can separate out your own politically based opinions from actual facts.



That is exactly what you should do.  The examples above are not examples of proof that CO2 is the cause because those things have all happened when atmospheric CO2 was lower and higher.  CO2 is not a cause but your politics allows you to view things that are not proof as proof.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> As usual, humans have dawdled and lied to themselves. Beyond the political trivialities, the raw facts emerge: we are all doomed. May the Fat Earth Goddess have mercy on our souls.
> 
> *Point of No Return for the Arctic Climate?*
> ...



neuman, you are pathetic.  You post this bullshit and never have an answer when it is debunked.  The Arctic was ice free during the Holocene Maximum and the Roman warm period and has been ice free within the past 100 years.  None of those instances led to the claimed maginification of warming..  What makes you think the present is an exception?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Don't fret, noman.  Nobody WITH a brain buys your alarmist AGW Faither nonsense.
> 
> ,



Typical troll...post..post...post... and never a real answer when his posts are challenged.  Guess that means that he is no better able to discuss the topic than the other cut and paste drones on this board.  The only people who can actualy discuss the topic are the skeptics.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD - 

If I thought for a moment you had any guine interest in learning about science or climate change, I'd be delighted to present material for you to look at, but we both know you aren't interested. 

Why you insist on playing this deranged game in which you demand evidence you then refuse to look at is beyond me. 

What we can both agree on is that every major scientific organisaion agrees that human activity plays some role in change the earth's climate - making your hilariously vain claim that you have some kind of monopoly on "rational thinking" as childish as it sounds. 

If you do want to post honestly one day - perhaps start by acknowledging that you hold such fantastically extreme political views that you are forced to reject dictionary definitions, and we can move on from there.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Those outside the cult instantly see the big screwups in that statement, assuming melt rate won't keep increasing, and ignoring the thermal expansion of seawater.



How much do you think sea water expands due to increased heat?  How much would it expand if the temperature increased 2 degees, 3 degrees, 4 degrees?  How much sea level increase would that expansion result in?  

You make comments like that as if you actually knew what you were talking about.  Here's your chance to prove that you do, or you don't.  Answer the questions?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD - 





> The Arctic was ice free during the Holocene Maximum and the Roman warm period and *has been ice free within the past 100 years*.



Wonderful stuff, SSDD, it's good to see you are still as happy to post absolutely anything that springs into your mind, no matter how laughable to is! 

You just could not make this shit up, could you??!!

Let's see what some actual scientists say - as opposed to your usual fortune telling sources.

Some studies suggest that *as recent as 5,500 years ago,* the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.

The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/


That's not bad SSDD - you were only 5,400 years out!!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Totally wrong. Here are just two of the failures of the "It has to be natural!" theory.
> 
> 1. It fails to explain why past natural cycles in the past all have an identifiable cause, but the current warming has no identifiable natural cause.



Really?  What precisely caused the reversal of the last ice age?  Please provide proof of your claim.  What precisely caused the spike of temperatures duing the holocene maximum, and the roman warm period and why were the maximum temperatures different?  Provide proof of your claim.

And doesn't the fact that at the end of the 20th century the output of the sun was near its highest in the past 5000 years suggest that there might be an identifiable natural cause?



mamooth said:


> 2. It fails to explain why we can directly observe the energy imbalance of the earth, caused by the outward IR flux squeezing down around the CO2 absorption bands.



We can't directly observe the energy imbalance of the earth because we don't have any more than a theoretical handle on the energy cycle within the earth and atmosphere.  

And outgoing LW radiation is on the increase as has been shown by satellite measurements in direct contradiction to the predicted decrease of outgoing LW by climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> If I thought for a moment you had any guine interest in learning about science or climate change, I'd be delighted to present material for you to look at, but we both know you aren't interested.



No you wouldn't because there isn't a single scrap of actual evidence of CO2 causing an increase in global temperatures.  Not one.  Pretending to hold back information because I won't read it denies all of the readers on this board who don't necessarily post.  Post it for them.  Some of them may be children...do it for the children.

Or prove that no such evidence exists by continuing to not post that which we all know doesn't exist.



Saigon said:


> Why you insist on playing this deranged game in which you demand evidence you then refuse to look at is beyond me.



The only one deranged is you siagon..claiming that all sorts of things are proof that more CO2 causes warming when all those things happened when CO2 levels were much lower as well.  You guys need to take a few minutes and learn a basic scientific fact.....correlation does not equal causation.  



Saigon said:


> What we can both agree on is that every major scientific organisaion agrees that human activity plays some role in change the earth's climate - making your hilariously vain claim that you have some kind of monopoly on "rational thinking" as childish as it sounds.



What we can agree on is that the political heads of every scientific organization have made statements that the membership of said organizations had no sayso on.  What we can't agree on is that humans are responsilbe.  Another thing we can agree on is that neither you, nor all those heads of scientific organizations can provide a shred of hard evidence that man is responsible for global climate change.

If the proof existed, it would be everywhere and yet, when asked you guys alwasy give some mewling excuse for not providing it.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> What we can agree on is that the political heads of every scientific organization have made statements that the membership of said organizations had no sayso on



Right. Even the organistations that took a democratic vote on the issue. Honestly...."political heads"? Of an association of Belgian Chemists?!

It was all fixed by some gigantic socialist conspiracy. There really is absolutely no fact you can't twist into paranoid gibberish, is there?

btw. No one is "holding back" information. It has all been posted here before, and you've flat out ignored it without reading it. You know it and I know it.




> If the proof existed, it would be everywhere



Exactly. And yet you still claim you can't find it, when we both know you have found it and refused to look at it.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> > Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One of the more obvious and glaring fails of the AGW Faither side (to the effect that "it has to be man caused") is evidenced by the fact that it fails to explain all the various global climate changes that preceded human industry.

Another is that despite the (still questionable) increase in the lower atmosphere's concentration of CO2, we do NOT see any corresponding increase in average temperatures in the last one to decades.

But the AGW Faithers still have faith.  Praise Gaia.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> is evidenced by the fact that it fails to explain all the various global climate changes that preceded human industry.



What ARE you talking about?

Honestly - I am AMAZED how many times we posters present their own ignorance of fact as some kind of political point we should all been impressed by. 

Both you and SSDD seem to suffer from the terrible fallacy that suggests that if you refuse to look at evidence, therefore it doesn't exist. 

Meanwhile there are books and sites devoted to this topic the rest of the world read 10 years ago.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD - 

I think you "forgot" to respond to this. Which is strange, because I know you often tell us how honest you are. Well - here's a chance to prove it. 




Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Some studies suggest that *as recent as 5,500 years ago,* the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.



Some studies?  What does that mean?  Some studies show that there was no ice in the arctic during the holocene?  Of course, that is exactly what that means.

Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Jakobsson et al. 2010.pdf


There are plenty more studies that indicate an ice free arctic during the holocene 



Saigon said:


> The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian.



You say that as if it were fact when clearly it is not as evidenced by studies that state that the arctic was ice free during the holocene.

The there remains the question....why did it melt when atmospheric CO2 was so much lower than the present?  Clearly CO2 is not the control knob you believe it to be.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD - 

Please post with a little honesty and integrity. Really. 

You claimed the Arctic was ice free within the past hundred years. 

A reputable source claims you are out by 5,400 years. 

Please admit your error.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> btw. No one is "holding back" information. It has all been posted here before, and you've flat out ignored it without reading it. You know it and I know it.



I know that you are a liar and no such evidence has been posted here before.  I challenge you to prove that you are not a liar by posting a single bit of hard evidence that proves that more CO2 in the atmosphere raises the global temperature.  Evidence of something that has never happened when atmospheric CO2 levels were lower would provide strong correlation, but not proof and to date, you guys have not even been able to provide that.



Saigon said:


> Exactly. And yet you still claim you can't find it, when we both know you have found it and refused to look at it.



I have looked.....it isn't there.  The problem is that due to your scientific ignorance you don't know what constitutes scientific proof.

Post one bit of evidence that you believe provides proof that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 cause global warming.   Not corelation...proof.  You can't do it because no such proof exists.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The Arctic was ice free during the Holocene Maximum and the Roman warm period and *has been ice free within the past 100 years*.
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you haven't seen all of the photos taken by US and Russian submarines surfacing in open water at the north pole in the past 60 years or so.  Do you really need to see them?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD - 

I'm really not interested in your usual children's games, diversions and half truths. No one is. 

Either post HARD, SCIENTIFIC proof of an ice-free Arctic having occured within the past century, or admit that you were, as per usual, wrong. 

I'm not sure even you have been wrong by 5,400 years before!!


----------



## editec (Apr 1, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvXj_WjTU5Y]Leon Russell A Hard Rains A gonna Fall - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Please post with a little honesty and integrity. Really.
> 
> ...



No error.... Here are 3 photos of submarines taken at the north pole in open water... I suggest that you take a few minutes and try to find the age of the oldest ice ever found in the Arctic.  

The Oldest arctic ice is a small remnant of the Ellesmere Ice Shelf which began forming some 5000 years ago.  What sort of study claims that the arctic ice is 125,000 years old when the oldest arctic ice is only about 5000 years old?  And according to nasa, the oldes toughest sea ice is no older than 8 or 9 years old.









Off-duty » Top secret submarine at the North Pole







Where is the Ice at the North pole? | In Pursuit of Happiness


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I'm really not interested in your usual children's games, diversions and half truths. No one is.
> 
> ...



The Oldest Arctic Ice



> The oldest non-glacial ice in the northern hemisphere is a small remnant of the former Ellesmere Ice Shelf which began  forming about 5500 years ago.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Some studies suggest that *as recent as 5,500 years ago,* the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.
> ...



*Thank you, SSDD. This will be a valueble resource for future referance.*

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Jakobsson et al. 2010.pdf

4. Concluding remarks

APEX is now up and running e we have now established a growing community of scholars from Europe, Russia and America who are working to address critical questions regarding Arctic palaeoclimate and its extremes. The papers in this issue demonstrate the breadth of topics being considered that span the full range of terrestrial to marine records and which are closely integrated with modelling.

This review of APEX research identifies several areas that are distinct to the present programme and that represent significant advances on previous work in QUEEN and PONAM. The Arctic Ocean was essentially terra incognita in these earlier programmes,
playing second fiddle to the terrestrial records of Arctic palaeoclimate, but in APEX it now occupies a central part of the Arctic palaeoclimate system and the current research programme. Understanding the links between climate change, palaeoceanography,
sea ice extent and land-based ice is a challenge that APEX is now well-positioned to address. Future work should look to develop an integrated reconstruction of terrestrial and marine based evidence for ice sheet and ice shelf history in the Arctic Ocean
and surrounding land masses. This is beginning to happen in the papers within this issue e the terrestrial history of the Greenland Ice Sheet is being integrated into the continental and deep ocean records, as are the ice sheets of Eurasia. Further advances are
expected in the Canadian and Siberian arctic in coming years. A second area of future focus will be to improve our understanding of conditions during the periods of significantly greater than present ice extent (MIS6) and periods of much reduced ice cover (MIS 5e
and the Holocene thermal optimum). The latter provides important base-line conditions against which to explore potential future changes in Arctic climate under scenarios of global warming.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *Thank you, SSDD. This will be a valueble resource for future referance.*
> 
> m). The latter provides important base-line conditions against which to explore potential future changes in Arctic climate under scenarios of global warming.



Note that they said nothing about man made global warming.  Further...as noted above, the oldest arctic ice is 5000 years old indicating an ice free arctic in the not so distant past.  Along with the photos above showing open water at the north pole in the very recent past but before atmospheric CO2 became "dangerous".


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD - 

Had any other poster made your laughable claim, I'd had expected them to withdraw it and apologise. 

I don't think anyone familiar with your daily rite of self-immolation would have expected anything other than diversions and lies. 

Well done - you really are such an honest poster.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Had any other poster made your laughable claim, I'd had expected them to withdraw it and apologise.
> 
> ...



What a moron you are....don't even realize that I have proven my point and made your claim of an ice free arctic 125000 years ago laughable.  Seems you were off by over 100,000 years.

And before you make an even bigger idiot out of yourself, you might take a minute or two to learn what is meant by the phrase "ice free" even by arctic researchers.  They don't mean a complete absence of ice...they mean large areas of open water...such as those you see in the photo of the USS Skate in the 1950's.

That is the problem wtih talking to you guys who have no grasp of the science...every tiny detail must be explained to you 10 times and still you don't get it.  Hell, you still believe there is proof that increased atmospheric CO2 results in increased global temperature even though you can't seem to find any to post here.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> I have proven my point



No, you haven't and of course you know you haven't either. 

You claimed that the Arctic had been ice-free within the past hundred years, which is obviously laughable, and you have not even attempted to defend it for obvious reasons. 



> That is the problem wtih talking to you guys who have no grasp of the science.



You also claimed earlier to know what good science is and looks like - and yet your own 'evidence' presented to back up your claims are postcards. Are postcards science?

Why do you do this to yourself? 

Do you think this makes you look clever?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

The myth of the Denier case:



> Those things might constitute proof for idiots, or people who want to believe (still idiots) but not for rational thinkers.



The reality of the deniar case:

picture postcards.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

*9% higher energy then than now, yet today we are rapidly approaching where the ice was then, and in the space of a century and a half, not thousands of years.*

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Milleretal2010TempandPrecip.pdf

As the planet cooled from peak warmth in the early Cenozoic, extensive Northern Hemisphere ice sheets
developed by 2.6 Ma ago, leading to changes in the circulation of both the atmosphere and oceans. From
w2.6 to w1.0 Ma ago, ice sheets came and went about every 41 ka, in pace with cycles in the tilt of
Earth&#8217;s axis, but for the past 700 ka, glacial cycles have been longer, lasting w100 ka, separated by brief,
warm interglaciations, when sea level and ice volumes were close to present. The cause of the shift from
41 ka to 100 ka glacial cycles is still debated. During the penultimate interglaciation, w130 to w120 ka
ago, solar energy in summer in the Arctic was greater than at any time subsequently. As a consequence,
Arctic summers werew5 C warmer than at present, and almost all glaciers melted completely except for
the Greenland Ice Sheet, and even it was reduced in size substantially from its present extent. With the
loss of land ice, sea level was about 5 m higher than present, with the extra melt coming from both
Greenland and Antarctica as well as small glaciers. The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) peaked w21 ka ago,
when mean annual temperatures over parts of the Arctic were as much as 20 C lower than at present.
Ice recession was well underway 16 ka ago, and most of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets had melted
by 6 ka ago. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) w11 ka ago and has
been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy
elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1e3 C above 20th century averages,
enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice
Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially
smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was
substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished
or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Oceandiminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250e1850 AD),
when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing
most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent. During the warming of the past century,
glaciers have receded throughout the Arctic, terrestrial ecosystems have advanced northward, and
perennial Arctic Ocean sea ice has diminished.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> You claimed that the Arctic had been ice-free within the past hundred years, which is obviously laughable, and you have not even attempted to defend it for obvious reasons.



Open water at the pole qualifies as ice free.  Sorry you lack the requisite knowledge to understand that.

Still waiting on that proof that you claimed existed.  If you were honest, you woud simply admit that you have none.  When asked, I support my claims with actual evidence.  

Again, the oldest ice ever found in the arctic is 5000 years old.  That means that prior to that time, the arctic was ice free.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The myth of the Denier case:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still no hard evidence to post?  Don't worry, all us skeptics already knew that you would have none to post.  Lack of hard evidnece...that's what makes us skeptics.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *9% higher energy then than now, yet today we are rapidly approaching where the ice was then, and in the space of a century and a half, not thousands of years.*



Based on what?  Trenberth's missing heat?  That is an unprovable, and unsupported claim.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Open water at the pole qualifies as ice free.  Sorry you lack the requisite knowledge to understand that..



No it does not - and please try and post honestly and with a little dignity. You also have not presented any scientific evidence of any kind to even establish that there was open water at the pole. 

Simply lying, changing topic, running away and then lying some more does not establish anything we didn't already know about you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed that the Arctic had been ice-free within the past hundred years, which is obviously laughable, and you have not even attempted to defend it for obvious reasons.
> ...



Once again, you are full of shit. The ice often opens and creates large areas of open ocean. Polynyas;

All About Sea Ice, Polynyas :: National Snow and Ice Data Center


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Still no hard evidence to post?  Don't worry, all us skeptics already knew that you would have none to post.  Lack of hard evidnece...that's what makes us skeptics.



Your evidence was postcards, genius. 

Again - please try and post honestly.



> When asked, I support my claims with actual evidence.



No, you posted postcards.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *9% higher energy then than now, yet today we are rapidly approaching where the ice was then, and in the space of a century and a half, not thousands of years.*
> ...



Argue that with the scientists. For these are accredited scientists writing the article. From the same institution as the article in your post.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still no hard evidence to post?  Don't worry, all us skeptics already knew that you would have none to post.  Lack of hard evidnece...that's what makes us skeptics.
> ...



Isn't it sad when a couple of postcards can prove all of climate science wrong?

Still no hard evidence to support your cliams?  None now...none ever.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> your claim of an ice free arctic 125000 years ago laughable.



and it's back to lying. 

What I posted was:



> Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> When asked, I support my claims with actual evidence.






SSDD said:


> Isn't it sad when a couple of postcards can prove all of climate science wrong?



So postcards ARE hard evidence, are they? 

And you claim to know something about what science is and what it looks like?

Honestly - have you ever sounded more like a spanked child than you do now?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

*
Seems to be no doubt in the minds of these research scientists as to what the future holds.*

http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/download/6172/6851

Abstract
Sediment cores from the Norwegian Sea were studied to evaluate interglacial
climate conditions of the marine isotope stage 5e (MIS 5e). Using planktic
forminiferal assemblages as the core method, a detailed picture of the evolution
of surface water conditions was derived. According to our age model, a steplike
deglaciation of the Saalian ice sheets is noted between ca. 135 and
124.5 Kya, but the deglaciation shows little response with regard to surface
ocean warming. From then on, the rapidly increasing abundance of subpolar
forminifers, concomitant with decreasing iceberg indicators, provides evidence
for the development of interglacial conditions sensu stricto (5e-ss), a period that
lasted for about 9 Ky. As interpreted from the foraminiferal records, and
supported by the other proxies, this interval of 5e-ss was in two parts: showing
an early warm phase, but with a fresher, i.e., lower salinity, water mass, and a
subsequent cooling phase that lasted until ca. 118.5 Kya. After this time, the
climatic optimum with the most intense advection of Atlantic surface water
masses occurred until ca. 116 Kya. A rapid transition with two notable climatic
perturbations is observed subsequently during the glacial inception. Overall,
the peak warmth of the last interglacial period occurred relatively late after
deglaciation, and at no time did it reach the high warmth level of the early
Holocene. This finding must be considered when using the last interglacial
situation as an analogue model for enhanced meridional transfer of ocean heat
to the Arctic, with the prospect of a future warmer climate.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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



Read for comprehension....Polynyas are areas of "PERSISTANT OPEN WATER" where one would expect to find sea ice.  The north pole is not an area of persistent open water and the photos are not of ships coming up through polynyas.  You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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




Exactly that, Old Rocks. 

I can well imagine areas of ice opening up here and there every summer - that they do so hardly means the ocean is "ice free".

SSDD - 


> You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.



And yet all of the studies suggest that it is has not happened for 5,400 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

Hey, SSDD, thanks once again. Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature, Mainz, and Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, IFM-GEOMAR, Wischhofstr. 1-3D-24148 Kiel, Germany, has a wealth of information comparing the present warming to the past warmings. And how differant they are both in cause and effects.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



How long are you going to insist on such nonsense? You have only a few more years until there is a period in the summer that has no Arctic Ice.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So postcards ARE hard evidence, are they?



Those are.  The same photos have been used in research....photos are evidence without regard to the format in which they are printed.

Here is a postcard proving that the sun doesn't set on at least one day in Nordkapp.  Does the fact that it is a post card make it untrue?  Now you are relying on logical fallacies.  It just doesn't get any better for you, does it.









Saigon said:


> And you claim to know something about what science is and what it looks like?



Not only what it looks like...but how it is done as well.  So far, all you have is lies and now you have added logical fallacies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.



Really?

Because this link shows that current levels of Arctic ice are unprecedented during the past 50 years, anyway. 

Arctic sea ice before satellites | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

This seems strange given your postcards apparently "proved" that the area was ice free.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> Does the fact that it is a post card make it untrue?



No, the fact that your postcards are contradicted by real evidence makes it untrue.



> Now you are relying on logical fallacies. It just doesn't get any better for you, does it.



No, I am relying on solid, observational data, which completely disproves your postcards.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.



yes clouds tend to move 

appear and disappear over time 

check it out sometime


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



More doom and gloom based on computer models.  The problem is that reality just won't cooperate.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years



> A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that western Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that the western Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though western annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.




http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.



You ever hear of time lapse?  Clouds just don't wait around for the next shot.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> Here is a postcard proving that the sun doesn't set on at least one day in Nordkapp.



So these pictures COULD NOT have been taken on different days?

And you call THIS science? This is why you reject peer-reviewed and published research?

Honestly...you are the most gullible person in the world, aren't you?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

> The problem is that reality just won't cooperate.



Well, reality just proved your postcards false, didn't they? 

NASA records, and others, confirm that the Arctic was NOT ice free in the years your claim.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unprecedented for the past 50 years?  Are you joking?  I am literally laughing in your face.  We are talking about global climate any you say unprecedented in the past 50 years?  How much more idiotic can you possibly get?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD - 

Try and focus. 

YOU claimed the arctic had been ice free within the past 50 years. 

I just proved that your claim was false. 



> How much more idiotic can you possibly get?



Well, you could rely on postcards as evidence instead of solid data.



> I am literally laughing in your face.



You do not know what "literally" means.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD, every scientist dealing with the Arctic states that the current ice levels are unprecedented for a few thousand years. The first person to actually transit the Northwest Passage took three years. In the past few years, small sailboats have been transitting the Northwest Passage in a matter of weeks. In fact, some have even circluled the whole of the Arctic Ice Pack. 

The person here, as I have amply illustrated with articles from real scientists, making idiotic statements is you.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

OK, so let's review - 

SSDD claimed that the Arctic had been ice-free within the past century, but presented no scientific evidence to back up this claim. 

He then claimed 'ice free' does not actually mean 'ice free', but means an area of water. This is patently NOT the definition used by scientific organisations. 

He then claimed unsourced postcards constituted scientific proof. 

The NSIDC data suggests that the Arctic has not been ice-free for around 5,400 years. 

I think we can leave it there.

Anyone interested in actual science - as opposed to holiday snaps - could do worse than peruse this site:

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Here is a postcard proving that the sun doesn't set on at least one day in Nordkapp.
> 
> 
> 
> So these pictures COULD NOT have been taken on different days?



No, they were taken on the same day.  

From the back of the card:   _The midnight sun over the Arctic Ocean, seen from North Cape. The photo montage shows the sun's course from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. - postmarked in Feb. 2007 with Norge (Norway) Svalbard _

Which day they were taken on is not the point of the photo. Again, you miss even the most basic principles.



Saigon said:


> And you call THIS science? This is why you reject peer-reviewed and published research?



Yes it is science.  The science is called astronomy.  Observe from the same point at different times...or on different days to observe astronomical movement.  Stonehenge works on the same principle and is still an accurate astronomical instrument.  It is you who doesn't recognize science and that is precisely why you are a bleiver.  You are easily fooled because you don't see science all around you all the time.  



Saigon said:


> Honestly...you are the most gullible person in the world, aren't you?



No, I am afraid that dubious honor goes to you and your fellow believers.  As reality diverges further and further away from the model predictions you have placed your faith in, you will eventually have to admit that you were wrong.  The real entertainment value lies in seeing exactly how stupid you are by how long it takes for you to acknowledge that you were wrong.  Some of the smarter rats are already jumping ship.  Will you hang on till you literally become a flat earther?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The problem is that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You believe nasa over your own eyes?  Wow.  Even more stupid than I thought and I really didn't give you much credit in the first place.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.
> ...



LOL. Now notice I did not say the pictures were not what they are. I just said the clouds were in differant postitions in each photo. In other words, I used your method of arguement against you. Irrelevant facts that cast doubt without outright lying.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Try and focus.
> 
> ...



With what?  NASA's claim vs photographic evidence.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > The problem is that reality just won't cooperate.
> ...



LOL. Now who saw the whole of the Arctic ice free fifty years ago. Show your proof.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

Arctic Sea Ice situation 6th worst on record:

This year&#8217;s maximum ice extent was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. The lowest maximum extent occurred in 2011.* The ten lowest maximums in the satellite record have occurred in the last ten years, 2004 to 2013.*

On March 15, 2013 Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 15.13 million square kilometers (5.84 million square miles). The maximum extent was 733,000 square kilometers (283,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles). The maximum occurred five days later than the 1979 to 2000 average date of March 10. The date of the maximum has varied considerably over the years, with the earliest maximum in the satellite record occurring as early as February 24 in 1996 and as late as April 2 in 2010.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The only thing you cast doubt on was your own intelligence rocks.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



Photographic proof? I saw a sub in a small area of open water. For all we know, the photographer could have been standing on ice. You are a fool, SSDD.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



It isn't luck, genius, it is comparing science with gossip. 

And science proves that the Acrtic has patently NOT been ince free during the past century. Which I think we all knew, anyway.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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



Learn what ice free means rocks.  Even scientists who claim an ice free arctic is just around the corner don't mean completely ice free.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Arctic Sea Ice situation 6th worst on record:
> 
> This years maximum ice extent was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. The lowest maximum extent occurred in 2011.* The ten lowest maximums in the satellite record have occurred in the last ten years, 2004 to 2013.*
> 
> ...



I repeat:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years



> A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that western Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that the western Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though western annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.




http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> And science proves that the Acrtic has patently NOT been ince free during the past century. Which I think we all knew, anyway-



Proves or says.  So far you have shown that they said it.  Now lets see the proof.  Climate science has made it obvious that they will say all sorts of things but proving them is an entirely different matter.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > is evidenced by the fact that it fails to explain all the various global climate changes that preceded human industry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.  It is you who is suffering from that fallacy.  I am not amazed at all at the persistence of your pitiable and deliberate ignorance.  

All evidence contrary  to your pet notion (not even a true scientific theory) is disregarded by you AGW Faithers.

There is tons of evidence showing how misguided you Faithers are, but tools such as you persist in simply wishing it all away.

Let us know how that works out for you if you ever man up sufficiently to actually consider the tons of contrary evidence.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon does not even grasp that observation is a component part of science, yet he pretends to be able to lecture others ABOUT "science."

Remarkable.

Sad.

But still, pretty amusing.

SSDD has completely exposed Saigon as the hack he is.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

Just the other day (yesterday I believe) I posted an interesting link.

Let's put Saigon, Rolling Fart and Old Socks to the test.

As honestly and as scientifically as you can manage it:  STATE with precision the PROPER "null hypothesis" relative to the question of AGW.

Lots more could easily follow from that simple assignment.  But let's take it one small step at a time.  You can collude if you wish.  But try to be honest, objective, scientific and lucid.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> SSDD has completely exposed Saigon as the hack he is.



Oh, definitely. 

But it's good to know that we can now all use postcards instead of data.



> All evidence contrary to your pet notion (not even a true scientific theory) is disregarded by you AGW Faithers.




Yes there are "tons" blogs out there that take all kind of stands on climate change. Very few of them have any scientific standing, and many of them are linked to particular right-wing politicians. There are very, very few solid pieces of research that deny climate change. Some of those that do are interesting, some less so. 

At this stage, every major scientific organisations backs human involvement in climate change. That is 60+ organisations representing every field of scientific enfeavour from biology to physics. It's a no brainer to anyone who does not hold extremist political views.

What these discussions will always come down to ultimately is that those of you who do hold vey extreme political positions of any kind, be they left or right - and SSDD's positions are extreme enough that he can not use dictionaries - will never understand science. Science simply isn't suited to politics.

Keep in mind that there have been 13,500 peer-reivwed research papers on climate change. Some 24 deny human involvement. So those are your odds.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD has completely exposed Saigon as the hack he is.
> ...



Just to be sure of your grasp of science...are you claiming that photographic evidence is not data?  I just want to confirm how far from reality you really are with regard to what is and isn't science.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD - 

You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.

Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> At this stage, every major scientific organisations backs human involvement in climate change. That is 60+ organisations representing every field of scientific enfeavour from biology to physics. It's a no brainer to anyone who does not hold extremist political views.
> .



And they do it without the first shred of actual proof of a greenhouse effect...they do it without even a mathematical model of a greenhouse effect....
they do it based on models that assume...assume....assume.....assume.

hey assumethat the surface of the earth has a constant source of heat
they assume that the energy arriving at the surface of the earth does not vary with clouds or other atmospheric phenomena
they assume that the surface does not cycle between day and night periods where incoming energy is fully on and then fully off
they assume that radiation is the only type of energy transfer in operation
they assume that convection and conduction do not force heat to rise from the surface
they assume that there is no differential in heat capacity between the surface and the atmosphere
they assume that the surface of the earth is composed of oceans and land and equators and poles and variable elevations and contours
they assume that the surface of the earth does not store and release energy over many variable time scales
they assume that the atmosphere is composed mostly of non radiative gasses and therefore has very little heat capacity.

Why would you put your faith in models that make so many assumptions when you know what the actual earth is like?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.



Are you saying that there was no photograph?



Saigon said:


> Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.



I have seen no proof...you have presented no proof.  You presented a claim and that is all.  No evidence to support the claim.  A real part of you guys (warmers) problem is that you accept statements as proof when they are not proof.  Proof is proof...hard observable evidence is proof....not statements.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.
> 
> Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.



Unless you have some reason to believe that he photographs were altered (like photoshopped), then it is beyond silly of you to deny that that the postcard that comes with photographs is not photographic evidence.

You post silly words which leaves electronic ink in the form of letters and words.  That may not constitute evidence of much, but it is certainly proof that somebody using your account typed some shit and hit "submit."


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD has completely exposed Saigon as the hack he is.
> ...



I realize your limited grasp of science and the meaning of words leaves you at a severe disadvantage, but it is still true that sometimes the contents of and images on a postcard constitute "data."



Saigon said:


> > All evidence contrary to your pet notion (not even a true scientific theory) is disregarded by you AGW Faithers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Your* determination of who does or does not have "scientific standing" is far from controlling.  Thought you should know.  There are numerous and very substantial and solid "pieces of research" that deny the legitimacy of the "science" of AGW climate change.  



Saigon said:


> At this stage, every major scientific organisations backs human involvement in climate change. That is 60+ organisations representing every field of scientific enfeavour from biology to physics. It's a no brainer to anyone who does not hold extremist political views.



Once again you must come to grips with the truth of the VERY simple proposition that science is not governed by "consensus" or democracy.
It *is* abundantly clear that you AGW Faithers have rather extremist (but scientifically unsupported) political views.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Once again you must come to grips with the truth of the VERY simple proposition that science is not governed by "consensus" or democracy.
> It *is* abundantly clear that you AGW Faithers have rather extremist (but scientifically unsupported) political views.



Their entire argument comes down to an appeal to authority and even the "authority" can't even provide any measured evidence of a greenhouse effect....or a single shred of evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes global climate change.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Once again you must come to grips with the truth of the VERY simple proposition that science is not governed by "consensus" or democracy.
> ...



But a lot of people say it.  So it must be true.

SCIENCE!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon will never state the null hypothesis.


----------



## numan (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.
> 
> Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.


I remember when those atomic submarines visited the North Pole. The news reports all said that the submarines had to punch their way through the ice to get enough clear water so that they could get those tourist photos !!

· · ·


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

numan said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



There are some photos where the subs had to punch their way through ice and there are photos of them in open water.  Open water at the north pole is not a new thing.  According to the "experts" the oldest of the sea ice is no more than 10 years old.  That should give you an indication of exactly how much melting and freezing goes on up there.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 1, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SQhx5_o8HAs]Amateur home movie of Arctic Circle, 1950's -- Film 4169 - YouTube[/ame]
.Amateur home movie of Arctic Circle, 1950's -- Film 4169 .


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> One of the more obvious and glaring fails of the AGW Faither side



Please Don't project your slavish allegiance to a political liars' cult on to the honest and rational people. We get it. You fail totally concerning all the science and logic, therefore you just parrot whatever your cult orders you to parrot. You need to understand, however, that we are not like you.



> is evidenced by the fact that it fails to explain all the various global climate changes that preceded human industry.



But it does explain them. That's the point. Where do you come up with such dumfukkery? AGW science is climate science, and climate science does explain those climate changes.



> Another is that despite the (still questionable) increase in the lower atmosphere's concentration of CO2



"ALL THE DATA IS A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!"

You're even denying the CO2 increase? Even the most crazed of the 'tards here don't take it to that level.



> we do NOT see any corresponding increase in average temperatures in the last one to decades.



A brazen lie, debunked here over and over. Of course, I'm guessing FOX didn't tell you that, so you'd have no way of knowing. So you get a pass on it.



> But the AGW Faithers still have faith.  Praise Gaia.



A dumbshit logic blunder and repeating an outright lie on your part doesn't make us hypocrites or cultists. It just makes you stupid and dishonest.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2013)

So SSDD is _still_ claiming that a lead in the ice means "The arctic is ice free".

I think that qualifies as the most pathetic lie I've ever read here. Not the biggest lie, but the most pathetic, just because it's so stupid, and because it's so obvious that the 'tard is trying to weasel out of his stupid claim by digging himself in even deeper.

Sadder, all of the other denialist 'tards have jumped on the same 'tard bandwagon. Like I keep saying, it's a liars' cult.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > One of the more obvious and glaring fails of the AGW Faither side
> ...


So why don`t you tell me why every city under these "aerosol" domes as you call them, is warmer than the surrounding country side?
After all it was you who claimed these "aerosols" reflected enough sunlight to explain the temperature stall.
Why don`t you tell us how to calibrate a pollen count as a "proxy thermometer"?
Pollen, that`s a nice word for plant sperm, perhaps this might help :




Your occult high priest Marcott needs help URGENTLY.
Let me google that for you





Since when are non-occult members a "denial occult".
Are you a "Scientologist"...no..?
That makes you a "denial occult member" by your own definition.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2013)

polarbear said:


> So why don`t you tell me why every city under these "aerosol" domes as you call them, is warmer than the surrounding country side?



Because concrete and asphalt are dark, dumbass. And because they don't evaporate moisture.

Again, 4rth grade level science, and yet you can't grasp it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Please Don't project your slavish allegiance to a political liars' cult on to the honest and rational people. We get it. You fail totally concerning all the science and logic, therefore you just parrot whatever your cult orders you to parrot. You need to understand, however, that we are not like you.



I am afraid that it is you and yours who have foregone science and logic in favor of political agenda.  Lets talk about the science...  Describe the greenhouse effect as you understand it....and describe it without violating any of the laws of physics if you don't mind.

I don't believe for a second that you can but hey, there is a certain entertainment value in seeing your sort be exposed for the morons you are.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So SSDD is _still_ claiming that a lead in the ice means "The arctic is ice free".
> 
> I think that qualifies as the most pathetic lie I've ever read here. Not the biggest lie, but the most pathetic, just because it's so stupid, and because it's so obvious that the 'tard is trying to weasel out of his stupid claim by digging himself in even deeper.
> 
> Sadder, all of the other denialist 'tards have jumped on the same 'tard bandwagon. Like I keep saying, it's a liars' cult.



The challenge is on the table mamooth....lets talk about the greenhosue effect.  Again, describe it in your own words without violating any of the laws of physics.  Which version do you subscribe to...the official version or one of the various lukewarmer versions?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2013)

I have zero trouble addressing direct questions, being that I'm not a mewling denialist liars' cult member. The simplified version:

CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb IR radiation in certain bands, so more CO2 slows down radiative heat transfer away from the earth. That changes the equilibrium, more energy comes in than goes out, and the earth warms. The earth would eventually reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature, if the CO2 levels stabilized, but we're not there yet, we're in the warming part.

An additional blanket warms the bed in a similar way, by slowing down outward heat transfer. If you think AGW theory violates the laws of physics, you probably also think a blanket violates the laws of physics.

(And by the way, given that we all know you're eventually going to turn tail and run, like you always do, the bluster was probably not a good idea.)


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I have zero trouble addressing direct questions, being that I'm not a mewling denialist liars' cult member. The simplified version:
> 
> CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb IR radiation in certain bands, so more CO2 slows down heat transfer away from the earth. That changes the equilibrium, more energy comes in than goes out, and the earth warms. The earth would eventually reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature, if the CO2 levels stabilized, but we're not there yet, we're in the warming part.
> 
> ...



Why isn't the rate of global heating increasing in the past 10 -15 - 20 years?

All the human-caused co2 isn't going anywhere, is it?

Not only is it still here, but it's been ADDED to, right?

So why isn't the RATE of global heating getting progressively worse and worse?

Why is the rate slowing?

And what evidence is there for any speculated answer?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I have zero trouble addressing direct questions, being that I'm not a mewling denialist liars' cult member. The simplified version:
> 
> CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb IR radiation in certain bands, so more CO2 slows down radiative heat transfer away from the earth. That changes the equilibrium, more energy comes in than goes out, and the earth warms. The earth would eventually reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature, if the CO2 levels stabilized, but we're not there yet, we're in the warming part.



Interesting.  You don't buy into the official greenhouse effect but you do buy into a luke warmer type offshoot.   Any particular reason you don't buy into the actual greenhouse hypothesis?

Here is the actual hypothesis as stated by the IPCC.

FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science



> The Sun powers Earth&#8217;s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth&#8217;s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1).* Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.* The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth&#8217;s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth&#8217;s surface would be below the freezing point of water. Thus, Earth&#8217;s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.



So what special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to disregard the actual greenhouse hypothesis in favor of a luke warmer hypothesis?



mamooth said:


> An additional blanket warms the bed in a similar way, by slowing down outward heat transfer. If you think AGW theory violates the laws of physics, you probably also think a blanket violates the laws of physics.



Of course a blanket doesn't violate any laws of physics.  The belief that a blanket can make an object beneath it warmer does though.  Do you think your mattress is above room temperature just because it has a blanket on it?  Grab yourself a thermometer and check it out....it isn't.  A blanket can never warm a bed unless it is an electric blanket...and a blanket can never make a warm object underneath it  warmer unless it is an electric blanket and capable of heating to a temperature greater than that of the warm object it is covering.

Here is an experiment for you to prove that a blanket can't cause any warming at all.  Grab every blanket in your house...grab the sheets and towells too, and your winter coats.  Put on all your winter coats then climb under all your blankets, sheets, and towells and see if you can give yourself a fever.  Here is a clue....you can't.  Those blankets are not energy sources and therefore they can't cause your body to become warmer than it already is.  You  will feel warmer as the air under the blanket and the layers of the blanket themselves reach equilibrium with your body, but your body temperature won't increase at all because your body is the only energy source.

The blankets will warm as a result of absorbing your body heat and eventually reach equilibrium all the way to the outermost blanket at which time it will begin radiating out into the room.  At no point will your body temperature increase however.  Feel free to try and put on enough clothes to give yourself a temperature.  When you can't, perhaps you will then realize that if a physical blanket can't do it, then a trace gas in the atmosphere certainly can't.



mamooth said:


> (And by the way, given that we all know you're eventually going to turn tail and run, like you always do, the bluster was probably not a good idea.)



I believe it is you who will turn tail and run because my bet is that we are now over your head....and I never run...


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 1, 2013)

Sometimes at night I kick off the blankets when I give myself a fever by having them covering me too thoroughly.

Whew.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Any particular reason you don't buy into the actual greenhouse hypothesis?



Any particular reason you failed to understand the word "simplified"? Was it due to ignorance of the word, or deliberate misinterpretation?



> The belief that a blanket can make an object beneath it warmer does though.



I suggest you sleep without a blanket tonight to test that very peculiar claim.

The earth is just like a warm body, in terms of the CO2 analogy. It has heat energy it needs to radiate out, just like a body under the covers. Whether the heat comes from internal chemical reactions or the absorption of visible light is not relevant to the analogy.



> but your body temperature won't increase at all because your body is the only energy source.



Your claim violates the laws of thermodynamics. If an object keeps producing heat and the heat moves outward more slowly, the object will warm up.

You claim also violates common sense, as anyone who has used a blanket knows. If I stay outside the blanket, I get cold. I don't just feel cold, my skin actually gets colder. Under the blanket, my body temperature rises.



> perhaps you will then realize that if a physical blanket can't do it, then a trace gas in the atmosphere certainly can't.



And since a physical blanket clearly can do it, you've clearly been debunked concerning your claim that CO2 can't do it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



Actually, the definition of being ICED (applied to sea ice extent) is somewhere in the range of 25 to 30% coverage (if I remember correctly). So it's worse than what you stated. Those sub pictures would probably be counted today from satellite and automated image processing as "completely iced". So when the definition is that low --- you get HUGE area variability in the surveys. Which is great if you're feeding a flock of alarmists, but doesn't say piss about historical comparisons by ship log or ice core dating.. 

That's why I don't mudwrestle about ice melts --- or believe that trees are thermometers.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So why don`t you tell me why every city under these "aerosol" domes as you call them, is warmer than the surrounding country side?
> ...



And apparently neither can the folks at NASA who keep resisting making corrections for Urban Heat Island corrections. Of course they've doctored the data sets for every other FAVORABLE bias they can imagine, but one like UHI that requires them to "cool the data" is not in favor..  Hence -- folks who HAVE developed rational urban corrections (like Dr. Roy Spencer) get a BETTER match to the satellite record than the data doctors manufacturing warming temperatures from 10,000 thermometers.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So why don`t you tell me why every city under these "aerosol" domes as you call them, is warmer than the surrounding country side?
> ...


*Wrong answer.*
Concrete has an albedo of 0.5 and trees have an albedo of 0.09 to 0.18 and worn  asphalt has an albedo of 0.12.
How much "black asphalt" do you get to see from an airplane that flies over a city?







> And because they don't evaporate moisture.


Water vapor is a "greenhouse gas" is it not? So then with the lower albedo and the higher moisture air layer over the forest, the forest should be warmer than the city according to your AGW  oracle model religion..*.but it isn`t* !...for a good reason that your religion keeps downplaying if not outright denying.
So what`s wrong with your religion`s testament ?

It`s 4rth grade level "science" as in  the PBS cat in the hat TV show for little kids, can`t you grasp it ?
So try again dimwit.
Idiots like you are  the reason that made Obama realize that the school system has been producing poor results and needs re-vamping.
Because you don`t have what it takes to do the math how much heat is transferred by convection.
*You failed* because you prefer to be spoon fed like Roy Spencer`s "Virginia" under the "radiation blanket" which keeps her warm in her bed while he`s reading her a story from the AGW bed time story book.

****************************************************************************************

Here is the right answer why *cities under a smog dome* of *airborne particulate *are hotter:
*Temperature Inversion Layers                    *






A layer of haze covers the Sydney, Australia skyline.
Inversion layers are significant to meteorology because they block  atmospheric flow which causes the air over an area experiencing an  inversion to become stable
Normally, air temperature decreases at a rate of 3.5°F for every 1000  feet (or roughly 6.4°C for every kilometer) you climb into the  atmosphere. When this normal cycle is present, it is considered an  unstable air mass and air constantly flows between the warm and cool  areas. 
During an inversion episode, temperatures increase with increasing  altitude. The warm inversion layer then acts as a cap and stops  atmospheric mixing. This is why inversion layers are called stable air  masses.

http://www.enotes.com/atmospheric-inversion-layers-reference/atmospheric-inversion-layers


> *Denver's "brown cloud," the haze of air pollution that hangs over the city, is kept in place by atmospheric inversion layers. ©* Ted Spiegel/Corbis. *Reproduced by permission.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So tell us again how the "Chinese aerosol effect" is supposed to account for the missing heat that these stupid models had forecast


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

Why is it we don't seem to have any Deniers on this board who are literate and can post honestly?


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Why is it we don't seem to have any Deniers on this board who are literate and can post honestly?







Take a look in the mirror buckwheat.  That applys to YOU more than any other.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Why is it we don't seem to have any Deniers on this board who are literate and can post honestly?


You wouldn't know literacy and/or honesty if they kicked you in the nuts, tovarich.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 1, 2013)

I'm sure you guys must see what I mean, even as you may be loathe to admit it. 

In the past few weeks it is become more than evident that many posters would post anything at all from any source out of sheer desperation. The claims have become increasingly shrill, ludicrous and passed being embarassing some time back. 

SSDD's insistence that the Arctic is regularly ice-free based on a postcard - despite scientific research proving that the Arctic has not been ice-free for more than 5,000 years - is the argumentation of a child. 

And let's not forget that the same 4 - 6 posters who are arguing against science are the same 4 - 6 posters who were arguing against history last week. 

I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.


Then maybe it would behoove you to get in touch with intellect, history and science.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I'm sure you guys must see what I mean, even as you may be loathe to admit it.
> 
> In the past few weeks it is become more than evident that many posters would post anything at all from any source out of sheer desperation. The claims have become increasingly shrill, ludicrous and passed being embarassing some time back.
> 
> ...



the artic ice changes constantly 

at one point it stretched so far south 

into North America that Europeans traveled along the ice barrier 

from the artic to North America


----------



## Saigon (Apr 2, 2013)

Jon - 



> the artic ice changes constantly



Indeed it does - it is amazing to look at some of the old images showing the extent of the ice. 

Even in the past few years, the changes have been quite dramatic, as this image shows:






The 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum, on September 16, 2007, reached the lowest ice extent in the satellite record. 

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon -
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Indeed, here it is today.....funny how you post the year that the cyclones broke up the sea ice and then it accreted back together at a record rate afterwords...funny how you omit that little fact.  You omit a lot I've found.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Any particular reason you failed to understand the word "simplified"? Was it due to ignorance of the word, or deliberate misinterpretation?



Does simplified mean entirely different to you?  The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and thereby warming the surface of the earth more than the sun alone could manage.  

You said that the greenhouse effect was the result of so called greenhouse gasses slow down radiative heat transfer away from the earth.  That is an entirely different senario than is claimed by climate science.  Slowing down the rate of heat transfer means a slowed rate of cooling.  A slower rate of cooling does not equal warming which is what climate science claims is happening when energy is reradiatied from the atmosphere to, and absorbed by the surface of the earth.

A slower rate of cooling does not equal warming.  If you slow the rate of cooling to zero you have a static temperature...not warming.  Your senario claims a slower rate of cooling.


> The belief that a blanket can make an object beneath it warmer does though
> I suggest you sleep without a blanket tonight to test that very peculiar claim.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD's insistence that the Arctic is regularly ice-free based on a postcard - despite scientific research proving that the Arctic has not been ice-free for more than 5,000 years - is the argumentation of a child.



Explain why, according to the experts, the oldest sea ice in the arctic is 10 years old or less if not for regular melting?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.
> ...


AGW gurus figure they can use computer models and data from the past to predict the future. If you don`t believe it that makes you a "denier".
The data they used is no better than what you would get from a random number generator that generates numbers between 1 and 6....as in the Marcott proxies.
Rolling the dice for 10 000 years "climatologists" averaged the numbers and it averaged 3. So they reason that future rolls of the dice should be 3 most of the time and everything else is an "Anomaly".
If they would have to put their money (instead of ours) where their mouth is they would loose 83% of the time betting on number 3.
A "denier " who knows math would wait out the first nine rolls and keep track which number came up the fewest time and do the math which number it would take so that the average stays at 3 and win over 60% of the time.
"Saigon" and the cat in the hat have of course no clue how the above related to the AGW empirical "proof", but that`s why none of the "oil-lobby conspiracy" scientists who know their math are surprised by the "missing heat" and the colder winters.
B.t.w. I`m still waiting for the cat in the hat to tell me how a pollen count is calibrated as a proxy thermometer...what`s the mathematical relation ship between the pollen count in 10 000 year old dirt and the temperature.






*But he won`t be back for quite a while because he is too busy Googling what an inversion layer and a standard lapse rate is...(something he never heard about, I`m sure.)....or how convection works and what happens if convection is blocked, like the "greenhouse effect" of the roof on a greenhouse. Should be no problem, according to him that`s grade school stuff...yet he had no clue how a simple chimney works









but was trying to lecture us on "atmospheric physics" + the "global cooling effect of Chinese aerosols" and heat their influence on transfer rates

*


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it is somewhat misleading to focus only on the minimum (or maximum) sea ice extent because they are the most influenced by weather systems and previous year's highs and lows.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s-3ADNlsxfw]Arctic sea ice 3-22-2013e 30fps - YouTube[/ame]

Cryosphere ? Sea Ice Video « the Air Vent

there is full satellite era coverage videos of both the Arctic and Antarctic at that web page.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.
> ...


So you are an "anti-intellectual/anti Science denier" just like me who has a problem with CO2 back radiation and the "Chinese aerosol" effect which uses airborne particulates like perfectly aligned little mirrors that reflect only in the up direction while CO2 molecules aim down like little lasers.
Sun light is collimated light and objects cast sharp shadows.
In a city under a smog dome or under a cloud the light is dispersed in all possible directions quite often to a point that there are no distinct shadows,...not that there was`nt enough light. 

We "deniers" say that IR re-emitted, speak dispersed by CO2 molecules does not behave any different either.
"Deniers" say that convective heat transfer goes exclusively in one direction and that`s *up*...and outpaces everything that CO2 molecules might re-disperse in the down direction.
Given the data "Deniers" can do the math for these transfer rates ...no problem...*and the result is something entirely different from what the IPCC has been plugging in.*


----------



## Saigon (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD's insistence that the Arctic is regularly ice-free based on a postcard - despite scientific research proving that the Arctic has not been ice-free for more than 5,000 years - is the argumentation of a child.
> ...



Well, present some evidence, and let's take a look. 

Expecting people to simply take your word for it doesn't seem a terribly useful starting point.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> I think it is somewhat misleading to focus only on the minimum (or maximum) sea ice extent because they are the most influenced by weather systems and previous year's highs and lows.
> .



Rate of growth can be misleadling, in that growth tends to be fastest following years in which the melt has been greatest, but I think the fact that current minimums are so catastrophically low is hugely important. 

To get the fully picture one has to look at the overall trend, which this site does very well:






Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Any particular reason you failed to understand the word "simplified"? Was it due to ignorance of the word, or deliberate misinterpretation?
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


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




NASA data shows thickest and oldest Arctic ice is melting | Reuters


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> body under a blanket, and planet under an atmosphere are fundementally different. a body regulates its temperature and uses less food to create heat under a blanket. a planet has a consistent heat source therefore the equilibrium temperature at the surface will change when radiation is impeded and thus a higher temperature is needed to force energy past the blockage.



Take a heating pad...roll it up...put a wireless grill thermometer (accurate to 0.1 degrees) inside....turn it on....give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on....then put the whole thing under as many blankets as you like and the temperature of that heating pad still won't increase.  I did the experiment myself during a cookout last summer to prove to a luke warmer friend that a blanket can't make a warm object warmer.  We put the heating pad under a total of 3 quilts and 2 down comforters, each folded in half and a second time with one of those thin mylar gold on one side silver on the other emergency blankets under the quilts and blankets after an objection was raised about the "reflective" qualities of cloth.  That should have been enough coverage to cause the heating pad to get warmer than it was in open air if warming were physically possible.

If you turn the heating pad off and record its cool down period in the open air, and under blankets, it will cool down slower under the blaket, but again, reduced rate of cooling is not warming.

By the way, a planet does not have a consistent heat source.  GCM's assume a consistent heat source, but real life is quite different.  The output of the sun is variable....the amount of incoming radiation reaching the ground is variable due to clouds and other atmospheric phenomena...the amount of energy coming in is variable to the extreme due to the rotation of the earth....radiation from the surface is variable because  of the physical geography of the planet...etc, etc, etc.  The energy output of the planet is no more fixed and stable than that of your own body.  It doesn't really matter though because the heating pad experiment proves that a blanket can not cause a self heating object to warm which takes the whole "body" question out of the picture.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



SSDD - 

Thanks, that's an interesting article:

This is particularly shocking;

"Some 965,300 square miles (2.5 million sq kms) of perennial ice have been lost -- about one and a half times the area of Alaska -- a 50 percent decrease between February 2007 and February 2008, Meier said."

"The oldest "tough as nails" perennial ice has decreased by about 75 percent this year, losing 579,200 square miles (1.5 million sq kms, or about twice the area of Texas, he said."

The article also seemed to answer your question, here:

"Perennial ice is also vulnerable to a recurring pattern of swirling winds and currents known as the Arctic oscillation, which ejects the old ice out of the zone around the pole and aims it south where warmer waters will melt it."


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2013)

IanC said:


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



A planet with oceans also regulates the temperature just like a body sweating, it evaporates water, which consumes 2260 KJ/kg.
If your sweat can`t evaporate you overheat and get a "heat stroke". Lowering the metabolism can`t make up for blocking evaporation when convection is blocked.
Moist air is lighter than dry air and above 50% RH convective updrafts of over 3000 feet per minute up to well over 30 000 feet are not uncommon.
H2O vapor then condenses and dissipates the latent heat way above the path length were CO2 laden air would allow any IR transmittance back down at the wavelength CO2 absorbed it.
The only thing that can block it is an inversion layer of "Chinese aerosol" which acts like a roof on a "greenhouse" ...not as climatologists claim as a radiation  strictly up-reflector like a bunch of aligned particle mirrors of a magnitude that can cool the globe.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


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



Only shocking if you fail to put the facts into the context of the present sea ice (since about 1998) being greater in size than it has been for most of the past 9000 years.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years



> A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that western Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that the western Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though western annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.



http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf


----------



## Saigon (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD - 

If we stick to scientific facts and leave the gossip to one side, the situation in the Arctic is clearly catastrophic - so say your own sources. 

For every research paper claiming the Arctic is thriving, there are 100 others from far stronger sources claiming the opposite, and you know it. You won't read them, of course, but you know as well as I do that Arctic melt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't want to be on the wrong side of this argument.. So let me just state -- there IS a Greenhouse effect. Problem with some of the analysis from both sides here is that we have this thing called "day" and another called "night".  And the way the greenhouse works is INDEPENDENT of day and night, but it's instructive to look at each scenario separately.. 

There is NO DOUBT that nighttimes are cooler under a clear sky. This is where the rate of cooling is INCREASED due to the absence of water vapor blanket. Anyone want to contest this so far? 

There is no difference in THIS blanket than any other thermal resistance. They tend to restrict the rate of cooling. And that is what IanC was saying. The sun pumps energy in that is largely UNIMPEDED by the CO2 in the air. Whereas the black body IR radiation that results from surface heating IS in the right frequencies to consider the GGases as an insulator going out. This results in a reservoir of energy (over time) being retained by the black body. 

Blankets work as insulators in both directions. The GGases don't. Because the energy is converted to longer wave IR at the surface where the HEAT is stored. HEAT is NOT ElectroMagnetic. A warm object just has the ability to shed energy thru IR emissions.. 

I wouldn't want SSDD designing a power amp for my stereo if he believes that throwing a blanket over it has no effect on the temperature of the amp..


----------



## mamooth (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You said that the greenhouse effect was the result of so called greenhouse gasses slow down radiative heat transfer away from the earth.  That is an entirely different scenario than is claimed by climate science.



Yep, which is the simplified version of what climate science says, regardless of your bizarre take on it. I understand the various conductive, convective and radiative effects. The point is that if you restrict heat flow away from a generating body in any way, temperature rises.



> Slowing down the rate of heat transfer means a slowed rate of cooling.



That's correct if the object is not generating heat. That's not the case for the earth, which is "generating" heat in the sense it's converting visible light to heat, or for a body under a blanket.



> Are you claiming that you get a fever when you get under the covers in your bed?



If you cocooned yourself in a massive layers of high-quality insulators all-around, and stayed in it long enough, then absolutely yes, you would get a fever. This doesn't happen to people in beds because:

A. They don't use that many blankets, and the blankets aren't that perfect of insulators.
B. They remove blankets if they get too warm.
C. They don't have blankets underneath or over their face, so significant heat flows into the mattress or out their head, no matter how many blankets they use.



> Are you claiming that your hot coffee gets hotter when you put it in a thermos?



Is a cup of coffee generating new heat energy? Since the answer is "no", that strawman has nothing to do with the issue.



> The laws of thermodynamics ...



... absolutely and positively say you're totally wrong. Heat energy has to go somewhere. If it's not flowing out as quickly as it's generated, it builds up and increases temperature. Eventually, the greater delta-T will "push" the heat outward faster, and a new equilibrium will be reached at a higher temperature.



> Turn on a light bulb till it gets hot...measure its temperature.  Turn it off and measure its temperature as it cools down arne record the results every minute.  Now turn it back on till it gets hot again...turn it off and place an insulating blanket over it.  Measure its temperature.  It will cool down at a lower rate, but it will never get warmer than the temperature it was when you initially turned it off.  Slowed rate of cooling does not equal warming.



Since the bulb isn't generating heat when it's turned off, that example has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you were to place that insulating blanket around the light bulb when it was turned on, then it would absolutely, positively get much hotter.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 2, 2013)

Heat differentials are the thermal moving potential. Temperature is an effect that depends on time-rate of transfers or ENERGY. Coffee stays hotter LONGER in a thermos. Any doubters? 

Don't forget the time variable...


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > body under a blanket, and planet under an atmosphere are fundementally different. a body regulates its temperature and uses less food to create heat under a blanket. a planet has a consistent heat source therefore the equilibrium temperature at the surface will change when radiation is impeded and thus a higher temperature is needed to force energy past the blockage.
> ...



??? "give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on"??? did you check to see how much power it was drawing?

throw a blanket over any powered up piece of electronics and it will heat up.

the energy coming from the Sun is very stable. complaining that atmospheric equilibrium effects that are powered by the Sun are then interefering with incoming radiation is somewhat dishonest when you refuse to allow me to point out atmospheric equilibrium effects are interfering with outgoing radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Yep, which is the simplified version of what climate science says, regardless of your bizarre take on it. I understand the various conductive, convective and radiative effects. The point is that if you restrict heat flow away from a generating body in any way, temperature rises.



No, the greenhouse effect you claimed is not a simplified version...it is entirely different.  Yours claims a slowing down of radiation leaving the surface into space....the other claims radiation is recycled back to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed, further warming the surface beyond the temperature that the sun can produce.  Those are two entirely different senarios.  If you can't understand that,then as I said, we are already over your head.



mamooth said:


> That's correct if the object is not generating heat. That's not the case for the earth, which is "generating" heat in the sense it's converting visible light to heat, or for a body under a blanket.



Its correct evenif the object is generating heat.  A self warming object radiates at some X amount of wattage per square inch or meter or kilometer.  Throwing a blanket over that object will not increase the X at all.  It will slow down the rate of cooling till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium) at which time the outside of the blanket begins to act as the outermost surface of the radiating object.  The radiating object will never radiate more because the blanket was placed over it.



mamooth said:


> If you cocooned yourself in a massive layers of high-quality insulators all-around, and stayed in it long enough, then absolutely yes, you would get a fever. This doesn't happen to people in beds because:



You would never get a fever because the insulation is not an energy source.  You can't reflect an object's energy back to it and increase its output.....ever.  If you could, then you would have a perpetual motion machine.  



mamooth said:


> A. They don't use that many blankets, and the blankets aren't that perfect of insulators.



How many does it take?  And even the poorest blanket is a better insulator than air so if the greenhouse effect only works when you are dealing with a perfect insulator, then that hypothesis is out the door...DOA.



mamooth said:


> B. They remove blankets if they get too warm.



You are confusing how you feel with actual temperature changes.  The air under the blanket will eventually warm to a temperature close to your body temperature because you have blocked convection and conduction...The air will never become warmer than your body temperature and your body temperature will never increase.  For most people, 98 degrees or so is not a comfortable sleeping temperature.  If you can't seperate what you feel from what is, then again, we are already over your head.



mamooth said:


> C. They don't have blankets underneath or over their face, so significant heat flows into the mattress or out their head, no matter how many blankets they use.



Wouldn't matter if they completely covered themselves and stayed under till the CO2 became so concentrated that they passed out...their body temperature would never rise.  Get in bed, cover yourself up and take your temperature every 15 minutes from now till dooms day and you will never develop a fever.




mamooth said:


> Is a cup of coffee generating new heat energy? Since the answer is "no", that strawman has nothing to do with the issue.



Is the earth receiving energy from the sun after nighfall?  No it is not so the issue is valid.  The greenhouse hypothesis claims that the greenhouse effect is working 24 hours a day.



mamooth said:


> ... absolutely and positively say you're totally wrong. Heat energy has to go somewhere. If it's not flowing out as quickly as it's generated, it builds up and increases temperature. Eventually, the greater delta-T will "push" the heat outward faster, and a new equilibrium will be reached at a higher temperature.



A warm object can't further warm itself.  Law of conseration of energy.  In order to warm an object beyond its temperature, more energy must be applied to it.  If you want a light bulb to put out more light, you must increase the power coming in from the cord...you can't hold a mirror up to it and increase the amout of light it is putting out by reflecting light back to it.




mamooth said:


> Since the bulb isn't generating heat when it's turned off, that example has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you were to place that insulating blanket around the light bulb when it was turned on, then it would absolutely, positively get much hotter.



Since the earth has day and night, it is applicable to the issue.  Throw a blanket over a lit light bulb and still, the temperature of the fillament will not increase.  A 100 watt lightbulb will not put out any more light, or heat because you cover it up.  Point an infrared thermometer  (if they register that high) at the filament when you put a blanket over it and the temperature of the filament will remain the same. 

You can test these things on your own and see that you can't make the temperature of things increase simply by covering them up.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I wouldn't want SSDD designing a power amp for my stereo if he believes that throwing a blanket over it has no effect on the temperature of the amp..



The issue with the amplifer is that it is processing more wattage than it can effectively handle...that is to say that its operating temperature must be kept lower than the temperature that it is capable of generating and therefore must be actively cooled down.  This requires more suface area (heat sinks) to bleed off heat.  Give the amplifier 50x more surface area so that its operating temperature is higher, or at least the same as the heat it generates and then you can throw all the blankets over it you like and you wont warm it up...but then who wants a stereo amplifier that is the size of a refrigerator?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Heat differentials are the thermal moving potential. Temperature is an effect that depends on time-rate of transfers or ENERGY. Coffee stays hotter LONGER in a thermos. Any doubters?
> 
> Don't forget the time variable...



Slower cooling does not equal warming.  That thermos will never make the coffee warmer than it was when it was poured in.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Heat differentials are the thermal moving potential. Temperature is an effect that depends on time-rate of transfers or ENERGY. Coffee stays hotter LONGER in a thermos. Any doubters?
> ...



Thermos: it keeps cold drinks cold and hot drinks warm.

"How does it know?"


----------



## mamooth (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Its correct even if the object is generating heat.  A self warming object radiates at some X amount of wattage per square inch or meter or kilometer.  Throwing a blanket over that object will not increase the X at all.



So far, so good.



> It will slow down the rate of cooling



Here's where you start to go badly wrong. There is no "cooling". There is only differing amounts of heat flow.



> till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium)



No, no, no. That violates basic thermodynamics, Fourier's heat flow equation. Conductive heat flow is proportional to the delta-T gradient. If the blanket is the same temp as the object, there will be no delta-T gradient, so no heat will flow. The object must get hotter than the blanket in order to keep radiating away the same amount of heat.

Again, this is basic thermodynamics. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Me? I just used to run nuclear reactors. What could I possible know about heat flow? And who knew that Fourier's Law on heat flow from 1822 was actually totally wrong? Good thing you're here to correct the misconceptions of the entire industrial age.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> ??? "give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on"??? did you check to see how much power it was drawing?



Didn't have the equipment to do that...We turned the thing to medium and it went up to about 103.4 degrees and held that temperature for about 30 minutes...I figured that was as warm as it was going to get.  It never got over 103.4 with all the blankets piled on top of it.  The blankets aren't a heat source so they couldn't possibly warm it up.



IanC said:


> throw a blanket over any powered up piece of electronics and it will heat up.



Like I told flacalten...the operating temperature of most electronics is lower than the heat it is capable of generating. Ergo all the heat sinks.   Take away the heat sinks and let it heat up to the actual temperature it is capable of reaching and then throw a blanket over it and it won't warm further.... or make the electronics large enough so that they have enough surface area so that the temperatue they are capable of producing is less than their maximum operating temperature and again, you can throw all the blankets over them you like and they won't get warmer. 




IanC said:


> the energy coming from the Sun is very stable. complaining that atmospheric equilibrium effects that are powered by the Sun are then interefering with incoming radiation is somewhat dishonest when you refuse to allow me to point out atmospheric equilibrium effects are interfering with outgoing radiation.



So called GHG's are a transport mechanism for IR, not a storage mechanism.  When this whole argument plays itself out and eventually it will, we are going to find that the socalled greenhose gasses act as a cooling mechanism because they transport OLR much faster than non radiative gasses.  If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere emissivity would be lower and then we would be stuck with only convection and conduction and heat would move out more slowly.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 2, 2013)

> It will slow down the rate of cooling





mamooth said:


> Here's where you start to go badly wrong. There is no "cooling". There is only differing amounts of heat flow.



Heat flowing out is cooling.



> till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium)





mamooth said:


> No, no, no. That violates basic thermodynamics, Fourier's heat flow equation. Conductive heat flow is proportional to the delta-T gradient. If the blanket is the same temp as the object, there will be no delta-T gradient, so no heat will flow. The object must get hotter than the blanket in order to keep radiating away the same amount of heat.



Interesting how you cut off the most important part of my statement.  I said:



> It will slow down the rate of cooling till such time as the blanket reaches the same temperature as the radiating object (equilibrium) at which time the outside of the blanket begins to act as the outermost surface of the radiating object. The radiating object will never radiate more because the blanket was placed over it.



If you are going to use my words, then use my words.  Don't take them out of context to try and make some point.  Heat will continue to flow because the outside of the blanket...you know...the part exposed to the outside air will not be in equilibrium with the rest of the room and therefore energy will continue to flow at that point from the blanket to the outside air.



mamooth said:


> Again, this is basic thermodynamics. You have no idea what you're talking about.



Obviously it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about...assuming that because the blanket and your body have reached equlibrium that energy won't flow from the blanket on out into the surrounding atmosphere. 



mamooth said:


> Me? I just used to run nuclear reactors. What could I possible know about heat flow?



Apparently very little if you believe that covering up at night in bed will give you a fever...or that putting a blanket over a warm object will make it warmer.



mamooth said:


> And who knew that Fourier's Law on heat flow from 1822 was actually totally wrong? Good thing you're here to correct the misconceptions of the entire industrial age.



Obviously you don't know how to apply Fourier's law because you assumed that the blanket which had reached equilibrium with your body temperature would not radiate out into the bedroom.   When you bring information that you don't understand, you will never fail to make a fool of yourself.  The blanket will radiate out into the room.  Repeat that 100 times.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Heat will continue to flow because the outside of the blanket...you know...the part exposed to the outside air will not be in equilibrium with the rest of the room and therefore energy will continue to flow at that point from the blanket to the outside air.



Makes zero difference. You still and have always said the inside of the blanket warms up to the radiating object temp. And that still means no delta-T gradient between the radiating object and blanket is zero. And that means zero heat flow. That is, until the radiating object gets hotter, which would be why a radiating object always gets hotter when you insulate it.

Remember everyone, feel free to remove the heatsinks from your computer boards, and wrap your circuit boards in a blanket. After all, SSDD here says it won't increase the temperature. He has rewritten the laws of thermodynamics, and the physical laws of the universe now obey his edicts.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Its correct even if the object is generating heat.  A self warming object radiates at some X amount of wattage per square inch or meter or kilometer.  Throwing a blanket over that object will not increase the X at all.
> ...



*Reactors as in plural*. *Name one *"you used to run".
Then tell me which type of fuel rods you "used to use" and who your fuel rod supplier "used to be"? 
What was the coating and the unit weight?
What`s the name of the systems control software that you "used to use"?



> There is no "cooling". There is only differing amounts of heat flow.





> Conductive heat flow is proportional to the delta-T gradient. If the  blanket is the same temp as the object, there will be no delta-T  gradient, so no heat will flow. The object must get hotter than the  blanket in order to keep radiating away the same amount of heat.


Why "must the object get hotter"..and radiate the same amount of heat?
The only way it would get hotter is if you feed it more heat than it has at the equilibrium.
If you heat the object to a higher T and you got heat CONDUCTION between the blanket and the object *radiative heat transfer between 2 solid object is already ruled out over the entire contact area.*
And once the blanket got hotter it radiates by a factor of (+delta)T^4 more heat.

Do the math for a 10" diameter solid copper slug 10" thick at 90 C
which comes in contact with another slug, same dimensions but is at 0 C
*I bet you don`t have the foggiest idea unless you manage to find a FAQ + online calculator.*
You would be one of Roy Spencer`s idiots who cut off the cooling fins on a heat sink, because they "back-radiate" at each other and cause transistors to overheat.





You haven`t got a clue what`s going on in a cooling tower else you would know what the *rate of cooling is* at the reactor`s SOP for max-recommended power output. No SOP manual ever calls it "heat flow" and there is no instrument on any control panel with that label.
You were at best a swab  if you were ever on an aircraft carrier or inside a nuclear power plant.
I worked for a while at the Whiteshell Nuclear Reactor...Its a nuclear research facility & power plant...but I`ve also been inside others and know what`s what. 
So I`ll call your bluff. Let`s put our cards on the table.
I`ll scan in a few documents after you show me your`s..you can blot out your name...I won`t.
But I bet the best you have to offer is some lame excuse that you "can`t do that for security reasons"


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Makes zero difference. You still and have always said the inside of the blanket warms up to the radiating object temp. And that still means no delta-T gradient between the radiating object and blanket is zero. And that means zero heat flow. That is, until the radiating object gets hotter, which would be why a radiating object always gets hotter when you insulate it.



You really don't get any of this, do you?  Are you claiming that if you point an infrared thermometer at the outside of the covers over a sleeping person, they will be no warmer than say the carpet on the floor?  Heat moves from warm to cool and so long as there is a place for it to go (ie radiating out into the roorm) there will be heat flow.  




mamooth said:


> Remember everyone, feel free to remove the heatsinks from your computer boards, and wrap your circuit boards in a blanket. After all, SSDD here says it won't increase the temperature. He has rewritten the laws of thermodynamics, and the physical laws of the universe now obey his edicts.



I have explained this twice already to people who actually knew the reason that throwing a blanket over electronics causes them to warm up..I guess one more time to someone who doesn't have a clue should be expected.

The electronics in your computer, or radio, or stereo don't have enough surface area to effectively radiate the power they have coming in and still be at a temperature at which they will operate.  That is the reson for the heat sinks.  Let the electronic part rise to the maximum temperature the incoming power will allow it to reach and of course it will stop working as an amplifier and simply be a block of radiating metal or plastic.  Once it reaches that maximum temperature, however, you can then throw a blanket over it and it won't get any warmer because the blanket isn't an energy source.  Or you could give the components enough surface area so that they could effectlvely radiate the energy they have coming in without reaching a temperature that makes them inoperable as whatever their function is and again, throwing a blanket over them would cause no warming.  Electronics are not an apt analogy to the claimed greenhouse effect.

My explanations are predicted by the laws of thermodynamics...it is yours that involves an object radiating more energy out than it has coming in is the fantasy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

polarbear said:


> *Reactors as in plural*. *Name one *"you used to run".
> Then tell me which type of fuel rods you "used to use" and who your fuel rod supplier "used to be"?
> What was the coating and the unit weight?
> What`s the name of the systems control software that you "used to use"?



Good luck getting answers to those questions..mamooth has to be one of the dullest knives in the drawer here.

The really funny thing is that siagon just applauded her idiotic statement.



polarbear said:


> The only way it would get hotter is if you feed it more heat than it has at the equilibrium.



Or if it were being artifically cooled due to the fact that it's effective operating temperature is lower than the temperature it would reach due to surface area restrictions such that if left to radiate naturally, it would reach such a high temperature that it would no longer perform the actual function it was designed to do.

Take the heat sinks off your stereo amp and it will stop functioning as an amp at some time and simply become a block of metal radiating heat...let it warm up to the temperature the incoming energy allows it to reach then throw a blanket (perhaps fireproof) over it and it won't warm up further because the blanket is not an incoming energy source.  The blanket will then warm up to (or very near) the temperature of the amplifier and then radiate out into the space beyond.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 3, 2013)

It's a very good thing that SSDD threw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because he wasn't using it anyway.

You know, it doesn't surprise me that posters here do not understand laws of physics. That seems natural enough.

What AMAZES me is that some kind with high school physics can honestly believe that he has discovered something about physics (using a blanket and a heater, no les!!) that has evaded every university and research unit in the world. 

SSDD honestly believes - or at least pretends to - that he has re-written the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 

All I can say, SSDD, is perhaps you really should phone your local university as soon as you can, because they will want to know that they have this wrong!!

I am actually going to avoid pointing out the error in your thinking. I imagine post people have spotted it already, and I have enjoyed watching yoursel digging the hole deeper and deeper!

But in the interests of fair play, I'll add in one question:

*
Why is the surface temperature of the earth not 0?*

From that, the massive error in SSDD's thinking should be apparent.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> It's a very good thing that SSDD threw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because he wasn't using it anyway.
> 
> You know, it doesn't surprise me that posters here do not understand laws of physics. That seems natural enough.
> 
> ...


No he has`nt "re-written" any thermodynamic laws...it`s you who fails to comprehend them. If I had to knit-pick him I would have to hair-split his statements but the substance is for the most part correct.
It is you forum AGWarmists who continue to  quote stuff that AGW climatologists have already backed away from....speak "corrected".
Your problem is that you are stuck reading the spoon-food interpretations from bloggers that had painted themselves into a corner and can`t revise for fear of loosing face..
That goes for  "earth cooling Chinese aerosols", tree ring proxy thermometers, pollen proxy thermometers, Roy Spencer "Yes Virginia physics" and Arrhenius average mis-calculations that still are the core of today`s computer model forecasts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Heat differentials are the thermal moving potential. Temperature is an effect that depends on time-rate of transfers or ENERGY. Coffee stays hotter LONGER in a thermos. Any doubters?
> ...



BTW:: You're totally wrong about the electronics example when you say the devices are not generating enough heat to raise their own temperature. The temp at the little spot of silicon inside the package is typically 20 to 40degC ABOVE the ambient.. That's the Junction temperature and all that matters to the health and lifetime of the chip.. Throw a blanket over the heatsink and package and that TEMP at the JUNCTION will go up dramatically -- just from removing AIR FLOW to the device. Measuring anything like that at the heatsink or the package only tells you how good the thermal resistance of the materials are.. 

But let's get back to the simpler problem with the thermos. Of course the coffee will not get hotter because it lacks an incoming supply of energy. But that's not the GreenHouse effect that DOES (despite your weak denial) operate 24 hours a day.

If I had two thermoses (or thermi?) and in one I install just a puny 1 watt heater that operated every hour that the sun is up, say 10 hours -- then if the rate of 1W X 10 hours or 10Whrs over a 24 hr period (equally a daily averaged rate of 0.42WHrs) -- was GREATER than the thermal loss due to the thermos, that coffee would eventually boil. And the other thermos would simply lose heat energy due to convection, and radiation. If 0.42WHrs was LESS than the loss rate due to the thermal isolation to the air, then the coffee eventually assumes room temp. Simple balancing act.. 

And that's where you're going off the rails. Because the GreenHouse effect talks about blackbody radiation  (IR)  and BY DEFINITION -- a blackbody earth has no heat pumping going on. It's very definition is that a blackbody is in thermal equilibrium. (a mathematical convienience for analysis).. ((Greenhouse theory also relies on thermodynamics for atmospheric transmission of heat energy, but that's another story))

But NO blackbody is really "in equilibrium".. AND they all have a loss rate and a gain rate of thermal energy. It is just a RESERVOIR of heat energy that determines how it radiates.

The earth is pumped daily in a "pulse width modulated" fashion by the sun (and secondarily ongoiing geothermal and hydrodynamic processes). So if you screw with the LOSS RATE --- the body temperature WILL increase. 

IN FACT -- we KNOW that we are looking to explain the equivalent of about 3W/M2 of heat energy that would cause the 1degC rise for the past century or so.. Fact is --- *It doesn't matter whether that 3W/m2 of energy is accounted for by an increase of incoming energy or a decrease in the loss rate of thermal energy*. It has the same effect on surface temperature.

((Extra credit problem -- Is that touted figure of 3W/M2 required ALL DAY? Or is it normalized to the duty cycle of solar heating? Because 3W/M2 is NOT an energy variable, it's a power variable. And it NEEDS to have a time component attached to it to make an energy budget.. *Are ya listening Trenberth*??? ))

EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT --- *Measuring the blanket temperature is no better than measuring your oven door to see how hot the oven is.* Depending on the thermal resistance properties of that insulating material to tell you whether the heating pad is heating up further is futile. Now to your credit -- the Earths troposphere is an even more complicated analysis of what temp tells you about the heat balance. WHERE you measure and HOW you measure will provide some clues, but the heat balance is only tallied when ALL the components are analyzed..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> It's a very good thing that SSDD threw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because he wasn't using it anyway.


'

Do describe for us anything I have said that violates the second law of physics...or any law of physics for that matter.



Saigon said:


> You know, it doesn't surprise me that posters here do not understand laws of physics. That seems natural enough.



It is obvious that you don't if you belive I have said anything that violates any law of physics.



Saigon said:


> SSDD honestly believes - or at least pretends to - that he has re-written the Second Law of Thermodynamics.



Describe how you believe I have rewritten the second law.  To the best of my knowledge, the second law says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without having done some work to accomplish the task.  It states that energy will not spontaneously flow from a low temperature object to a high temperature object.

That being the case, what have I said that violates that law?



Saigon said:


> I am actually going to avoid pointing out the error in your thinking. I imagine post people have spotted it already, and I have enjoyed watching yoursel digging the hole deeper and deeper!



Because there is no error.  You obviously don't know enough about the subject to even begin to speak and are at least smart enough to know that you would get caught if you tried.  Much like your refusal to produce non existent evidence of a greenhouse effect or that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming.  When you can't do a thing, you pretend that you can and claim that you just don't want to as if no one can see right through that dodge.



Saigon said:


> Why is the surface temperature of the earth not 0?[/B]
> 
> 0 F, 0 C, or 0 K?  Don't you even know how to ask a question?
> 
> And before you ask such a stupid question again, ask yourself why the moon, with no atmosphere at all is not at 0 degrees K.  For that matter you might ask yourself why the moon is so hot on its daylight side with no atmosphere as compared to the balmy temperature of earth with an atmosphee and wonder if the atmosphere is what keeps us cool rather than burning to a crisp.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ??? "give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on"??? did you check to see how much power it was drawing?
> ...





I keep trying to figure out exactly what your position is. I agree that the original heat source would not increase in temperature as long as it can operate in a surrounding environment that is at that temp, eg pipe heating strips. your example of a heating pad, which I presume is made up of a similar type of heat source, would show very little increase because the difference in temps is small. you left the pad on for 30 minutes to find the max temp, but how long did you leave it under the blankets? how long would it take to charge the heat sink and come to equilibrium?

I tried to make a reasonable example out of that planet alone in space with a uranium core that heated the planet. the core itself will stay the same temp. but I asked you what the difference would be if the rest of the planet was made of 1. metal or 2. asbestos. both would have the same surface temp but the metal planet would be much less of a heat sink and the temp gradient from core to surface would be lower at every level.

you are taking an example where Tmax is very close to Toperating, and then assuming that other systems are similar. electronics stop working if they cannot shed the heat they produce. the earth's surface would be much higher without an atmosphere when the sun is shining. even with an atmosphere the earth's surface does not charge its heat sinks and achieve max temp. the planet is in a complicated set of equilibriums that keep its surface temp far lower than the maximum possible. and there is no special 'position' held by the surface but it is important to us because we live there. the main equation is input in (solar) equals output out, to a very close degree. everything in between is just equilibriums that can change.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 3, 2013)

SSDD - 

Still waiting for you to answer the question. 

Why is the temperature of the earth not 0?*


*The scale is not imporant here, because this is a theoretical discussion. Choose +10F if you wish.

But feel free to address Ian and Flacalternn's excellent posts first - I can wait.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> BTW:: You're totally wrong about the electronics example when you say the devices are not generating enough heat to raise their own temperature.



That isn't what I said.  I said that the maximum operating temperature of the chip, or whatever is lower than the temperature the device will reach if not cooled via heat sinks or moving air, or liquid.

Say the operating temperature of the processor in my computer is 120 degrees.  ( I don't know what the actual maximum operating temperature of the chip is)  If it goes above that temperature, it ceases working as a processor.  If it didn't have the heat sink, it would certainly rise to a temperature above whatever the maximum operating temperature is.  If you let it reach the maximum temperature it can reach based on the amount of energy it is receiving, (even though it will no longer work as a processor) and then cover it, it won't get any warmer. 

I understand that if you cover the heat sinks in your electronics they will warm up and stop working but the heat sinks are only there to prevent them from warming up to the temperature they are capable of heating up to if the heat sinks weren't there.  If you made the electronics large enough so that their surface area didn't require heat sinks to keep them cooler than they were capable of getting, then you could cover them as you like and they wouldn't warm up as the would not need to be kept cooler than the temperature they were capable of reaching based on the amount of energy coming into them.  The drawback of doing that is that electronics would have to be huge to have that much surface area.



flacaltenn said:


> The temp at the little spot of silicon inside the package is typically 20 to 40degC ABOVE the ambient.. That's the Junction temperature and all that matters to the health and lifetime of the chip.. Throw a blanket over the heatsink and package and that TEMP at the JUNCTION will go up dramatically -- just from removing AIR FLOW to the device. Measuring anything like that at the heatsink or the package only tells you how good the thermal resistance of the materials are..



Right, but that is because the amount of energy coming into that chip is enough to actually raise its temperature far above 20 to 40 above ambient...the heat sinks are to keep it at a temperature where it can operate.  If you let it heat up to the temperature it could reach without the heat sinks it would stop operating as a chip, but at that point, you couldn't make it warmer by covering it up with a blanket.  It can't get any warmer than the energy coming in from its only power source will make it.  You can't reflect its own energy back to it and make it warmer.



flacaltenn said:


> But that's not the GreenHouse effect that DOES (despite your weak denial) operate 24 hours a day.



I subscribe to an atmospheric thermal effect as described by N&Z which is much greater than the claimed greenhouse effect but does not really care what the composition of the atmosphere is.  The temperature of the earth can be predicted based on incoming solar energy and the ideal gas laws...a greenhouse effect is not needed.

I realy don't have time for the rest...got to get back to work.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Still waiting for you to answer the question.
> 
> ...



even without the sun the earth couldnt be 0K because the universe has a background temp from the big bang.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BTW:: You're totally wrong about the electronics example when you say the devices are not generating enough heat to raise their own temperature.
> ...



Youre full of the silly hope that those devices won't keep getting hotter because "they stop operating as a processor".. Well -- that's what UL is for.. For folks like you who depend on the hope fairy to prevent another Chicago fire. 

As a designer I CAN'T depend on the device to stop working. It isn't a fuse.. And physics tells me it's temperature just might increase to the point of boiling away the package or lighting up the circuit board.. That's WHY these materials are fire and temperature rated.

So --- clouds at nighttime in the desert do not make the NIGHT warmer at the surface? That's news to the people of Nogales, I reckon...  Try substituting your N&Z "ideal gasses" for clouds and see how chilly your night in the desert turns out to be..


----------



## mamooth (Apr 3, 2013)

I have a heated dog bed, that consists of a big cushion with a slot in it. A plate-like heating element slides into the slot, and slides out again so you can wash the cushion more easily.

If the heating element is outside the cushion, I touch it and it feels mildly warm. I have no trouble keeping my finger on it.

If I slide the heating element inside the cushion and wait a hour, and then reach in the slot and touch it, I can't keep my finger on it. It's gotten much hotter.

Hence, I easily disprove SSDD's whackaloon claim that an insulator can't raise the temperature of a heat-creating object.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I have a heated dog bed, that consists of a big cushion with a slot in it. A plate-like heating element slides into the slot, and slides out again so you can wash the cushion more easily.
> 
> If the heating element is outside the cushion, I touch it and it feels mildly warm. I have no trouble keeping my finger on it.
> 
> ...


----------



## numan (Apr 3, 2013)

'
This thread has been a real eye-opener for me.

Until I read it, I had no idea how whacked-out the global-heating deniers can get. As Flacaltenn pointed out, they have been reduced to to the state of mental inanity of denying that clouds at night make the desert warmer!!

These are obviously the same sort of people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they were afraid of what they might see!!
.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 3, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> This thread has been a real eye-opener for me.
> 
> Until I read it, I had no idea how whacked-out the global-heating deniers can get. As Flacaltenn pointed out, they have been reduced to to the state of mental inanity of denying that clouds at night make the desert warmer!!
> ...



^ noman doesn't even grasp the humor inherent in his ridiculous position that clouds make the desert warmer at night.



Seriously, that poor delusional ignorant pathetic assclown is so spectacularly ill-informed that he cannot distinguish between a blanket slowing heat loss and a blanket "adding" heat.  



The AGW Faithers don't see how silly they are.

;


,


:


.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



Scale doesn't matter?  Get that?  

Even the dark side of the moon isn't 0 K  Hell, it is over 100 K there.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Youre full of the silly hope that those devices won't keep getting hotter because "they stop operating as a processor".. Well -- that's what UL is for.. For folks like you who depend on the hope fairy to prevent another Chicago fire.



Whether they work as processors is irrelavent and you are more than smart enough to know that isn't what I am saying.  I don't know how much simpler I can make it and I don't know why because you are a bright fellow.

The processor, or whatever will heat up to the maximum temperature it can reach according to how much energy it has coming in.  Once that temperature is reached, that is it.  It won't get hotter unless you provide it more energy and putting a blanket over it does not provide more energy.



flacaltenn said:


> So --- clouds at nighttime in the desert do not make the NIGHT warmer at the surface? That's news to the people of Nogales, I reckon...  Try substituting your N&Z "ideal gasses" for clouds and see how chilly your night in the desert turns out to be..



They don't really make it warmer...they just slow the rate of cooling.  Night time in the desert isn't warmer than day time.   Unlike CO2, water vapor can actually capture and store heat but even with that, the temperature is still decreasing.  A clear sky with 100% CO2 if you could somehow manage that would result in the same temperature as a clear sky of regular air.  Hell, 100% CO2 might result in a lower ambient temperature because radiation would move heat away from the surface far faster than convection and conduction.

And are you really arguing that the temperature at the bottom of a column of air is not greater than at the top of that column?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I have a heated dog bed, that consists of a big cushion with a slot in it. A plate-like heating element slides into the slot, and slides out again so you can wash the cushion more easily.
> 
> If the heating element is outside the cushion, I touch it and it feels mildly warm. I have no trouble keeping my finger on it.
> 
> ...



Use a thermometer instead of your finger.  If you claim that it gets warmer inside the cushion than it does outside, you are a bald faced liar.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> This thread has been a real eye-opener for me.
> 
> Until I read it, I had no idea how whacked-out the global-heating deniers can get. As Flacaltenn pointed out, they have been reduced to to the state of mental inanity of denying that clouds at night make the desert warmer!!



No one has denied any such thing. Clouds certainly slow down cooling, but they don't make the desert warmer.  Water vapor, unlike CO2 can absorb and actually store energy but even with that capacity, it doesn't make the night time desert warmer than the daytime desert...the clouds just cause the desert to cool slower...and no matter how you slice it, slower cooling is still cooling...not warming.  If you can't follow the discussion, then why comment?  The clear sky nighttime temperature over the desert vs the clear sky temperature over a coastal area along the same lattitude and elevation should be enough to convince you that CO2 is not the driving factor....the coastal area with a clear sky at night will be much warmer than the desert area with a clear sky at night....both have the same amount of CO2 in the air...water vapor is the difference and it is because water has the capacity to actually capture energy whereas CO2 simply absorbs and then immediately emits it.  CO2 can't hold on to any of it.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > *Reactors as in plural*. *Name one *"you used to run".
> ...



Well I`ll go first then and lay down some of my cards:





In the other thread where I caught the cat in the hat with the paws in the cookie jar :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/286367-wonder-where-chris-is-3.html#post7041019


> o when I posted a chart that was titled "Temperature mean forecast  departure", I was really trying to fool people into thinking it was  temperature and not temperature differential. Silly me, assuming people  would read the title.
> 
> Apparently, I am required to state "I know the chart says temperature  differential, and that it should also be obvious that red on Greenland  does not mean Greenland is hotter than the USA, but since PolarBear  can't grasp such simple concepts, let me emphasize that it's a  temperature differential chart and not a temperature chart."
> 
> ...


I not only became a drunkard but now I`m also part of a "cult conspiracy" to discredit a blogger, a Met office and siamese cats.
*They don`t give people with a drinking problem a security clearance.
Or hand them the keys to an Impala  linear  accelerator which costs  $ 360/hour to run it.*





*




Is that thing a he or a she or some sort of sex change freak where the hormones are totally imbalanced?*


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Youre full of the silly hope that those devices won't keep getting hotter because "they stop operating as a processor".. Well -- that's what UL is for.. For folks like you who depend on the hope fairy to prevent another Chicago fire.
> ...



Hell man.. Get a grip.. It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be. The TIME element is really important because temperature depends on energy not power. So if you slow the cooling rate at night when no energy is being added with clouds, the temperature will be HIGHER at morning than it otherwise would be at the rocks on the surface. Therefore when you fire up the furnace for the next day -- you START with a larger reservoir of HEAT. (To paraphrase James Carville --- It's the INTEGRAL stupid)

You keep that up for a week and the surface temp should continue to rise.. Even if (and especially) the clouds get switched off in the daytime when the sun gets switched on. 

Put six frogs into a pot of water. Let it reach thermal equilibrium. Switch on just 2 watts of constant power for 10 hours a day.

1)  If the outflow of heat energy (cooling rate) from this heat process is GREATER than the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will rise (over time -- probably days) to a NEW thermal equilibrium with a pleasantly warmer environment for your frogs. 

2) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is EQUAL to the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will eventually rise to the MAXIMUM temperature that can retained at equilibrium (if the water doesn't all leave as vapor in the process). You'll probably lose your frogs.

3) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is LESS than the integrated inflow from your cheezy heater --- the temp will continue to rise until the water boils and there's nothing but memories of your frogs in the pot. 

Now if at night when the cheezy heater is off, you cover the pot to reduce the cooling rate, you hasten the demise of the frogs by shortening the time integral to reach equibrium or to raise the temp to the point where something in the thermal system changes or breaks. (like boiling off the water or melting a hole in the pot). Theoretically barring catastrophic collapse of the system or negative feedbacks -- the temp continues to rise.  

What a YouTube demonstration? (Frogs are hard to come by --- but I could use kittens).



By the way Numan, Saigon et al --- the warmers have this all wrong in many of their arguments. Cheerleaders like Saigon expect to find the culprit for Global Warming has the same shape graph as the warming temperatures. This is a juvenile expectation for a complicated system like climate. As in the pulsed frog temp example above -- I can acheive any temp I want with a CONSTANT change in power input. It will appear over decades as a near linear increase in temperature -- but it will eventually either reach a new equilibrium or continue to run away thermally. SOOOOO -- what has the sun done since 1700?? It has stepped up about
1.6W/M2 in total solar irradiance. What does the temperature look like? It's climbing over time just like in Frog CASE 2 or CASE 3. Doesn't HAVE to have a matching graph. A simple Step of any magnitude in the forcing function will appear over our lifetimes to create a dynamic change in temperature. 

*This is where the warmers are really screwing up the dialogue.. Trust me. It's disingenuous to expect to find a reason for the warming with the same shape graph as the temperature rise. Has NO scientific justification... Not when you get into integral calculus and the presence of feedback functions.. *


----------



## westwall (Apr 3, 2013)

Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...


Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon 
Westwall - 

You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured. 

It's worth being honest about that.




No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013. 
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.

Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' 

By Jonathan Amos 
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco 

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. 

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly

Professor Peter Wadhams

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."



BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'


----------



## polarbear (Apr 3, 2013)

Next thing, Saigon will tell you that he "used to run nuclear power plants" like that psychotic Siamese Cat
And that the "Saigon the Journalist in Finland" identity is just a cover because he is a nuclear physicist that defected from Iran.
Haven`t seen hide nor hair from the Poophead who called himself a "physist" and tried to explain IR absorption with frogs he popped in his microwave oven.
He`s been replaced by another dimwit who pretends to be a scientist "with open eyes"




and makes idiotic size comparisons between the earth`s atmosphere and and an egg membrane which we are going to pop with chimney exhaust he has seen from an airplane.
He got it from a blogger that explains exponential functions  for dummies and makes similar size comparisons by folding a towel 36 times so it becomes a tower that reaches past the moon after "just 36 folds".
It would like to see how you can take a "folded towel" wire that is 192 200 kilometers  long  and about 1 Angstrom in diameter after folding the towel 35 times  "folded in half" so it is 384 400 kilometers long instead of just 96 100 km.
People like that don`t have regular assholes. Their`s is a high pressure extruder nozzle that can take an enviro wacko blog and squeeze out 384 400 kilometers of continuos crap for an entire decade.
Like the Siamese cat "Chinese aerosol" earth cooling micro particulate, which line up like little mirrors that reflect only up and out while CO2 molecules line up like precision lasers aimed back at the earth cooking cities that have a better albedo than the forest around it.
These wackos took physics back to the level of phlogiston theories and prehistoric pollen, tree ring  proxy thermometers.
I wonder what the "pollen count/tree ring  thermometer"  is showing for Canada or Greenland right now


----------



## SSDD (Apr 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So if you slow the cooling rate at night when no energy is being added with clouds, the temperature will be HIGHER at morning than it otherwise would be at the rocks on the surface.



Higher than otherwise is still cooler.  Slowing the rate of cooling will never equal heating.  



flacaltenn said:


> keep that up for a week and the surface temp should continue to rise.. Even if (and especially) the clouds get switched off in the daytime when the sun gets switched on.



Keep it up for a million years and it will never get warmer than the incoming radiation from the sun can heat it.

You can't win; you can only break even.
 You can only break even at absolute zero.
 You can't reach absolute zero.



flacaltenn said:


> Put six frogs into a pot of water. Let it reach thermal equilibrium. Switch on just 2 watts of constant power for 10 hours a day.



1)  If the outflow of heat energy (cooling rate) from this heat process is GREATER than the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will rise (over time -- probably days) to a NEW thermal equilibrium with a pleasantly warmer environment for your frogs. 

2) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is EQUAL to the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will eventually rise to the MAXIMUM temperature that can retained at equilibrium (if the water doesn't all leave as vapor in the process). You'll probably lose your frogs.

3) If the outflow of heat energy from this heat process is LESS than the integrated inflow from your cheezy heater --- the temp will continue to rise until the water boils and there's nothing but memories of your frogs in the pot. 

Now if at night when the cheezy heater is off, you cover the pot to reduce the cooling rate, you hasten the demise of the frogs by shortening the time integral to reach equibrium or to raise the temp to the point where something in the thermal system changes or breaks. (like boiling off the water or melting a hole in the pot). Theoretically barring catastrophic collapse of the system or negative feedbacks -- the temp continues to rise.  [/quote]

You still aren't going to get that water any warmer than the cheezy heater can make it without adding energy.  By the way, you didn't say what the surface area of your cheezy heater is.  Your end water temperature will be quite a bit different if the radiating surface area of your cheezy 2 watt heater is 100 square inches vs 0.10 square inches.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Youre full of the silly hope that those devices won't keep getting hotter because "they stop operating as a processor".. Well -- that's what UL is for.. For folks like you who depend on the hope fairy to prevent another Chicago fire.
> ...



being the conductor that CO2 is 

i would venture that an atmosphere at 100 percent CO2 would make the surface colder


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So if you slow the cooling rate at night when no energy is being added with clouds, the temperature will be HIGHER at morning than it otherwise would be at the rocks on the surface.
> ...



Naww.. As usual, this is completely hopeless. 

1) "slowing the rate of cooling will never equal heating".. Correct if there is NO INFLOW of new energy. But in the FrogPot and the GreenHouse, there is a modulated periodic reliable source of new energy into the system everyday.. And if you slow the rate of LOSING heat energy to that big sink of space -- the energy reservoir fills and that's what pumps temperatures higher. Direct result in the increased thermal resistance added to impede energy outflow... 

2) Protocol is -- the area of the heater doesn't matter as long it delivers NET 2 watts to the froggy water when it's on. Could be a fish heater, a tiny 2mm resistor or an IR lamp for all I care. GEEZ -- the PURPOSE of the cheesy heater is to add periodic energy to the system. OF COURSE the system has an energy inflow.. So does the EARTH!!! That's the point.. HEAT BUILDS when it's outflow is impeded. In practice the area and materials that make up the heater will affect the efficiency of that device. Only lefty dirtpeople care about efficiency.. In the lab --- we don't.. 

You need to reboot and realize that the GreenHouse effect is NOT an actual energy source. You shouldn't expect it to produce NEW energy. It's a thermal IMPEDANCE that affects the cooling rate of the system.. It is not expected to actually add energy to the system. It conserves and RETAINS existing energy. (that's what makes the dirtpeople love it <sarcasm>) HOWEVER, with the TRUE ENERGY SOURCE held constant --- increasing the impedance of the cooling path is essentially equivalent to adding Watts/M2 at the surface.. 

Similiarly --- my choice is to buy a bigger room heater or throw on more insulation. 
 If we can't get past that -- I capitulate.. You win.. I'm done.. Although I will feel a bit guilty if you don't know enough to avoid freezing yourself and your family to death in the near future..


----------



## Saigon (Apr 3, 2013)

This has been a very interesting couple of days posting. 

I haven't always agreed with Flacaltenn in the past, but I have to say I'm impressed by his posting here. I don't think many posters who have read the past few pages will be left in much doubt about the science involved here. 

When this issue first came up I went and read an article about the Second Law of Thermodynamics in relation to climate change which was very useful, and which SSDD might also benefit from, but I actually think Flac's posting here was as good.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> This has been a very interesting couple of days posting.
> 
> I haven't always agreed with Flacaltenn in the past, but I have to say I'm impressed by his posting here. I don't think many posters who have read the past few pages will be left in much doubt about the science involved here.
> 
> When this issue first came up I went and read an article about the Second Law of Thermodynamics in relation to climate change which was very useful, and which SSDD might also benefit from, but I actually think Flac's posting here was as good.



Since you're so full of thermodynamic and radiation physics knowledge now, perhaps you can appreciate the MAJOR ERROR in the famous Trenberth diagrams now.. 






If this is the Warmers Definitive Bible on "Energy Balance" --- WHERE IS THE TIME parameter? Watts per meter squared is a POWER parameter --- not an energy parameter. 
And we've just acknowledged that its the rate of cooling that "warms the GreenHouse". Unless you actually account for the ENERGY storage in the equivalent of Watt*Hours*/M2 or similiar --- you're not balancing energy are you?

What meaning do the Trenberth numbers have for the GreenHouse at NIGHT?

It's actually a very sloppy explanation of the GreenHouse energy budget.. 
But the warming cheerleaders think it's just great because it LOOKS official...

Maybe I'll take a year off and go back for a PhD in Climatology and clean it up..


----------



## Saigon (Apr 3, 2013)

Flac - 

I don't claim to be an expert on these issues - I just read what I can and do my best to make sense of them. 

I have two interesting articles on the so-called 'energy budget' recently - one of which suggested that the 'missing' energy from Trenberth's budget may not have been missing at all (Loeb, see below) and of course others suggesting that the ocean depths are the real smoking gun in this aspect of the debate. 

My starting point for all of these questions is that the best physicists in the world are working on these issues, so while they may be wrong about some things, they are unlikely to make the kind of basic errors that posters her accuse them of every day. I do think most Professors of Physics probably have a better working knowledge of thermodynamics than most lay people have. 

"Loeb (2012) takes an updated look at the issue and finds that, using observations rather than modeled estimates, the Earth's energy imbalance is consistent with heat building up with the Earth system. They have this imbalance at 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2, much smaller than previous estimates, but the error margins are huge. Not unexpectedly the authors confirmed that heat is continuing to build up in the sub-surface ocean, which agrees with other recent sudies on ocean heat. The persistent energy imbalance measured by this study is essentially future global warming, or "warming in the pipeline". It puts paid to wishful thinking-based claims that global warming has halted."

Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> being the conductor that CO2 is
> 
> i would venture that an atmosphere at 100 percent CO2 would make the surface colder



That would be my bet as well so long as atmospheric pressure were the same.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Naww.. As usual, this is completely hopeless.



OK.  I dug around in the closet of my son's old room and found a "Repti Therm" under tank heater.  It is a gadget he had to keep a snake tank warm when he was a kid.  It says that it puts out 4 watts.  It has no thermostat that I can see and doesn't even have an on off switch.  Plug it in and that's it.  It looks like it might be waterproof but I can put some silocone around the area where the power cord goes in.  In short, it looks like a source of constant output.

How big of a water container do I need for your experiment?  The biggest thing I have is a crab and crawfish steamer....33 quarts.  Is that big enough?  And are frogs or kittens really required?  If it is all the same, I would just as soon just use water.

I will run your experiment and we will see what we see.


Since it is clear that you know more about electronic equipment than I do, would you care to check out the Repti Therm  under tank heater and let me know if it is cheezy enough even though the one I have has a 4 watt output.  If there is no thermostat and it is a steady output, that in itself would seem to put down your hypothesis as the thing resided under my son's snake tank, always on for about 4 years but I am willing to drag out the crawfish steamer and take its temperature for a while to prove my point.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I have two interesting articles on the so-called 'energy budget' recently - one of which suggested that the 'missing' energy from Trenberth's budget may not have been missing at all (Loeb, see below) and of course others suggesting that the ocean depths are the real smoking gun in this aspect of the debate.



The missing energy is the greenhouse effect that doesn't exist.



Saigon said:


> My starting point for all of these questions is that the best physicists in the world are working on these issues, so while they may be wrong about some things, they are unlikely to make the kind of basic errors that posters her accuse them of every day. I do think most Professors of Physics probably have a better working knowledge of thermodynamics than most lay people have.



Why do you make claims like "the best physicists in the world", when it simply isn't true.  The best physicists in the world are not to be found in climate science.  Ivar Giaever was at or very near the top of the heap as far as physicists go who are involved in climate science.. he was a nobel winner...he left because the APS's position on climate change is  hokum...Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara. also, an eminent physicist also quit because the claims of manmade global warming wer a scam and a "pseudoscientific fraud." And those two aren't the only eminent academics who have left societies because they are supporting pseudoscience.

It is interesting to note that mostly scientists nearing retirement are the ones quitting the societies and making such statements and they say that younger scientists who still need to make a living aren't at liberty to follow their examples as speaking out on the pseudoscience isn't conductive to making a living in their chosen fields.

By the way, I am still waiting for you to give me a description of how you believe I have rewritten the second law of thermodynamics.  You made the claim, now explain it in some detail if you don't mind.  Or simply acknowledge that you got caught up in the moment and made a statement on a topic on which you have no grasp.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 4, 2013)

SSDD - 

These are the two errors in your thesis:

1) The atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a &#8220;body of lower temperature&#8221; and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;

2) The 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the &#8220;body of higher temperature&#8221;.

If anyone would like to read a rather lengthy and detailed explanation of this, you can find it here:

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 4, 2013)

From Saigon Post... 



> "Loeb (2012) takes an updated look at the issue and finds that, using observations rather than modeled estimates, the Earth's energy imbalance is consistent with heat building up with the Earth system. They have this imbalance at 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2, much smaller than previous estimates, *but the error margins are huge.* Not unexpectedly the authors confirmed that heat is continuing to build up in the sub-surface ocean, which agrees with other recent sudies on ocean heat. The persistent energy imbalance measured by this study is essentially future global warming, or "warming in the pipeline". It puts paid to *wishful thinking-based claims *that global warming has halted."



Error budget is actually LAUGHABLE in the Trenberth numbers. Not just HUGE. It purports to know ONE GLOBAL NUMBER for each of those energy paths regardless of whether it's day or night, summer or winter, raining or snowing or Siberia or Fiji... That's not even in the ballpark of producing an analysis capable of FINDING a 1 or 2% imbalance of ANY KIND.. It takes more faith to believe that those numbers are solid enough to find GW -- than it does to believe that God brought plagues of locusts to Egypt... 

"wishful thinking"??  That statement ITSELF is wishful thinking unsupported by any comprehensive measurements or analysis..    How gullible are you Saigon? These assertions are "works in progress" and sometime mathematical fabrications not reflecting the complexity of the system under study --- and YET --- you swallow them whole and treat them as gospel...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

Saigon said:


> 1) The atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a body of lower temperature and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;



No it wouldn't.  Energy won't move from regions of cool to regions of warm even if they are part of the same body.  Put a piece of sheet metal half in the sun and half in shade...no energy will move from the cooler area in the shade to the warmer area in the sun while energy will certainly move from the warm area in the sun to the cooler area in the shade.



Saigon said:


> 2. The 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the body of higher temperature.



Second Law of Thermodynamics

I repeat:  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.

And energy doesn't care whether it is moving from solid to gas or gas to liquid or liquid to solid...what matters is the temperature of the emitter and the temperature of the "receiver"

If anyone would like to read a rather lengthy and detailed explanation of this, you can find it here:


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Naww.. As usual, this is completely hopeless.
> ...



I have many ReptiTherms, that would work fine. It will pretty much distribute the heating evenly over the extent of its surface.

 The reason your snake didn't cook is that the tank temperature reached an equilibrium over time due to thermal losses in the system. That equilibrium represents the time intervals of energy in versus energy out. The temperature it settles at is representative of the heat difference profile that forces the amount of energy out to cancel the energy in.  

Don't waste the pot.. Toss in a scoop of crawdaddies.. 

BTW: Unless your kitchen is temp regulated to less than +/-2 degF --- this will affect your starting and following measurements. The starting measurement should be averaged over many hours (or even a day) before you even turn on the heater.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 4, 2013)

SSDD - 

Well, once again, we see that you are right, and all of the physicists and experts in the field are wrong. 

I am surprised. 

I do have another couple of articles here by professors of physics which make the same claim - I do hope you'll contact them and explain their errors.


btw. The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder. Try re-reading my points above with that in mind.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 4, 2013)

Flacaltenn - 

The text you quote from is not written by me, but appears in an article I found interesting. 

Because I agree with you that this area is a bit of a "work in progress", I tend to avoid making bold claims or triumphing anything I read as being the last word on the topic. Hence, I don't think I'm particularly gullible. 

I do think it is possible to find different research projects interesting and respect the science involved without assuming them to be somehow beyond reproach.


----------



## numan (Apr 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > being the conductor that CO2 is
> ...


Oh, yeah, sure -- like the surface of the planet Venus!!! · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







Whoo, boy---in my wildest and most malevolent dreams I could not imagine scientific dodos like the ones raving on this thread !! · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2013)

numan said:


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









When you mention Earth and Venus in the same breath you expose your massive ignorance of the subject.  Venus has a atmospheric density 93 times greater than the Earth.  Do you even know what that means?  The Venusian atmosphere is 96% CO2, O2 is a trace gas in that atmosphere.  We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _STILL_ BE A TRACE GAS.  

Do you have a clue what that means?

As a start I suggest you take a look at the Ideal Gas Laws.


----------



## IanC (Apr 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a body of lower temperature and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;
> ...



who is claiming that a heat is moving from a cooler body to a warmer one? no one is but you keep trotting that strawman out.

you look at a diagram that shows radiation flowing in both directions and then proceed to ignore one side of the equation. not that I agree with Trenberth's diagram but it does show that the net flow of IR energy from the surface is outward. if the surface is warming up because of decreased IR flow outwards, the actual energy being used to heat the surface is from the Sun, not the backradiation that just cancels out a portion of the heat loss to space by IR.

again, if two objects are at the same temperature that does not mean they stop radiating at each other, it only means that there is no net flow. there is no SLOT (second law of thermodynamics) God that takes the temperature of everything in the universe before anything is allowed emit radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Don't waste the pot.. Toss in a scoop of crawdaddies..



Never going to get hot enough to even turn them pink...much less cook em.



flacaltenn said:


> BTW: Unless your kitchen is temp regulated to less than +/-2 degF --- this will affect your starting and following measurements. The starting measurement should be averaged over many hours (or even a day) before you even turn on the heater.



Actually, I was goint to run it in the closet in my son's old room.  I keep guns, fishing equipment and cigars in there and have a small system installed that keeps the temperature and humidity remarkably stable.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

Saigon said:


> btw. The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder. Try re-reading my points above with that in mind.



No, the second law says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without some work having been done to accomplish the task.  gross flow back and forth is a theoretical, mathematical artifiact which remains unproven by any experiment.

One way net energy flow is reality and the statement of the second law of thermodynamics...two way gross is not and has no physical meaning.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > btw. The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder. Try re-reading my points above with that in mind.
> ...



that is why C02 being a good conductor of heat 

would spin heat off into the colder space 

rather then store it or send it back to warm the planet


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

numan said:


> Oh, yeah, sure -- like the surface of the planet Venus!!! · ·



You know, your use of the Stephen Hawking avatar is an insult to the man considering your stunning lack of knowledge on the topic.

The atmosphere of venus is 90 times greater than the atmosphere of earth.  The temperature of venus is due to that pressure, not its composition.  This is proven by a couple of facts...number one, very little solar energy reaches the surface of venus to be absorbed and re-emitted and thus power a so called greenhouse effect....number two, if you travel down into the atmosphere of venus to a depth where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, and compensate for the difference in incoming solar radiation between venus and earth, the temperature there is the same as the temperature here even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.

Then you might look at mars which also has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2...and yet, in the middle of summer, on the equator, at noon, the temperature barely reaches 80F while at the poles it is routinely -200F.  Cold enough to precipitate CO2 out of the air like CO2 snowfall.

Of course the atmospheric pressure of mars is considerably less than on venus or on earth.  The temperatures of both planets can be predicted using only the ideal gas laws and the amount of incoming solar radiation.



numan said:


> Whoo, boy---in my wildest and most malevolent dreams I could not imagine scientific dodos like the ones raving on this thread



I am afraid that you have identified yourself as one of the major dodo's with that comment about venus...believing that it is so hot because of some runaway greenhouse effect.  Only those with the least grasp of the science refer to venus in any discussion of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> who is claiming that a heat is moving from a cooler body to a warmer one? no one is but you keep trotting that strawman out.
> 
> you look at a diagram that shows radiation flowing in both directions and then proceed to ignore one side of the equation. not that I agree with Trenberth's diagram but it does show that the net flow of IR energy from the surface is outward. if the surface is warming up because of decreased IR flow outwards, the actual energy being used to heat the surface is from the Sun, not the backradiation that just cancels out a portion of the heat loss to space by IR.



The fact that the diagram has radiation flowing in two directions makes it, and all conclusions drawn from it incorrect.  There is no two way flow of radiation.


----------



## numan (Apr 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _STILL_ BE A TRACE GAS.
> 
> Do you have a clue what that means?


Indeed, I do, but you obviously don't have a clue about what any high school student with any brains knows well.

On Earth, there is at least *50 times* as much carbon locked up in carbonate rocks as exists in the atmosphere. There is just as much carbon on Earth as there is on Venus, and if it were released from the rocks by heating, Earth would be just as much a hell hole as Venus is -- which seems to be the goal which insensate global heating deniers are pursuing. 

*Earth-Venus-Mars*

QUOTE:
*Why does Venus have such a thick atmosphere and why is it so hot on its surface? Venus is so hot because of a huge greenhouse effect that prevents heat from escaping to space. On Venus, the super-abundance of CO2 in its atmosphere is responsible for the huge greenhouse effect. Why is Venus' CO2 all in its atmosphere while most of the Earth's CO2 is locked up in its sediments? Earth has some 35 to 50 entire Earth atmospheres worth of carbon dioxide in the form of carbonates. Venus' greenhouse effect probably started from the presence of a lot of water vapor, but Venus is now a very dry place. 

Runaway Greenhouse

Venus was originally cooler than what it is now and it had a greater abundance of water several billion years ago. Also, most of its carbon dioxide was locked up in the rocks. Through a process called a runaway greenhouse, Venus heated up to its present blistering hot level. Because Venus was slightly closer to the Sun than the Earth, its water never liquified and remained in the atmosphere to start the greenhouse heating. As Venus heated up, some of the carbon dioxide in the rocks was "baked out." The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide enhanced the greenhouse heating. That baked more carbon dioxide out of the rocks (as well as any water) and a runaway positive feedback loop process occurred. This positive feedback loop occurred several hundred million to a few billion years ago so Venus has been very hot for that length of time. *







Yes, *RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE HEATING*, which is happening right now on  Earth, due to release of greenhouse gases from the Northern tundra (though, thank goodness! on a much smalller scale than on Venus).

However, what happened on Venus eventually will surely happen on Earth, as the Sun heats up in its stellar evolution -- though probably not for another billion years.
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

numan said:


> [
> Indeed, I do, but you obviously don't have a clue about what any high school student with any brains knows well.



Obviously you don't.  The temperature on venus is due to pressure, not CO2.  Look at the gas giants...deep in the atmosphere they are even hotter than venus and their atmospheres are nearly all hydrogen...not a so called greenhouse gas...pressure numan...not the composition of the atmosphere...

Again, your use of Stephen Hawking as an avatar is an insult to the man.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> Do you have a clue what that means?
> 
> As a start I suggest you take a look at the Ideal Gas Laws.



He doesn't have a clue as to what the ideal gas laws mean or what the ramifications of an atmosphere 92 times more dense than earth would be regardless of what gasses the atmosphere is composed of.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 4, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Name one "you used to run".



Spent the most time with D2G's.



> Then tell me which type of fuel rods you "used to use"



If they had a serial number, that would be something OPNAV worried about, not the operators. Since Navy ships rarely refuel, I never took part in a refueling.

However ... Uranium dioxide fuel, boron doped, zirconium cladding. Hafnium control rods that were pulled up from the top, and fell by gravity in case of SCRAM.



> and who your fuel rod supplier "used to be"?



Fuel rod supplier would be ... the Navy. I assume the Navy got the fuel rods from General Electric, being it was a GE reactor.



> What was the coating and the unit weight?



Zirconium. Unit weight, irrelevant to the operators. It was never mentioned, ever, anywhere. There's a very long list of things you have to memorize, and that's not one of them. If you never remove them, you don't care about the weight.



> What`s the name of the systems control software that you "used to use"?



That's hilarious. You actually think Navy reactors have software.

In all of the engine room and reactor spaces, there was  _one_ integrated circuit chip, and that was in a non-critical piece of test gear. There were darn few transistors as well, maybe a few on the TG regulators. What we had was endless glorious magamps, and it's difficult to run software on a coil of wire wrapped around a magnetic slug.



> Do the math for a 10" diameter solid copper slug 10" thick at 90 C
> which comes in contact with another slug, same dimensions but is at 0 C



Why? What's the point of bringing it up, other than for you to brag that you've previously done the calculation?



> I bet you don`t have the foggiest idea unless you manage to find a FAQ + online calculator.



True, but it's dumb of you to think that's a problem. No one has instant technical knowledge of everything. Yep, I'd have to look it up to find out how many joules/second were moving. Who cares?



> You would be one of Roy Spencer`s idiots who cut off the cooling fins on a heat sink, because they "back-radiate" at each other and cause transistors to overheat.



Why you babbling about back-radiation now, being that I've never mentioned the term?



> You haven`t got a clue what`s going on in a cooling tower else you would know what the rate of cooling is at the reactor`s SOP for max-recommended power output.



Easy enough to figure. So let's call your bluff and see if you can do it. Given your displayed knowledge, I highly doubt you could even tell us the purpose of a cooling tower. Can you? Go on, tell us. What does the cooling tower at a nuclear reactor do?



> No SOP manual ever calls it "heat flow" and there is no instrument on any control panel with that label.



That's nice. I wasn't writing a manual. I was explaining the theory.

Are you in agreement with SSDD that Fourier's law of heat flow is incorrect? I'm trying to figure out just what you're jabbering about. I know you're unhinged at me, but is there some other point to the jabbering?



> You were at best a swab  if you were ever on an aircraft carrier or inside a nuclear power plant.



Reactor Watch Officer. That's would be the guy in charge of the plant for the shift.



> I worked for a while at the Whiteshell Nuclear Reactor...Its a nuclear research facility & power plant...but I`ve also been inside others and know what`s what.



Well golly, you worked _at_ a plant. So you're not trained in nuclear power, and you know jack about how a reactor operates, other than what you got from stories over a beer.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

For those who believe venus is the victim of a runaway greenhouse effect (and you know who you are) here is some actual science for you provided by Harry Huffman.

_Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself. You can find the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere at 

Venus Atmosphere Temperature and Pressure Profiles

With those graphs, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K. 

This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth, at pressure = 1000 millibars, which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million (on average) from the Sun. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.

Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 = 1.18 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.18 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF ANY INFRARED ABSORPTION in the atmosphere. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.18 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.

So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic..

Source(s):

Venus Atmosphere Temperature and Pressure Profiles_

Feel free to point out any errors on his part.


----------



## numan (Apr 4, 2013)

'
*Why is Venus so HOT?*

QUOTE:
*Even though the cloud tops of Venus, are highly reflective, sunlight ultimately reaches and warms the surface.  The surface then radiates heat back in the infrared.*






*Sunlight that penetrates to the lower atmosphere and the surface re-radiates back in the infrared wavelength.  The atmosphere has a high capacity of holding in this heat.  This results in a much higher surface temperature than would be present without the blanketing effect of the atmosphere.  However, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is opaque to infrared and traps this heat from escaping and temperature increases.  Note that both oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation.  Nevertheless, both carbon dioxide and water vapor, as well as methane, CH4, are good absorbers of infrared radiation.*

If Venus had an atmosphere composed of nitrogen or oxygen, 90 times more dense than the atmosphere of Earth,  then Venus would be much cooler than it is at present.
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> *Why is Venus so HOT?*
> 
> Venus has no greenhouse effect...See above.  Feel free to point out any errors.


----------



## numan (Apr 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _STILL_ BE A TRACE GAS.


Would you dare to make that howler your signature line? · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*Earth-Venus-Mars*

QUOTE:
*The loss of water from the rocks means that Venus' rocks are harder than the rocks of Earth and its lithosphere is now probably too thick and hard and its aesthenosphere is too poorly lubricated for plate tectonics to occur. The water Venus originally had is now gone because of a process called dissociation. *






*On Earth the ratio of ordinary hydrogen to deuterium (H/D) is 1000 to 1, while on Venus the proportion of deuterium is about ten times greater---the H/D ratio is 100 to 1. The H/D ratio on Venus and Earth are assumed to have been originally the same, so something caused the very light hydrogen isotopes on Venus to preferentially disappear. An easy explanation for it is the ultraviolet dissociation of water.*
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 4, 2013)

numan said:


> Would you dare to make that howler your signature line? · ·



Feel free to point out any error in the mathematical proof above that there is no greenhouse effect on venus.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2013)

numan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _STILL_ BE A TRACE GAS.
> ...










You are wrong.  Completely and hopelessly wrong.  I'm a geologist and know more about rocks than you ever will and as I stated QUITE CLEARLY, we could BURN EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _*STILL*_ BE A TRACE GAS.

It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for what you state to occur.  Any _*GOOD*_ highschool science student could tell you that.

Clearly you were a drop out smoking cigs by the tree accross the street.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a clue what that means?
> ...







Clearly.  This guy is probably trolling blunders sock.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Name one "you used to run".
> ...







Neither are you clownboy.  Amazingly enough (well not really, considering it's you) there is no such rank, specialty, or distinguishing group in the US Navy.  None.

Lying again, and you got caught yet again.  Sad....just sad.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 4, 2013)

numan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _STILL_ BE A TRACE GAS.
> ...


*
Of course, it couldn't possibly be on account of Venus being 26 million miles closer to the sun! *


----------



## mamooth (Apr 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> Neither are you clownboy.  Amazingly enough (well not really, considering it's you) there is no such rank, specialty, or distinguishing group in the US Navy.  None.



Groan. Civilians.

"Officer of the Deck" is not a rank, but there is a position called "Officer of the Deck", and you have to pass the OOD certification to hold it.

"Engineering Officer of the Watch" (ee-ow) is not a rank, but there is  watch position called "Engineering Officer of the Watch", and you have to pass the Reactor Watch Officer certification to hold it.



> Lying again, and you got caught yet again.  Sad....just sad.



This should be where you apologize for accusing me of lying just because you were such a dumbfuck.

Then, you might want to look back at the results of all your other idiot vendettas. Is the endless humiliation that it gets you worth it?


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Neither are you clownboy.  Amazingly enough (well not really, considering it's you) there is no such rank, specialty, or distinguishing group in the US Navy.  None.
> ...








Officer of the Deck is a well known temporary job description for LINE OFFICERS, and there are even optical devices created for them bearing that name.  What you described is an enlisted position (as verified by a check to the list of jobs on the US Navy's website) where you watch gauges and other powerplant management systems.  The person in charge of that engineering section would of course be an engineering officer.

So, what was your rating?  

And for the record it would be you getting humiliated...but you have no consience or shame, so humiliating you is just fun.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 4, 2013)

SSDD - 

Can you explain what happens when rain falls on, for instance, a glacier?

You might want to think about this for a while before answering, or read the excellent article I linked earlier, which explains your error in some detail.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 4, 2013)

Here is an article on The Second Law of Thermodynamics in relation to climate, which also makes it fairly clear exactly where SSDD is going wrong.

The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any *substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation*; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. *The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions.* This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no greenhouse effect.

Atmospheric backradiation has been directly measured for over fifty years. The effects of greenhouse gases stand out clearly in modern measurements, which are able to show a complete spectrum.

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, yeah, sure -- like the surface of the planet Venus!!! · ·
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2013)

numan said:


> If Venus had an atmosphere composed of nitrogen or oxygen, 90 times more dense than the atmosphere of Earth,  then Venus would be much cooler than it is at present.
> .



No it wouldn't...Again, refer to the gas giants.  Travel to jupiter, enter its atmosphere travel down into it till you reach a depth where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth....compensate for the difference in distance from the sun and subsequently the amount of solar energy reaching jupiter and you will find that the temperature there is the same as that of earth even though the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium...definately not socalled greenhouse gases.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> You are wrong.  Completely and hopelessly wrong.  I'm a geologist and know more about rocks than you ever will and as I stated QUITE CLEARLY, we could BURN EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _*STILL*_ BE A TRACE GAS.



Guess he thinks buring carbon bearing rocks would increase the atmospheric pressure 90 times as well.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Here is an article on The Second Law of Thermodynamics in relation to climate, which also makes it fairly clear exactly where SSDD is going wrong.



I suggest that you actually visit some physics text books.  I have.  Unsurprisingly, classical physics texts don't teach backradiation.

Just for example, these physics texts...used to teach the hard science of phsics do not teach backradiation.

&#8226;Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung:
&#8226;Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest
&#8226;Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar
&#8226;3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis
&#8226;An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah

While these physics texts used to teach the soft science of climatology do teach backradiation because with no backradiation there is no climate scare.

&#8226;An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews
&#8226;Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation by Bohren-Clothiaux
&#8226;A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
&#8226;The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen
&#8226;Assessing Climate Change by Rapp


----------



## Saigon (Apr 5, 2013)

> I suggest that you actually visit some physics text books. I have. Unsurprisingly, classical physics texts don't teach backradiation.



That is because they do not relate to climate or the atmosphere. 

I suggest you atually "visit" (sic) some physics text books which relate to atmopsheric physics. 

I have already posted two articles which explain clearly and with examples exactly what part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics you have misunderstood.

Unfortunately, we both know that you are incapable of admitting error, in which case it is impossible for other posters to know at what point you do start to understand, but suffice to say that if you actually read the two articles posted, I imagine you will probably understand where you went wrong. 

The example I gave earlier of (warmer) rain falling on (cooler) snow or frozen ground is as basic and obvious an example as anyone could hope for.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > I suggest that you actually visit some physics text books. I have. Unsurprisingly, classical physics texts don't teach backradiation.
> 
> 
> 
> That is because they do not relate to climate or the atmosphere.



Can you read?

*Atmospheric Radiation*: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung  -  does not teach backradiation as it is not physical
*3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis*  -  does not teach backradiation as it is not physical

And are you under the impression that backradiation would be something that only happens in the atmosphere?  If backradiation existed, then it would be happening everywhere and if it existed, we would have perpetual motion machines everwhere and energy would not be of the slightest concern to us.



Saigon said:


> I suggest you atually "visit" (sic) some physics text books which relate to atmopsheric physics.



I gave you two examples of hard physics books related to the atmosphere that do not teach backradiation.  And again, if backradiation existed, it would not be confined to the atmosphere.  You really don't have much of a grasp of this do you?  The soft science of climate science teaches backradiation because without backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism.



Saigon said:


> I have already posted two articles which explain clearly and with examples exactly what part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics you have misunderstood.



What you haven't posted, nor can you, nor all of climate science post is a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates backradiation...nor any measurement of backradiation at ambient temperature...that would be because it does not exist.  We have no problem at all measuring incoming radiation from the sun but are absolutely unable to measure the claimed backradiation from the atmosphere to the ground which is claimed by climate science to be twice as much as is coming in from the sun.  Explain that.



Saigon said:


> Unfortunately, we both know that you are incapable of admitting error, in which case it is impossible for other posters to know at what point you do start to understand, but suffice to say that if you actually read the two articles posted, I imagine you will probably understand where you went wrong.p



When I make one, I will admit it.  Perhaps you should read enough to understand that backradiation is a fiction. 



Saigon said:


> The example I gave earlier of (warmer) rain falling on (cooler) snow or frozen ground is as basic and obvious an example as anyone could hope for.



And exactly what do you suppose that proves?  Do you think it proves that the cold ice radiates cold to the warm rain and makes the rain water warmer or do you think it proves what the second law of thermodynamics predicts which would be that energy from the warmer rain would transfer to the cooler ice losing energy in the process till something close to equilibrium was reached?


----------



## numan (Apr 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> You are wrong.  Completely and hopelessly wrong.  I'm a geologist and know more about rocks than you ever will and as I stated QUITE CLEARLY, we could BURN EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _*STILL*_ BE A TRACE GAS.


That statement is just pathetic. You may have a rock hammer and a couple of books on rock-hounding, but you could not possibly be a trained geologist when you write such an absurdity, which runs counter to all the vast research whose results may be found in any encyclopaedia, geology textbook, scientific article -- or even introductory undergraduate course -- which deals with the subject.



SSDD said:


> Guess he thinks burning carbon bearing rocks would increase the atmospheric pressure 90 times as well.


I do not think, I know that burning all the carbonate rocks on this planet would increase the atmospheric pressure by dozens of times -- and anyone with even the slightest knowledge of geology would know it, too.
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2013)

numan said:


> I do not think, I know that burning all the carbonate rocks on this planet would increase the atmospheric pressure by dozens of times -- and anyone with even the slightest knowledge of geology would know it, too.
> .



You are a blithering idiot... Burning everything burnable on the planet earth would not increase the atmospheric pressure by even 5 psi...much less increase it by 90 times.

Change your avatar...your use of it is an insult to Stephen Hawking.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 5, 2013)

SSDD - 

As mentioned earlier, the fact that you lack the ability to admit error makes discussions like this difficult, although me feeling has been that you probably realised that you were wrong about three pages back. 



> Perhaps you should read enough to understand that backradiation is a fiction.



Apparently not. But this does not mean that you can understand it. 

Can you provide any reliable, objective peer-reviewed source which claims that it is a fiction?

I suggest you do a little reading on non-equilibrium thermodynamics:

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics that deals with thermodynamic systems that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. *Most systems found in nature are not in thermodynamic equilibrium*; for they are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously and discontinuously subject to flux of matter and energy to and from other systems and to chemical reactions. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is concerned with transport processes and with the rates of chemical reactions.[1] Many natural systems still today remain beyond the scope of currently known macroscopic thermodynamic methods.

The thermodynamic study of non-equilibrium systems requires more general concepts than are dealt with by equilibrium thermodynamics. One fundamental difference between equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics lies in the behaviour of inhomogeneous systems, which require for their study knowledge of rates of reaction which are not considered in equilibrium thermodynamics of homogeneous systems. This is discussed below. Another fundamental difference is the difficulty in defining entropy in macroscopic terms for systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium.[2][3]

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am still waiting for you to address the point about rainfall on snow. We both know you can not.


----------



## numan (Apr 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > If Venus had an atmosphere composed of nitrogen or oxygen, 90 times more dense than the atmosphere of Earth,  then Venus would be much cooler than it is at present.
> ...


Life is simply too short to deal with all the ignorant statements made by the global heating deniers on this thread. Having excreted a plethora of ignorant gaffes about geology and atmospheric physics, they are now attempting to conquer the astronomical universe with their absurdities!!

Surely everyone who has ever cracked a book on basic astronomy knows that most of the heat on Jupiter comes from internal sources, and not from the Sun!! · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





You must think of Jupiter not as a planet like the Earth, but rather as a failed Sun -- if you know what the Sun is!!
.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*Absolutely correct !*
And on his cap would be his call name (stitched on). Ask him what it was and he`ll try and find one with Google.I have not been in the Navy but I volunteered helping some who were to prepare for their engineering exams. So I have a very good idea what`s on their exams and what it takes to pass one.
This person behind the Siamese cat is an insult to all "Engineering Officers"
Never mind that liar..
The ISS Cmdr. Chris Hadfield up-loaded some more fascinating pictures:


















*Here is Newfoundlands natural ice breaker (Belle Isle) at work:*







It`s got nothing to do with melting.
That process is driven by water currents and winds....and not just around Newfoundland but also for the Lincoln Sea 
Here is an amazing picture of a "Karman Vortex Street":






Here is what the St.Lawrence Strait (Quebec) looks like right now:





They caught some spectacular "sprites" on camera.
These ones went up over 100 km:






Don Pettit who is the current ISS photographer had to ask NASA`s permission to remove the IR filters from the cameras















 and shot some amazing pictures, like this coral reef :





Or the Ganges Delta agriculture fields:





The violet regions on the left are bare fields.
Here is the Pico do Fogo volcano and it`s Siamese cat in the hat "Chinese aerosol":





And by the way





This is the digital finger print for these photos:
FF D8 FF E0  00 10 4A 46   ÿØÿà JF
49 46 00 01  02 00 00 01   IF   
00 01 00 00  FF ED 00 9B      ÿí &#8250;
50 68 6F 74  6F 73 68 6F   Photosho
70 20 33 2E  30 00 38 42   p 3.0 8B
49 4D 04 04  07 43 61 70   IM Cap
74 69 6F 6E  00 00 00 79   tion   y
1C 02 78 00  40 42 69 6C   x @Bil
64 65 72 20  61 75 73 20   der aus 
64 65 6D 20  41 6C 6C 20   dem All 
2D 20 46 6F  74 6F 74 69   - Fototi
70 70 73 20  76 6F 6E 20   pps von 
44 6F 6E 20  50 65 74 74   Don Pett
69 74 2E 56  6F 6E 20 4B   it.Von K
61 72 6D 6F  6E 20 63 6C   armon cl
6F 75 64 73  2E 1C 02 69   ouds.i
00 26 4E 41  53 41 20 2F    &NASA /
20 50 65 74  74 69 74 20    Pettit 
2F 20 49 53  53 20 46 6F   / ISS Fo
74 6F 73 20  61 75 73 20   tos aus 
64 65 6D 20  41 6C 6C 20   dem All 

From that I can tell that the German News Magaizne "Der Spiegel" has reformatted Pettit, NASA`s photographer`s pictures.
But all they did is change the size and renamed them for their archives
So don`t try bullshit me again with photo- or any other image-shop reworked forecast anomaly pictures from one of these idiotic blogs you keep pasting in here, where Greenland looks like molten lava and pass them off as "Satellite pictures".
We are still waiting for you to scan in a document or a picture that shows that you "used to run nuclear power plants".
Here is a digital fingerprint of a picture my brother took with his camera when he visited me in Canada
45 78 69 66  00 00 49 49   Exif  II
2A 00 08 00  00 00 01 00   *     
69 87 04 00  01 00 00 00   i&#8225;    
1A 00 00 00  00 00 00 00          
01 00 86 92  02 00 1E 00    &#8224;&#8217;  
00 00 2C 00  00 00 00 00     ,     
00 00 4C 45  41 44 20 54     LEAD T
65 63 68 6E  6F 6C 6F 67   echnolog
69 65 73 20  49 6E 63 2E   ies Inc.
20 56 31 2E  30 31 00 00    V1.01  
FF FE 00 1F  4C 45 41 44   ÿþ LEAD
20 54 65 63  68 6E 6F 6C    Technol
6F 67 69 65  73 20 49 6E   ogies In
63 2E 20 56  31 2E 30 31   c. V1.01
00 FF FE 00  1F 4C 45 41    ÿþ LEA
44 20 54 65  63 68 6E 6F   D Techno
6C 6F 67 69  65 73 20 49   logies I
6E 63 2E 20  56 31 2E 30   nc. V1.0
31 00 FF DB  00 43 00 02   1 ÿÛ C 
* For this  photo print I scanned in and uploaded:
* 





*You are stuck...because you don`t know how to do digital forgery that would go right by me...just like "Saigon, the Journalist in Finland" who can`t run his finger across "QWERTYUIOP" and generate the ASCII sequence a Finnish key board would generate.*
*Almost all of you AGW forum trolls are complete frauds

**69% Say It&#8217;s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research*





http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_standard_IQ_scale_rates
*70% of IQ scores fall between 85 and 115

**remaining are those with an IQ range from 50-70 (- Mild mental retardation  ) 
 There is a pretty good correlation I would say.

You guys delude yourselves that you are "winning" never realizing you`all are on the wrong track:




*


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> What you described is an enlisted position (as verified by a check to the list of jobs on the US Navy's website) where you watch gauges and other powerplant management systems.



Nope. Enlisted can qualify as EOOW on conventional ships, but on nuclear-powered vessels, the position is officer-only. Senior enlisted on nuclear ships will hold the Engineering Watch Supervisor (EWS) position. EOOW sits in the control room, while the EWS works out in the plant.



> The person in charge of that engineering section would of course be an engineering officer.



The Engineering Department head would be an O-4. The individual engineering division (M, A, E, RE, RL, RC) officers , who are also the EOOW watchstanders, would be O-1-2-3's. Not many O-1's, because you've almost hit O-2 by the time you finish training and hit the ship.



> So, what was your rating?



Officers don't have ratings.

Give it up. You're frantically trolling websites for something, while actually I did it for years. This isn't a debate. This is just me telling you how wrong you are.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Can you provide any reliable, objective peer-reviewed source which claims that it is a fiction?



How about the second law of thermodynamics for an objective peer reviewed source.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

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.

Back radiation is defined as long wave or infrared radition directed from the atmosphere towards the surface of the earth.  Since the second law of thermodynamics says that heat can't flow from a colder body to a warmer body without some work having been done to accompish the task and that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature area to an area of higher temperature...backradiation is not possible.  There is no experiment that proves the existence of backradiation and backradiation has never been measured at ambient temperature.




Saigon said:


> I am still waiting for you to address the point about rainfall on snow. We both know you can not.



I already did and asked you what your point was.  Clearly you had no point and thought that rain on snow proved something that it doesn't.  The second law of thermodynamics predicts that rain, being warmer than snow will transfer energy to the snow and lose energy itself till such time as equilibrium or near equilibrium is reached unless some additional energy is put into the system.

What?  Did you think it proved that the snow would radiate cold to the rain and somehow warm it up?  That is the claim made by those who believe backradiation exists...that cold objects can radiate to warm objects and warm them up in direct opposition to the statement of the second law.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2013)

numan said:


> Life is simply too short to deal with all the ignorant statements made by the global heating deniers on this thread. Having excreted a plethora of ignorant gaffes about geology and atmospheric physics, they are now attempting to conquer the astronomical universe with their absurdities!!



You are the only one making ignorant statements here.



numan said:


> Surely everyone who has ever cracked a book on basic astronomy knows that most of the heat on Jupiter comes from internal sources, and not from the Sun!! · ·



Internal sources??  Like atmospheric pressure?  And when I said compensate for the difference between solar energy reaching jupiter and solar energy reaching earth....are you aware that you have to compensate when a body receives less solar energy just the same as you must compensate when a body receives more solar energy...Maybe you should look up the word compensate.



numan said:


> You must think of Jupiter not as a planet like the Earth, but rather as a failed Sun -- if you know what the Sun is!!
> .



Physics are physics regardless of whether you are talking about planets, stars, or failed stars.  Jupiter's heat is due to pressure... Travel down in the atmosphere till the pressure is equal to that on venus, compensate for the differences in solar radiation and you will find a temperature nearly identical to that of venus....move back up till the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth...compensate for the differences in solar radiation and again, you will find a temperature nearly identical to that of earth just like you find a temparture nearly identical to earth on venus if you are at a level in the atmosphere where the pressure is equal to the earth and compensate for the differences in incoming solar radiation.

Apparenly you aren't bright enough to connect the dots and understand what that means.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2013)

numan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You are wrong.  Completely and hopelessly wrong.  I'm a geologist and know more about rocks than you ever will and as I stated QUITE CLEARLY, we could BURN EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD _*STILL*_ BE A TRACE GAS.
> ...









I challege you to go to ANY university with a Earth Sciences department and tell them what you just said.  They will laugh you out of the quad.  

And no, when the CO2 levels were 20 TIMES what they are now the atmospheric pressure was the same BECAUSE CO2 is now, and will allways be, a TRACE GAS you incompetent fool.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> As mentioned earlier, the fact that you lack the ability to admit error makes discussions like this difficult, although me feeling has been that you probably realised that you were wrong about three pages back.
> 
> ...









  I have proven you catastrophically wrong on three major facts and you blather away at SSDD who has been more correct than wrong than you ever will.  

Get a clue fool.  You're not credible.  You will never be credible.  You have the scientific knowledge of a gnat and will never get better.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What you described is an enlisted position (as verified by a check to the list of jobs on the US Navy's website) where you watch gauges and other powerplant management systems.
> ...









No, no you didn't.  You lie about everything.   You are correct that officers don't have ratings but you weren't an officer.   You're not smart enough.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2013)

Again, you might want to lose that crazy vendetta against me.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Again, you might want to lose that crazy vendetta against me.



Idiots tend to draw bullseyes on themselves...it is one of the prominent characteristics of idiots.  Live with it.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Again, you might want to lose that crazy vendetta against me.






Why on Earth would I have a vendetta against a silly person  You're beginning to sound like a paranoid schizophrenic.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 5, 2013)

SSDD - 

Most of these threads seem to follow quite a familiar pattern, which is:

a) you make some inexplicable claim - in this case that climate change is incompatible with the Second Law of Thermondynamics

b) A number of posters correct you error and provide information

c) you refuse to look at the material, claim the sources are not the ones you prefer, or, as in this case, simply continue to insist that you are right, despite all evidence to the contrary. 

I explained very clearly the two points you are missing. I posted two links to reputable sources to back those up, one of which also provided excellent examples of back radiation. 

It is absolutely fine with me if you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is fine with me that you are arrogant enough to believe that you have now re-written the law to exclude back-radiation. 

No one on this board is being paid to make you understand basic physics, and if you prefer to be poorly informed, the only person who pays a price for that is you. 

For anyone else, here is the explanation:

Some of Earth&#8217;s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth&#8217;s previously exported energy back to Earth &#8211; this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn&#8217;t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com


----------



## Saigon (Apr 5, 2013)

Westwall - 

Perhaps if just occassionally you posted something other than witless and illiterate abuse, your posts might be more interesting.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Perhaps if just occassionally you posted something other than witless and illiterate abuse, your posts might be more interesting.







I give what I get.  Man up, grow up, or get the hell out.


----------



## numan (Apr 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Here is an article on The Second Law of Thermodynamics in relation to climate, which also makes it fairly clear exactly where SSDD is going wrong.
> 
> The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any *substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation*; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. *The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions.* This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Saigon, for a posting of elegant concision and radiant good sense.

Too bad that so many here are such siblings of chaos that they can not understand you !!
.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 6, 2013)

Numan - 

Thanks! I thought the article was very useful - simple, clear and basic common sense. 

I just don't know what leads posters to deny basic laws of physics. My guess is that SSDD read something on some extremist blog, assumed that it as true and started parroting it here before realising that he'd simply got the wrong end of the stick. It's a shame, though, because we assume that everyone actually wants to learn more and that part of learning is about making mistakes, but then you realise that some posters actually aren't at all interested in learning - it's purely and simply about presenting a political line of thinking, regardless of whether that line of reasoning makes any logical or scientific sense.


----------



## numan (Apr 6, 2013)

'
I don't know. Sometimes I think such people have a kink in their minds. I suspect they know perfectly well that what they are writing is nonsense, but take a perverse delight in wasting people's time and seeing if they can fool people into accepting absurd nonsense. 

They obviously have too much time on their hands. In a properly organized society they would be made state slaves, and given sufficient work to keep them too busy to engage in such foolishness.
.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



those are some awesome pictures 

thanks


----------



## Saigon (Apr 6, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> I suspect they know perfectly well that what they are writing is nonsense, but take a perverse delight in wasting people's time and seeing if they can fool people into accepting absurd nonsense.
> 
> .



I've wondered exactly the same thing. Maybe it's more about trolling than actually seriously defending a position that simply can not be defended.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 6, 2013)

Polarbear - 



> just like "Saigon, the Journalist in Finland" who can`t run his finger across "QWERTYUIOP" and generate the ASCII sequence a Finnish key board would generate.
> Almost all of you AGW forum trolls are complete frauds



I can prove any moment of any day that I speak and write Finnish and live in Finland. 

That I am apparently obliged to do so by some headcase on the internet who seems to have a penchant for threats and staking, simply because he demand I do so, is another issue entirely. 

If you want to know exactly where I live, start by posting your own address and phone number.

btw, Genius - the top line of a Finnish-language keyboard from left to right reads "qwertyuiop". The extra letters in the Finnish alphabet appear elsewhere on the keyboard.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> a) you make some inexplicable claim - in this case that climate change is incompatible with the Second Law of Thermondynamics



So far, no one, including you has pointed out anything that I have said that is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics...



Saigon said:


> b) A number of posters correct you error and provide information



Again, so far, no one has pointed out a single thing that I have said that is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics while several typically claim two way gross flow of energy which is not in accordance with the second law.  Two way gross flow is a mathematical artifact with no actual proof to support the claim and furthermore is not taught in physics classes leadig to the hard science degree.



Saigon said:


> c) you refuse to look at the material, claim the sources are not the ones you prefer, or, as in this case, simply continue to insist that you are right, despite all evidence to the contrary.



Why would I give creedence to material that starts out making statements that are contrary to the laws of thermodynamics....no energy can flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth.



Saigon said:


> I explained very clearly the two points you are missing. I posted two links to reputable sources to back those up, one of which also provided excellent examples of back radiation.



Backradiation is a fiction.  It has never been measured at ambient temperature.  We have no problem at all measuring incoming solar radiation at ambient temperature but backradiaion has never been measured at ambient temperature.  Why do you think that is?



Saigon said:


> It is absolutely fine with me if you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is fine with me that you are arrogant enough to believe that you have now re-written the law to exclude back-radiation.



You are kidding yourself if you believe you understand it and still believe in backradiation.  

Answer the question...why can backradiation from the atmosphere to the earth...an amount claimed by cliamte science to be twice the amount of radiation coming from the sun not be measured at ambient temperature if it exists?  We can measure incoming radiation from the sun...we can measure radiation from practically every electromagnetic radiation source on earth and yet, we can't measure backradiation from anything.  Why do you think that is?



Saigon said:


> No one on this board is being paid to make you understand basic physics, and if you prefer to be poorly informed, the only person who pays a price for that is you.



I understand physics fine.  I am asking you questions that neither you, nor any of those who believe backradiation exists can seem to answer.  Very basic questions which should have easy answers.  Why don't you answer?




Saigon said:


> Some of Earths accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields). The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earths previously exported energy back to Earth  this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesnt, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.



That is nothing but a strawman.  As I stated, according to the second law of themodynamics the warmer rain transfers energy to the cooler ice and reaches equilibrium or near equilibrium.  That is not backradiation.  Rain falling on ice is nothing like the backradiation claimed by climate science.  Warm water tranferring energy to cold iice is certainly in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics  as I have already stated clearly...a cold atmosphere transferrring energy to the warmer earth, however, is not and cliamte science claims that twice as much energy radiates from the cold atmosphere to the warm earth as comes in from the sun.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2013)

numan said:


> The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics


Thank you, Saigon, for a posting of elegant concision and radiant good sense.
[/quote]

Skeptical science?  Are you kidding?  The most dishonest blog on the web and you thank him for posting garbage from there?  I guess you are completely unaware that SS routinely censors any post that proves their assertions wrong.   

Change your avatar...your use of a photograph of Stephen Hawking is an insult to the man.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



I am afraid that it is you and yours trying to trick people into believing absurd nonsense.  A day or so, you suggested that the most imminent physicists in the world were working in climate science and agreed with the hypothesis of AGW.

Interestlingly enough, the undisputed most brilliant physicist on earth since the death of Albert Einstein, Freeman Dyson is a skeptic.  He rightly points out that the entirety of climate science is based on modelling...modelling of an atmosphere that is barely understood..

Of climate scientists, the most brilliant physicist in the world says:



			
				Freeman Dyson said:
			
		

> I just think they dont understand the climate, he said of climatologists. Their computer models are full of fudge factors.



And the man thought by most to be the second most brilliant physicist on earth William Happer, is also skeptical of climate science for many of the same reasons Dyson is.

What you have in climate science is a bunch of hacks raking in money on a hoax.  The hoax is now failing and there is great intertainment value in watching to see which of you warmers is the most stupid...holding on to the failed religion the longest.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 6, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> * officer.
> *
> *Here is Newfoundlands natural ice breaker (Belle Isle) at work:*
> 
> ...



*You are very welcome.*
But all I did was posting them and translating the captions from German to English. The ISS Cmdr. Chris Hadfield speaks  fluent German and uploaded these pictures for the "Spiegel.de" which is publishing these with Hadfield`s ,Don Pettit`s and NASA`s permission.
Commander Chris Hadfield is on Twitter and if you wish you can thank him there:
https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/319784236859146240

The more people do so the better. Perhaps he`ll upload even more awesome  pictures.
Is it not interesting that Don Pettit and Hadfield had to ask NASA`s permission to remove the Infrared filters from their cameras?
But after I saw the Ganges River delta pictures I can understand why NASA has this policy. Pettit or any other of the ISS crew could make a killing on the stock market if they would slip pictures like that from other areas to a commodity futures trader.
P.S. Commander Hadfield answers almost everyone via e-mail, should you want to ask him a specific question


----------



## polarbear (Apr 6, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> I don't know. Sometimes I think such people have a kink in their minds. I suspect they know perfectly well that what they are writing is nonsense, but take a perverse delight in wasting people's time and seeing if they can fool people into accepting absurd nonsense.



Somebody who admires 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



as much as I do also should be able to answer a simple science question :

H2O vapor absorbs IR in the same spectral region as CO2:




100% of IR with a wavelength of  15 µm  was absorbed after a path length of 120 km (our atmosphere) *when there were ~ 250 ppm CO2 in it.*
380 ppm CO2 also absorb 100% at 15 µm .
So why would an extra 130 ppm CO2 "warm the planet *more* " by "preventing *more *IR" from being radiated into space (?) while the average RH of our atmosphere was the same for the period of time represented by the proxy "thermometers"..it would have to be on a planet where 71% of the surface is water. *Water had the same vapor pressure 100 000 years ago....in case you did`nt know*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Somebody who admires
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't expect an answer from these guys....they don't do any thinking for themselves.  They think what they are told to think and never once question the motives of the people who are telling them what to think.

Did you catch the post where siagon was attempting to claim that rain falling on an ice field was the same thing as backradiation?


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...










Funny how it's you and yours who falsify, misrepresent, and deny actual science.  Even the great warmist supporters in the Press are getting it.   Funny how it's you religious fanatic types who don't.  All two of you!




Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

Like most of you, I yearn for shorter winters, more shirt-sleeve weather, less lashing from frigid winds. As a confirmed New Yorker, I&#8217;m not willing to do what millions have done: move to the sunbelt. I want warmer weather here in the Big City.

But I&#8217;ve grown old waiting for the promised global warming. I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I&#8217;m 68, and there&#8217;s still no sign of warmer weather. It&#8217;s enough to make one doubt the &#8220;settled science&#8221; of the government-funded doom-sayers.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybi...ming-was-it-just-a-beautiful-dream-after-all/


Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom? - Telegraph


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Somebody who admires
> ...








No.  Where is that?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Did you catch the post where siagon was attempting to claim that rain falling on an ice field was the same thing as backradiation?
> ...



HERE

I pointed out to him that climate science states that the greenhouse effect represents energy backradiating from the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth where it is then absorbed...making the surface warmer.

He posts this regarding the transfer of energy to the surface of the earth via rain as if that were the backradiation that climate science is talking about when they say more than twice as much energy is backradiating from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth than comes in from the sun.

Of corsee warm rain falling on ice would transfer energy to the ice...but the atmosphere doesn't unless it is warmer than the surface which only happens in rare inversion situations.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 6, 2013)

westwall said:


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



It was on the blog page he quoted. I read it and was tempted to ask him if it`s a "negative feed back" when cooler rain falls  on a hot city pavement parking lot.
But never bothered. Saigon & sock puppets don`t bother answering.
I just finished reading an article in Der Spiegel..it`s not subject related but I`m 100 % certain you`ll like it:
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/gadg...resso-veloce-und-blastmaster-xl-a-892493.html

Translated  quotes:


> *                                 Neue Gadgets: Roboter-Libellen und Formel-1-Espresso*
> 
> Von Jan Tißler und Frank Müller
> 
> ...


I wonder why a picture which was published by Der Spiegel had been removed by the admin from one of my posts after somebody complained :





It was in a post where I quoted the Siamese "Mammoth" cat





Can`t think of too many other people who have a problem with reality:




 (Extreme cold grounds scholl bus fleet in Nebraska)
Schulbusse in Omaha, US-Bundesstaat Nebraska,





Garbage dump in India.
India permits garbage dump "recycling" child labor 






H.way. # 65 near Mason City...






Siberian "Baikal" ducks an endangered species spending the winter on a lake in South Korea






Exploitation:
He gets paid by the tonnage he produces..on average $15 per day...
That`s how the Chinese State owned mines in Africa work too.





A protestor in Greece being suffocated with teargas by a cop.






How Serbia has changed






While Israeli cops in mufty  still beat up Palestinians in Jerusalem



> Israelische Polizisten in Zivil ringen in Jerusalem einen Palästinenser  nieder, während ihr Kollege mit seiner Waffe Deckung gibt.








Chinese swimming pool in the southwest  Province Sichuan

*This one is for you OldRocks, because it`s from Oregon:*







> Mit dieser Maus wird es bald ein Ende haben: Sie hängt in den Klauen  eines Fleckenkauzes. Ein Biologe im US-Bundesstaat Oregon hat die Maus  als Köder benutzt, um den jungen Vogel anzulocken und ihn zu markieren.



How to take a shower in Havanna:






> Erfrischung in der Outdoor-Dusche: Dieser Junge im kubanischen Havanna  scheint den heftigen tropischen Regenschauer zu genießen - der Fotograf  erwischte das Kind bei einem vergnügten Tänzchen in den Straßen der  Landeshauptstadt.









> Zwei Insassen eines Gefängnisses in der philippinischen Hauptstadt  Manila werden Zähne gezogen. Das staatliche Public Attorney's Office  (PAO) bietet Hilfsbedürftigen nicht nur Unterstützung vor Gericht,  sondern auch diesen kostenlosen medizinischen Service für Gefangene.



*Medicare in a Manila prison*






School zone in North Carolina marked where there is no school for several kilometers.
Has been removed after residents told the contractor 






A fish going to market in Mogadishu...where it was traded for guns within the hour






City workers in Noida North India working on a sewer





Russian mama enjoying the Black Sea Surf






2 Lefties in  Den Haag demonstrating against Geert Wilders  (PW) candidate for the (right wing) Freedom Party who won by a land slide.






The ghost from "Brocken" in the Harz mountains...photographed on October 7...when the sun behind the photographer
cast his shadow in the fog..which is a very common thing in the Harz mountains.







Natural solar reflector...the salt fields in Tibet






Garbage dump in Kabul.
The Anti Incineration Alliance estimates there are over 15 Million people world wide who make a living scavenging garbage dumps.






Herat Afghanistan. Officials are meeting to witness an Opium Harvest burning.





Glastonbury England where the mythical Avalon is supposed to be





ISS Night view of Italy and Sicily 




 Lake Louise Alberta Canada

*Westwall this one is for you..

It`s a wedding picture from St. Petersburg*








> In Weiß heiraten" - ein Motto, das bei diesem Hochzeitspaar nicht nur  aufs Brautkleid zutrifft, sondern auch aufs Wetter. Auf dem Palastplatz  im Zentrum der Stadt nimmt der Bräutigam seine Ehefrau in den Arm und  wirbelt sie übermütig durch die Luft. In den nächsten Tagen sollen die  Temperaturen in der westrussischen Metropole weiter sinken, bis zu Minus  13 Grad werden erwartet.



A"white wedding" in St.Petersburg at -13 C


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


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







I saw that video on youtube.  It is quite amazing.  I have been very interested in where robotics is going for many years.

I don't remember too much spinning like that at my friends wedding......watching the ceiling spin after the celebration....THAT I remember!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 6, 2013)

Westwall, about that St.Petersburg Wedding:


> I don't remember too much spinning like that at my friends  wedding......watching the ceiling spin after the celebration....THAT I  remember!


Was it something like this:





You must have the same Bavarian beer "drinking problem" the Siamese Cat accused me of.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I just finished reading an article in Der Spiegel..it`s not subject related but I`m 100 % certain you`ll like it:
> neuerdings.com: Roboter-Libelle, Espresso Veloce und Blastmaster XL - SPIEGEL ONLINE



Yeah, I saw that.  If you like that sort of thing, you should take a look at this site.  It is on my daily "rounds".  Always something new and cool to check out.  Take a look.

Gizmag | New and Emerging Technology News


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Westwall, about that St.Petersburg Wedding:
> 
> 
> > I don't remember too much spinning like that at my friends  wedding......watching the ceiling spin after the celebration....THAT I  remember!
> ...








Ahhhh Munchen!  I love Oktoberfest!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 6, 2013)

@ the Siamese Cat






I`ll show you how "weird" my friends are:
...Got this e-mail greeting from my neighbors back home just today:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU6FBUvV2oU&feature=youtu.be"]Greetings from Home - YouTube[/ame]

Maybe they are "weird" because my entire neighborhood in Landsberg were lawyers, stock brokers, dentists, engineers and we did not have any minority groups such Siamese cats in my neighborhood where I grew up.
Siegfried`s dad was the City Engineer and Siegfried followed his dad`s foot steps. Wolfang is an aviation engineer who worked at Dornier on the Vertical Take-off jets. And the guy driving the Mustang collects american vintage cars. He is a stockbroker who made a killing on "green energy" investor idiots. And the huge solar farm you see near Landsberg is owned by my ex- neighbor Karl..the house where the "old bitch with the green car" lives actually belongs to me...but I left it for my sister Lore who was the Hilti`s CEO personal adviser...they do a drive-by on the Augsburg Street where the 5 mile long Hilti factory is.
I was there for a year developing a micro- encapsulation process for Hilti.
Wanna see the documents ?


----------



## numan (Apr 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I wonder why a picture which was published by Der Spiegel had been removed by the admin from one of my posts after somebody complained.


Perhaps it is because you characters are clogging up this thread with storage-space wasting pictures which are totally irrelevant to the topic of the thread!

It seems that you have finally realized that your malarkey is making no headway, and you are trying to prevent any rational discussion. 

What a bunch of pathetic losers!!
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 6, 2013)

numan said:


> What a bunch of pathetic losers!!
> .



I am afraid that it is you and yours making the idiotic claims.  I would like to see the math to support your outrageous claim that buring all the carbon bearing material on earth would increase the atmospheric pressure 90 times what it is now...hell I would like to see the math to support a claim that it would increase atmospheric pressure by 5 psi.  We know that the atmospheric pressure was the same way back when atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 5000 ppm and we know that even at that concentration there was no runaway global warming.


----------



## numan (Apr 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I don't need to make that amount of effort about something so very well-known.

Take a look at this classic *Scientific American* article -- you silly, ignorant man _[or child]_.

*Carbon Dioxide and Climate*



> The 2.3 x 10^12 (2,300 billion) tons of carbon dioxide in the earth's present atmosphere constitute some .03 per cent of its total mass. The quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is determined by the amounts supplied and withdrawn from three other great reservoirs: oceans, rocks and living organisms. The oceans contain some 1.3 x 10^14 tons of carbon dioxide  *about 50 times as much as the air*. Some of the gas is dissolved in the water, but*most of it is present in carbonate compounds*.


_[emphases added]_
.


----------



## numan (Apr 6, 2013)

numan said:


> I don't know. Sometimes I think such people have a kink in their minds. I suspect they know perfectly well that what they are writing is nonsense, but take a perverse delight in wasting people's time and seeing if they can fool people into accepting absurd falsehoods.





Saigon said:


> I've wondered exactly the same thing. Maybe it's more about trolling than actually seriously defending a position that simply can not be defended.


They have quite deliberately denied patent facts -- or not even acknowledged them. They have just repeated foolishness over and over again.

Moreover, for the past few pages, they have deliberately posted many, many photos which have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. They have deliberately wasted the memory storage space of this site, clogged up the pages, slowed down the loading time -- all, apparently, in an effort to make the pages unreadable and prevent reasoned discussion.

All this definitely makes me think that they are not grown-ups. These are not the actions of serious adults. They seem to be the behavior of smart-alec high school students, trying to make trouble in childish acts of defiance. If this is the case, then they are spoiled brats who would have benefited greatly if they had been walloped a few times when they were younger.
.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


>



Wow...I concentrated on that picture for a couple of minutes and suddenly saw numerous mugs of beer!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 6, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Wanna see the documents?



What I want is for you is to, just once, act like a grownup and stop running from my questions. Losing the pervy stalker vibe you put out would be a plus, but that's secondary. Gay stalkers don't bug me that much.

Like Numan said, drop the childish picture-spamming. Retreating behind a wall of pictures doesn't make anyone forget how how dogshit ignorant of the science you are. You try to bluster your way through with BS, I point out it's BS, everyone laughs at you, and you have a series of public meltdowns.

So, let's get back to some of those questions that have caused you to squeal like a sissy and run.

What's the purpose of a cooling tower at a nuclear reactor?

Why doesn't the navy use software to control nuclear reactors?

What's a magamp, and what's the advantage of using them for reactor controls?

Oh, the forecast high for Nuuk, Greenland tomorrow is 50F. Normal high for this date is around 28F. Naturally, you'll inexplicably keep yammering about a photoshop conspiracy, and thus cause everyone to laugh even harder at you.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2013)

numan said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know. Sometimes I think such people have a kink in their minds. I suspect they know perfectly well that what they are writing is nonsense, but take a perverse delight in wasting people's time and seeing if they can fool people into accepting absurd falsehoods.
> ...









I hate to break it to you but you are the science deniers now.  It's YOUR side telling the world there has been no warming for at least a decade and the IPCC claims it is 17 years. 
In other words all of these things that have supposedly happened due to global warming can't have happened because *there has been no warming*


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wanna see the documents?
> ...



Of all the bullshitters you win the prize.
How come you are stuttering?


> how how dogshit ignorant of the science you are.


I`m not in the habit to read hate-mail, "..pervy stalker, gay stalkers".. but now that I`ve seen it I`ll answer.
My daughter just got engaged today and we are throwing a her and the groom to be party right now...no...nobody is "drinking heavily" either..
But according to you : "that have caused you to squeal like a sissy and run."...Is that how you react when nobody pays attention to you because they got better things to do?...Fucking typical psycho Siamese cat personality...that`s my my wife kicked our`s out
First I showed you the simulator that all nuclear officers have to train on and even told you it`s a simulator and you come back here and tell me it`s a simulator which has nothing to do with the real thing..that you describe as "there is only one integrated circuit chip...non essential instrument.. and just a few transistors...all we have are (primitive) magamps"
And no software is needed."



Okay then I`ll show you a picture of a Naval SG9 reactor control room:
engine room, SG9 nuclear reactor






The Nimitz class carriers use 2 A4W reactors which were designed by Bettis and Knoll laboratories and built by Westinghouse.
And you are telling me that you "used to run reactors" without any software...*like as in both A4W`s  "with 1 IC and a couple of transistors"*
Like I said I never was on an aircraft carrier but I was trained on reactor SOPs and later it was my job to teach the Westinghouse software to Mil-Eng candidates.
The only part of the software that has been updated are the GUI applications but the core of the software is still Westinghouse "Genesis" and I do have the manuals:





As a Nuclear officer you should have these 2 volumes in your duffle bag...or does the Navy provide  only 1 set for the entire crew?
As a nuclear officer you are required to :
Naval Reactors Engineer: Navy.com


> *Training and Advancement*
> 
> Upon graduation from college, the formal training process of  becoming an Officer in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion program is  officially underway. For those pursuing a Naval Reactors Engineer  position, the first step is Officer Development School (ODS)  &#8211; a five-week course in Newport, Rhode Island, that provides a  comprehensive and intense introduction to the responsibilities of being a  Navy Staff Corps Officer.
> Upon completion of ODS, newly  commissioned Officers move on to receive the advanced training that is  at the core of Navy Nuclear Propulsion. Naval Reactors Engineers can  expect to spend the next five years overseeing all the shipboard nuclear  power plants, shore-based prototypes and nuclear propulsion support  facilities in the Navy. The advanced training process they undergo  prepares them to join some of the best and brightest technical experts  in the country.


*Did you ?
*If you did then you would not have to ask:


> What's the purpose of a cooling tower at a nuclear reactor?


There are none on naval reactors because they at sea and use liquid inter coolers but all reactor personnel, the US Navy included got trained on land based Westinghouse reactors that do use cooling towers.

Nuuk Greenland current temperature is 1 C , historic average for NUUK in April = -1 C and Nuuk is at the Nares  Strait southern inlet which is Greenland`s Banana Belt. 
Just like Whitehorse Yukon which gets warm pacific air through the Chilkoot. That`s why almost everybody in the Yukon lives in Whitehorse, the YKT` capital  or almost 1/3rd of Greenland`s population  lives in NUUK, Greenland`s capital.The Nares Strait  has been used for Centuries to navigate all the way up to Fort Conger  even during winter...with wooden vessels 
*read a history book you bozo!
If you were in a Navy O.D.S.  you should at least know your Navy`s history.




*


> The six survivors of the U.S. Army's Greely Arctic expedition with their  U.S. Navy rescuers, at Upernavik, Greenland, 2&#8211;3 July 1884. Probably  photographed on board USS Thetis.


P.S. Upernavik is smack along the *WARM *Nares Strait route where the Vikings built a settlement during the 13th century. As far as I know Vikings did not have ice-breakers.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't need to make that amount of effort about something so very well-known.

Take a look at this classic *Scientific American* article -- you silly, ignorant man _[or child]_.

*Carbon Dioxide and Climate*



> The 2.3 x 10^12 (2,300 billion) tons of carbon dioxide in the earth's present atmosphere constitute some .03 per cent of its total mass. The quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is determined by the amounts supplied and withdrawn from three other great reservoirs: oceans, rocks and living organisms. The oceans contain some 1.3 x 10^14 tons of carbon dioxide &#8212; *about 50 times as much as the air*. Some of the gas is dissolved in the water, but*most of it is present in carbonate compounds*.




The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know jack.  You are told what to think on this topic and haven't the slightest idea  if whether or not what you are being told to think is correct and are apparently unable to do even the simplest math to determine whether what you say is valid or not.

According to your scientific american article, there is 50 times as much CO2 sequestered in the ground as in the atmosphere...at present, CO2 is 0.03 percent of the atmosphere....if you could release all of the CO2 sequestered in the ground the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would go from being 0.03 percent to being 1.8%...still a trace gas and not enough to raise the atmospheric pressure by even 5 psi to 19 psi, much less 90+ times to 1260 psi as you claimed.

Change your avatar...your use of a photo of Stephen Hawking is an aggregious insult to the man's intelligence.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2013)

numan said:


> They have quite deliberately denied patent facts -- or not even acknowledged them. They have just repeated foolishness over and over again.



Pantent facts?  You wouldn't know a patent fact if it bit you in the ass as evidenced by your completely imbecilic claim that increasing a trace gas from 0.03 percent of the atmosphere to 1.8 percent of the atmosphere would raise atmospheric pressure from 14 pounds per square inch to more than 1200 pounds per square inch.  I don't even think there is a scale upon which to rate such stupidity.

Again, care to try and show the math to support your idiotic claims?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 7, 2013)

numan said:


> They have quite deliberately denied patent facts -- or not even acknowledged them. They have just repeated foolishness over and over again.
> 
> Moreover, for the past few pages, they have deliberately posted many, many photos which have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. They have deliberately wasted the memory storage space of this site, clogged up the pages, slowed down the loading time -- all, apparently, in an effort to make the pages unreadable and prevent reasoned discussion.
> 
> .



Exactly that.

I hadn't expected that SSDD was ever going to have the cojones to admit that he'd been completely conned by his sources when it comes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I had thought the discussion might come back to something of substance. 

Instead, we get ploarbear spamming the thread with anything and everything he can think of to ensure no meaningful debate is possible, while SSDD runs around celebrating his victory over physics.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > They have quite deliberately denied patent facts -- or not even acknowledged them. They have just repeated foolishness over and over again.
> ...



The man or child using the avatar is an insult to all who studied science just as the Siamese cat is to the Navy.
Both avoid any questions and respond either with a barrage of temper tantrums or that they are being "stalked" .
Here is a more befitting avatar for "Numan" :





Oh I forgot...according to our Norman any picture posted :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-46.html#post7055309


> deliberately wasted the memory storage space of this site,


As if any picture posted would be stored by the usmessageboard.com server. The only thing the server stores is the text and the user settings and the rest appears from the sources that archived a picture. In this case it was guardian.co.uk/film/2010/oct/22/psycho-horror-hitchcock.
The bytes for a picture don`t even go through the usmessageboard server but go directly from IP 8.254.54.254 to Normans IP and appear on his screen.
Norman`s reply was typical..I challenged him to explain how much more 15 µm IR can get out to space if we only had 200 ppm CO2 instead of 380 ppm...with an atmosphere path length of 120 km
Same psycho M.O. as "Saigon" or the psychotic Siamese cat.
First he had us popping an egg membrane earth atmosphere with a few more ppm CO2 and now he claims that 1.8 % CO2 would raise our atmospheric pressure to 1200 psi.
Atmospheric pressure is the sum of all partial pressures and if you raise the partial pressure component of one gas by increasing it`s amount down go the other partial pressures of the other gasses.
Almost all our separation technology from distillation to purification crystallization is based on that principle.[see **]
Besides how would Norman make all that CO2 without consuming Oxygen ?
[**]But here is how it works:
Theoretical plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> A *theoretical plate* in many separation processes is a hypothetical zone or stage in which two phases, such as the liquid and vapor phases of a substance, establish an equilibrium with each other. Such equilibrium stages may also be referred to as an *equilibrium stage*, *ideal stage*, or a *theoretical tray*.  The performance of many separation processes depends on having a series  of equilibrium stages and is enhanced by providing more such stages. In  other words, having more theoretical plates increases the efficacy of  the separation process be it either a distillation, absorption, chromatographic, adsorption or similar process


Norman you can complain to the admin how I "deliberately used up their memory space" by posting this picture...and have no doubt that you have no idea what it`s got to do with the  *completely imbecilic claim you made..
*Just like the phony "Nuclear Officer" who "used to run nuclear power plants" could not figure out what a cooling tower has to to with a nuclear reactor steam turbine. The Hollywood or Discovery network movies he watched did not show what happens with the steam at the low pressure end of the turbines on a Navy nuclear  propulsion system


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> First I showed you the simulator that all nuclear officers have to train on and even told you it`s a simulator and you come back here and tell me it`s a simulator which has nothing to do with the real thing..



So the fact I can run an "IL-2 Sturmavik" simulator on my computer means that the WWII Sturmaviks were computerized, right? At least that's what your logic claims.



> that you describe as "there is only one integrated circuit chip...non essential instrument.. and just a few transistors...all we have are (primitive) magamps". And no software is needed."



Yep. That's exactly how it was, as anyone with actual experience in the field would tell you. Naturally, you avoid anyone with actual experience in the field.



> Okay then I`ll show you a picture of a Naval SG9 reactor control room:
> engine room, SG9 nuclear reactor



That's not the control room (EOS). That's the equipment room behind EOS. I forget the name of it, as it's been 20 years. If you turned off that machine with the display, it wouldn't affect the reactor at all, as it's some sort of test gear.

What's more, S9G (not SG9) isn't particularly relevant, given it's a 2000 design, and I'm referring to D2G, a 1960 design. Could you tell us what computers were running the reactor software in 1960?

Now _this_ is a reproduction of a navy reactor control room. (The teletype and TV have been added, and do not exist in an actual EOS.)






That's from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel, but the EOS on a cruiser looked very similar. Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat. I knew what every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read, what the alarms meant and how to respond, as did the 3 operators at their stations. That would be why no software was necessary. We had people, and people don't crash like software does.



> The Nimitz class carriers use 2 A4W reactors which were designed by Bettis and Knoll laboratories and built by Westinghouse.



Also a 1960-era design, meaning no software.



> As a Nuclear officer you should have these 2 volumes in your duffle bag...or does the Navy provide  only 1 set for the entire crew?



Again, no software. Software crashes. Software crash on nuclear reactor, very bad. I can't tell you what the brand new ships are using now, but in 1990, it's for damn sure no reactors were depending on some MS-DOS based control software. And checking up on the Iconics Genesis plant control software, I find no mention from any source of it ever being used with Nuclear Power anywhere.



> As a nuclear officer you are required to :
> Naval Reactors Engineer: Navy.com*Did you ?*


*

I went through OCS in Newport RI, yes. However, that link is incomplete, since one could also be commissioned through the Naval Academy, ROTC or ECP. Plus there was the rare O-5 aviator who was on the command track for an aircraft carrier, and thus had to become reactor qualified.




			There are none on naval reactors because they at sea and use liquid inter coolers
		
Click to expand...


Correct, but that's not what I asked. I asked what the cooling tower does at a nuclear plant.




			but all reactor personnel, the US Navy included got trained on land based Westinghouse reactors that do use cooling towers.
		
Click to expand...


Both GE and Westinghouse reactors. And they're moving away from land-based. In South Carolina, they have 2 decommissioned boomer boats that are permanently tied to the pier and used for training. Missile tubes filled with concrete to comply with SALT II, and propellers replaced with water brakes.*


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > First I showed you the simulator that all nuclear officers have to train on and even told you it`s a simulator and you come back here and tell me it`s a simulator which has nothing to do with the real thing..
> ...



First of all the picture you just posted is from {http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor}
Secondly the Navy says on their home page that:
Fleet Interactive Display Equipment Dedicated


> NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- The first Fleet Interactive Display Equipment  (FIDE) Training Simulator of a surface ship&#65533;s naval nuclear propulsion  plant was dedicated Sept. 25, with a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the  Submarine Learning Facility, Norfolk.
> 
> The FIDE, which is a full-scale, state-of-the-art, interactive simulator  of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier&#65533;s Enclosed Operating Station (EOS),
> was dedicated to James Eimes, a retired naval officer who was a key developer of the FIDE trainers used today.
> ...


Seems to me that you are stalking me...lurking 24/7 refreshing the screen if somebody you don`t like posted something.
I don`t have the luxury or time to waste to "stalk" a psycho like you.
I got a family and unfortunately Rogers had a spat with MTS and had to remove their 3G and 2G X-ponder from the MTS tower near me.
Now the nearest tower is over 20 miles from my location and I can use 3G only at night when the signal strength is better than -83 db. During the day I got to change my router settings to 2G else my wife can`t use the phone:
Apr  7 11:13:05 (none) local5.debug pots_bridge[2316]: handle_triggered_variables: triggered
Apr  7 11:13:06 (none) local5.debug pots_bridge[2316]: handle_pots_event: idx [1][3GVoice] on event 'call state changed'
Apr  7 11:13:06 (none) local5.debug pots_bridge[2316]: call_print: call id 2: outgoing; alerting; voice; not in multiparty; #: '1204881XXXX'
I X`ed out the last 4 digits.
But you say I`m "running away squealing" because I don`t have the time to pay any attention to you. Like I said you are as psychotic as the Siamese cat my wife booted out. That f-ing cat got just as jealous when I paid more attention to a 6 month old baby and attacked the baby...
B.t.w. I`m not a "cat hater" I like cats but not the psychotic Siamese cats that you use as an avatar to "detect cat haters" as you said :





That cat was so smart and watched how I was trying to nurse a young golden eagle back to health so he would learn how to feed himself





Every morning that cat laid out a string of mice it caught in the meadow so that the eagle could have breakfast.
No way a retard Siamese cat would be that smart...*you picked the perfect avatar for yourself*.
And now I`ve got to go, we are down to a 1 bar signal  I`m on 2G and my wife needs to make some phone calls...So "I`m running away from you squealing"
Have a nice day,...or at least take a valium and try


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > They have quite deliberately denied patent facts -- or not even acknowledged them. They have just repeated foolishness over and over again.
> ...







The only spammers are you, your sock numan and mammy the clown.  Mammy's been proven the liar, yet again, you and numan have been shown to be scientific imbeciles, yet again, and we havn't had to google anything to do it.

You asshats live and die by your googling...the sad part is you have zero scientific education so you don't even know the proper questions to ASK.

That's why you so abjectly suck at everything you do.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > First I showed you the simulator that all nuclear officers have to train on and even told you it`s a simulator and you come back here and tell me it`s a simulator which has nothing to do with the real thing..
> ...








Well, at least we now know your level of ability.  Sturmovik computer game expert you may be (though you can't seem to spell it correctly)....engineering officer in the USN you ain't.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> First of all the picture you just posted is from {http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor}



A photo of the same display is on the Navy's website here, and the Navy specifically identifies it as a reactor control room mockup.

Fast Attacks and Boomers: Submarines of the Cold War

That's what an EOS looks like. You didn't know that, and I did. 'Nuff said.



> Secondly the Navy says on their home page that:



It still says that it's a _simulator_. If you still can't grasp that a simulator is not the real thing, you're too 'effin stupid to be in this conversation. Go back to the kiddie table, and stop bothering the grownups.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wanna see the documents?
> ...



Guess what?  The average temp in April in Amundsen-Scott, Antarctica is -20.7c.  Guess what the temp is there today?  -68 c


----------



## depotoo (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > First of all the picture you just posted is from {http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor}
> ...



I've not fully followed this conversation.  Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > First of all the picture you just posted is from {http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor}
> ...



My wife is finally done using the phone.
Apr  7 13:09:39 (none) local5.debug pots_bridge[2330]: vmwi_state_machine: VMWI : idx [0] on event 'call state changed'
Apr  7 13:09:39 (none) local5.debug pots_bridge[2330]: shutter_tone_timer_reset: shutter_tone_timer_REs
The snowstorm has dropped us down to 1 bar and I`m waiting for it to taper off to better than 3 car length visibility so we can go to town.
I checked back in here and almost choked on my coffee laughing what you wrote in the meantime.
Can`t you get it into your little brains T*HAT I HAVE TOLD YOU NOW 3TIMES THAT THE FIDE SIMULATOR IS A THE SIMULATOR which the NAVY is using...to train their watch officers...*
And you keep coming back here lecturing me that it`s a simulator.
The Navy does not train Nuclear Reactor personnel in Museum subs with flooded silos, they use that Simulator.
Fuck are you saying the Navy is lying...go to their home page and see for yourself.
The funniest thing I seen so far is that:


> Now _this_ is a reproduction of a navy reactor control room. (The  teletype and TV have been added, and do not exist in an actual EOS.)That's from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the  Electrical Control Panel, but the EOS on a cruiser looked very similar.  Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat. I knew what  every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read, what  the alarms meant and how to respond, as did the 3 operators at their  stations. That would be why no software was necessary. We had people,  and people don't crash like software does.


And you posted a picture which was from an Internet  humor web site called My Little Sisters Jokes photo-shop joke minus the top left caption:
*Subject: 1954 computer prediction*

.






That picture that you say was "from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the  Electrical Control Panel," was originally published by a hoaxter: on Fark.com. The entry was submitted by a Fark user posting under the name lukket. who doctored it up using a foto from this Smithsonian exhibit:





I`ve been through the Smithsonian every time I was in Washington and so has almost every elementary school kid in nearby States...
And that`s the closest you have ever been to a Navy Nuclear reactor control room...where the display case is.

Funny how obsessed you are.
First you tried to pass off a blog picture from Greenland as a Satellite picture and actual temperatures...
when I nailed you, you changed the subject to that you "used to run nuclear reactors"...and there were no gauges...
Then I showed you the Navy Simulator and the mockup gauges...
You reply that the Navy is using simulators that are totally un-related to the "real thing" where there are no gauges,...in fact no electronics and nothing is controlled by software...
Then I showed you a picture of an actual Naval SG9 reactor control room:






Where the engineer is plugged in  with his laptop`s  serial port into the Westinghouse Genesis control system..
*He is not playing video games or e-mailing Mom...!*
And after that you come back with a photo-joke made from a Smithsonian Museum display and showed me the exact spot where you "used to sit".
You did that after I caught you with another lie, where you said that Greenland was melting an ski-races had been called off.
Then it was back to your nuclear reactor crap
When I nailed you again you showed me where you used to sit...*in the SMITHSONIAN* and your typical temper tantrum:


> 'effin stupid to be in this conversation. Go back to the kiddie table, and stop bothering the grownups.


Then It was back to Nuuk again
B.T.W. Nuuk is still at -1 C and the forecast is:


> *         Nuuk 4 &#8211; 7 Day Weather Forecast Summary:*          Mostly dry. Freeze-thaw conditions (max 2°C on Thu morning, min -1°C on Wed morning).


Why don`t you grow up and stop bothering grown ups?
This thread is not about you who "used to run nuclear reactors"..*.you changed it to that after you avoided answering a question regarding Thermal conduction and convection

By the way you are fucking up with your internet copy naval buzzwords:
*


> The  teletype and TV have been added, and do not exist in an actual EOS.


An EOS is a enclosed operating system such as SIMULATORS...Pilots train on EOS SIMULATORS also...en EOS is not an actual control room or a cockpit


----------



## depotoo (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wanna see the documents?
> ...



I have already answered this, but wish to expand on it.  
You state the normal high for this date is around 28.  According to weather underground the average for this day is actually 32. Their historical high for this day is 63. And their forecast for tomorrow is actually 48, not 50.  Currently the temp there is 41.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

depotoo said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


It was the Siames cat  who chimed in on the "Spring what Spring" thread .. , that the entire winter and the  sub-normal cold from the Carolinas  right up to the Canadian Arctic across Greenland and into the European continent was just "weather"...and now the shifty eyed Siamese cat is using  a wrong forecast for Nuuk as "climate change".
Here is the 7 day Nuuk forecast:


> * Nuuk 4 &#8211; 7 Day Weather Forecast Summary:* Mostly dry. Freeze-thaw conditions (max 2°C on Thu morning, min -1°C on Wed morning). Wind will be generally light.


My thermometer is on the east side of my house. From sun-up to noon it`s in direct sunlight and showed +4C today.
As soon as the thermometer is in the shade it reads -9C (right now @ 15:33 local time Portage La Prairie Manitoba. I`m 25 miles SW of Portage)
I`ve been to Nuuk...They have vegetable gardens in the sub-urbs and you can start (balcony) gardening and grow flowers in May
But now the Siamese cat wants to discuss the Smithsonian display where it sat "running a nuclear reactor" and that I have a drinking problem, have nothing better to do than Internet stalking..It has me already being "gay" and all kinds of other stuff...in a thread where we are discussing atmospheric physics.


​


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Can`t you get it into your little brains THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU NOW 3 TIMES THAT THE FIDE SIMULATOR IS A THE SIMULATOR which the NAVY is using ... to train their watch officers ...



I run a simulator, on my computer, of a WWII aircraft. That does not mean the WWII aircraft used computers.

The Navy runs a simulator, on a computer, of a nuclear reactor. That does not mean the reactor uses computers.

I can't dumb this down any further for you. You are the only person here who fails to grasp such a simple concept.



> That picture that you say was "from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel,"



Explain for us which one is the Electrical Control Panel, and how you can tell.

Tell us why a submarine uses a ring bus, but a cruiser or carrier does not. 

Tell us the purpose of those two wheels.

Point is, I know the answers to those questions, given I worked in such a room for years.

In contrast, you've gotten pretty much every single thing totally wrong on this thread. And when I pointed it out, you went into a meltdown, spout some crazy lies about what I supposedly said, and retreated behind gibberish and picture-spamming.

You could have just admitted I was right back at the start when I pointed out Greenland was much warmer than average. It would have been much easier for you. But it's clearly too late for that now. You're far too emotionally invested in your little vendetta here to ever back down. Hence, you'll keep digging yourself deeper into the stupid hole, and everyone will continue laughing at you.



> Then I showed you a picture of an actual Naval SG9 reactor control room:



Again, that's not the control room. And in any case, it definitely has nothing to do with the 1960 vintage D2G reactor. And you failed to answer my question as to what computer you think was running this software in 1960.



> Where the engineer is plugged in through with his laptop the serial port into the Westinghouse Genesis control system..
> He is not playing video games or e-mailing Mom...!



It's not an engineer. It's a pair of RT's. If I had to guess, I'd say they're running a precrit checkoff, something that has to be done before coldstarting the reactor. We used to do it by hand, initialing steps on a stack of paper in a 6-hour process. Makes sense that they'd eventually switch to a program to run through it.

You are essentially the only human on the planet claiming that Iconic Genesis software is used to run Navy nuclear reactors. Why is that? Oh, that's right. Because you pulled the claim out of your ass, same place you get all your information.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Can`t you get it into your little brains THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU NOW 3 TIMES THAT THE FIDE SIMULATOR IS A THE SIMULATOR which the NAVY is using ... to train their watch officers ...
> ...



I`ld like to see you using the old vibrating tuning fork to time a ring bus switch on a modern 3 phase system.
All that would be left of you would be a few molten bits of body minerals.
These switches have been replaced with high speed pneumatic switches which are fired by the control system software with millisecond precision


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

depotoo said:


> I've not fully followed this conversation.  Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?



The nuclear reactors don't use software control. The rest of the ship is another issue.

Why? Because there's no need for software. The reactors work the same way they did in 1960, creating heat to make steam to spin turbines. That doesn't require computer control, and computer control would add another layer for things to go wrong.

There is a logic control system. For example, if 2-out-of-3 sensors show a reactor power spike, it automatically shuts down the reactor. If the reactor is critical (making power), a certain big motorized valve can't be opened, to prevent a cold water criticality incident. But it's hardwired logic, not software driven logic.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > I've not fully followed this conversation.  Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?
> ...


NOBODY is using hardwired logic any more since pre 1960!
You are the one who claims "I used to run nuclear reactors"...
I called your bluff and except for grabbing Internet and Wiki-buzz words you have not proven anything...I never claimed I was in the navy but I can scan in a lot more documentation and upload it than the stuff I did upload and post..where you said "so what" to my AECL security clearance..and that I`ve been in and out and been where I wanted to inside the Whiteshell reactor...you replied that you`ve been in a Holiday Inn and that does not make a brain surgeon
*Show me something REAL...*
*you got nothing...zip... zero*...not even a picture of you in uniform and rank insignia.
I don`t know any military engineer who did not have his own distinct call sign...what was your`s ?
Mine was the B-Gen-O..I still got my cap...wanna see it too?




*
Show me your`s !
You won`t because you cant` and just  keep harping  to bury your other frauds that were exposed.
*


----------



## depotoo (Apr 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



yeah and I noticed he didn't mention the temperature in Cape Harald Moltke, Greenland is currently -30F
Weather Forecast Cape Harald Moltke, Greenland | Cape Harald Moltke Weather | Wunderground


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> NOBODY is using hardwired logic any more since pre 1960!



No. You're just wrong. Totally and laughably wrong.

But please, inform us which computers were running this famous control software control in 1960.

And here's a thought experiment.

What happens when a computer is hit with an EMP? (Hint: It's not good)

What happens when magamp is hit with an EMP? (Hint: Nothing)

Computers are fragile. Hardwired controls are not. So why would the navy use a fragile system, when the tough system works just fine?



> Show me something REAL...



HELLO? THIS IS THE INTERNET.

No matter what I put up, you'd simply claim it was photoshopped, or that it wasn't me. So what's the point?


----------



## numan (Apr 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> According to your scientific american article, there is 50 times as much CO2 sequestered in the ground as in the atmosphere...at present, CO2 is 0.03 percent of the atmosphere....if you could release all of the CO2 sequestered in the ground the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would go from being 0.03 percent to being 1.8%...still a trace gas and not enough to raise the atmospheric pressure by even 5 psi to 19 psi, much less 90+ times to 1260 psi as you claimed.
> 
> Change your avatar...your use of a photo of Stephen Hawking is an aggregious insult to the man's intelligence.


It may be an insult to Alfred E. Neuman, but certainly not to Stephen Hawking! · · 

If it were not evidence of your complete dunderheadedness, it would be quite amusing to watch you writhing and twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid admitting your egregious _[that is the correct spelling, if you wish to correct your previous post]_ blunders.

If your reading skills were better, you would have noticed that the article referred only to carbon dioxide dissolved in the *oceans*, not to the carbonate rock of the Earth's crust (which contains vastly greater quantities).

*GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE*



> CARBON POOLS
> 
> *The Earths Crust:* The largest amount of carbon on Earth is stored in sedimentary rocks within the planets crust. These are rocks produced either by the hardening of mud (containing organic matter) into shale over geological time, or by the collection of calcium carbonate particles, from the shells and skeletons of marine organisms, into limestone and other carbon-containing sedimentary rocks. *Together all sedimentary rocks on Earth store 100,000,000 PgC (Petagrams of carbon).* Recalling that 1 Pg is is equal to a trillion kilograms and over two trillion pounds, *this is clearly a large mass of carbon!* Another 4,000 PgC is stored in the Earths crust as hydrocarbons formed over millions of years from ancient living organisms under intense temperature and pressure. These hydrocarbons are commonly known as fossil fuels.
> 
> ...


_[emphases added]_

Since you claim to be so good at simple arithmetic, note that, at present, the atmosphere contains 400 ppm of carbon dioxide (0.04%) _[up from when the article was written]_. That is 750 gigatonnes of carbon (actually, somewhat more).
Crustal carbonate rock stores 100 million gigatonnes of carbon.
Therefore, multiplying *(100,000,000/750) · 0.0004*, we get more than 50 times more mass of carbon than the entire mass of the atmosphere!!

Of course, to get carbon dioxide, we must combine the carbon atom with two (approximately equally massive) oxygen atoms.
Since oxygen is by far and away the most common element in the Earth's crust, that is no problem. 
Therefore, there is 150 times more  potential carbon dioxide than the entire mass of the Earth's present atmosphere -- more than equaling the 90 times mass present on the planet Venus.

I would write "QED", but I am sure you will try to wriggle and squirm out of something even so obvious as this!
.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > NOBODY is using hardwired logic any more since pre 1960!
> ...



All it takes is to scan in a picture, a document or even just a patch.
They let us keep our`s even when we retire...:






I don`t care...blot out your name or you face...I`m not interested..just quit making fraudulent claims and post pictures from "My Little Sisters Jokes" and the Smithsonian museum while claiming you were an engineering officer in the U.S. Navy.
*I`ve met lots of them in Thule !*...they do have a submarine dock there..
I could dig up a photo  shot on final approach to  AFB Thule where you can see the pier...




*In an emergency that was our last ditch evacuation plan...on any of the closest  nuclear subs that are in the Lincoln sea 
*
I just want to get back to the main theme of this thread...
where you claimed "Chinese aerosols" can account for the missing heat that the IPCC is discussing in Hobart Australia how that should be "explained" in their next annual report...*that`s when you started with your "me..I just used to run nuclear reactors" bullshit*


----------



## depotoo (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > I've not fully followed this conversation.  Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?
> ...



From what I know those of the 60's and there abouts were run by analog systems, today most are run by computers.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > According to your scientific american article, there is 50 times as much CO2 sequestered in the ground as in the atmosphere...at present, CO2 is 0.03 percent of the atmosphere....if you could release all of the CO2 sequestered in the ground the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would go from being 0.03 percent to being 1.8%...still a trace gas and not enough to raise the atmospheric pressure by even 5 psi to 19 psi, much less 90+ times to 1260 psi as you claimed.
> ...


So why don`t you visit a Lime plant and see for yourself if you can decompose Calciumcarbonate to CaO and CO2 with "back radiation heat from 380 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere"
Somebody with that avatar should have no problem doing a simple experiment.
Get some CO2 (like from a neighborhood pub that dispenses draft beer) and put it in a corked bottle. Drill a hole in the cork, stick a drinking straw into the hole and dip the straw into some water..
Observe the fountain how vigorous CO2 and water attract each other...CO2 is hydro-phil  and water wants to polarize and form hydrogen bridge bonds with the o=C=O bonds where the bonding electrons spacial dwelling time is closer to the Oxygen than the Carbon.
"Calciumcarbonate", you know...is Limestone...there are mountain ranges above and below sea made out of that stuff
Any high school kid knows that!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Exactly that.
> 
> I hadn't expected that SSDD was ever going to have the cojones to admit that he'd been completely conned by his sources when it comes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I had thought the discussion might come back to something of substance.



Still waiting for you to point out anything that I have said that results in a violation of the second law...or any law of thermodynamics for that matter.  We all know that you won't because you can't.  You google till you find something that you think is applicable, post it, and are then completely unable to discuss it.  You aren't fooling anyone.

What have I said that violates any law of physics...name one thing...or as many as you believe apply but be prepared to explain.  Good luck with that.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2013)

depotoo said:


> I've not fully followed this conversation.  Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?





That's what the cat in the hat said...and I quote  "That's hilarious. You actually think Navy reactors have software."

Guess she thinks there is no programming on an IC chip....any old chip will do.  Take it off the assembly line...plug it in and you have control over a reactor.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly that.
> ...


This thread is turning out to be a special needs course for individuals who failed high school and want to get their adult diploma,...like Saigon,the Siamese cat and Norman Bates


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

The Discomfort of Thought: Groton, CT, 11 Sept 2001

A story from a submarine nuclear officer about getting the boat underway after the 9/11 attacks. Very detailed, and not a peep about any software.


USS Thresher (SSN-593) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The loss of Thresher in 1963. Details of what happened in the engine room, and again, no mention of software.


Prospective Executive Officer Reactor Department Orientation  Pre-Naval Reactors Command Course (2004)
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-n...lers/Documents/CVN PXO PQS Underway Guide.doc

A list of the many things the prospective XO must learn concerning the nuclear plant, including a list of documentation. There is no software or manuals for it on the list.


2190 Days: My Navy Adventure - Daniel Bil - Google Books

A book from an enlisted sailor. Lots of talk about operating the reactors manually, yet again, not a word anywhere concerning this mysterious control software.


PolarBear, you seem to be the only human on planet earth claiming that Navy nuclear plants have been controlled by software since 1960. Stop digging in deeper, and just admit you made a mistake.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > I've not fully followed this conversation.  Are you stating that nuclear run ships are not controlled by software?
> ...



If I get a chance I will try to reach my good friend that is a commissioned officer on a naval ship to help us out here, though they are over in the Pacific right now and have their hands full so don't know for certain when it will be.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Guess she thinks there is no programming on an IC chip....any old chip will do.  Take it off the assembly line...plug it in and you have control over a reactor.



Wow. That's so stupid, I don't even know where to begin. It's like claiming you can plug an IC into a Model T and have control over it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 7, 2013)

numan said:


> I would write "QED", but I am sure you will try to wriggle and squirm out of something even so obvious as this!
> .



I'm not going to argue the numbers beyond stating that actually getting all of the carbon sequestered in the earth into the atmosphere would be quite impossible.  I seriously doubt that we could get the atmospheric CO2 even up to its natural high of some 5000 ppm which, by the way, didn't start any sort of run away global warming.

Now, how about you show me a single bit of hard, observed evidence for backradiation which is the basis for the greenhouse effet.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

depotoo said:


> From what I know those of the 60's and there abouts were run by analog systems, today most are run by computers.



Being that, inexplicably, the Navy does not have me on their mailing list for confidential material, I can not tell you the state of the art for 2013.

However, I can tell you that in 1990, everything was analog and hardwired logic, and that I've read nothing indicating any change there.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Guess she thinks there is no programming on an IC chip....any old chip will do.  Take it off the assembly line...plug it in and you have control over a reactor.
> ...



Unbelievable stupidity..there is almost nothing left that uses linear IC`s any more. Even vintage modem IC`s have been  programmable for over 20 years (using the Hayes command set)...In a Motorola or Plessis IC book you can`t even find any more chips that aren`t EPROMS. The times where it took more than one IC to make a simple programmable amp  are over...for decades IC`s have become integrated where one IC can accept analog data, convert it to digital and even have integrated output voltage buffers that step up from CMOS signals to DC Volts & Amps powerful enough to drive stepping motors to turn valves to modulate steam turbines. You can`t even find a car built after 1998 any more that does not run on a (programmable)  ECM.
Take an old VCR apart and backtrack on the circuit board where the photo sensitive transistor is. It goes into 1 single IC which decodes the remote IR square pulse train and has all the pin-outs to change* all the settings on the rest of the IC`s *
Even toasters, microwave ovens and washing machines are programmable using Java.
IC`s are so integrated and RELIABLE..but also so compact that most Oscilloscope probe tips  are too huge to monitor pin-out signals or solder any wires to it.
That`s why yes also on nuclear reactor control circuitry  these IC pin-outs go via ribbons to the screen display..not through copper wires to old fashioned analog gauges...*since over 2 DECADES*


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

That's nice. You still can't plug an IC into a model T and take control over it, nor can you plug one into a Navy reactor and take control over it.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > From what I know those of the 60's and there abouts were run by analog systems, today most are run by computers.
> ...



the point could be that maybe things have changed yet you were not willing to admit to that.  What ship were you on in 1990?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > They have quite deliberately denied patent facts -- or not even acknowledged them. They have just repeated foolishness over and over again.
> ...



According to your "second law of thermodynamics" you can hold a candle next to a propane bunsen burner and make it hot enough to melt steel...with the additional photons from the candle.
Why don`t you tell all the professional engineers who don`t understand thermodynamics *as well as you do *how it should be done


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

depotoo said:


> the point could be that maybe things have changed yet you were not willing to admit to that.



Where on earth do you get such a notion? I know things could have changed. However, everything I read shows no change by the early 2000's.

The point of this is PolarBear and Westwall are accusing me of lying, based on nothing except the fact that their vendetta compels them to call me a liar. Whether or not something changed in 2010 has nothing to do with the truth of my statements. Those two have gotten all the facts wrong, I've gotten all the facts correct, and thus it's pretty clear who's telling the truth and who's spouting BS.



> What ship were you on in 1990?



USS California, CGN-36, based out of NAS Alameda (San Francisco Bay). I actually left in 1989, but my roommates were still onboard until I moved out in 1990.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > NOBODY is using hardwired logic any more since pre 1960!
> ...








It's real easy to tell if a photo is real or not mammy old girl.  You clowns aren't capable of making a photoshopped image that couldn't be discerned in seconds so by all means please post a picture of whatever you have.

It has been pretty funny watching you flail away though.  So, you play computer games and that makes you an expert on things....good to know.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The Discomfort of Thought: Groton, CT, 11 Sept 2001
> 
> A story from a submarine nuclear officer about getting the boat underway after the 9/11 attacks. Very detailed, and not a peep about any software.
> 
> ...











You've lost mammy old girl you really have....


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Guess she thinks there is no programming on an IC chip....any old chip will do.  Take it off the assembly line...plug it in and you have control over a reactor.
> ...









You are correct...you don't KNOW.......anything.....not one thing....


----------



## depotoo (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > the point could be that maybe things have changed yet you were not willing to admit to that.
> ...



In April of 1990 the reactors were changed on the ship to D2G's as well as in 1994 it had another upgrade to its propulsion plant, but since the crew number were not reduced and one of the reasons for its being decommissioned. I suspect it possibly still had analog systems on board.  (don't know for certain)  I do know that the new reactors now need less than 400 crew onboard with the computerized systems.  It was  then de-commissioned in 1999.

Actually todays ships are computerized and the older ships were not.  
Dates were important here for all to verify rather than arguing with one another over it.
You did make a comment that they would not be computerized due to more risks.  You were incorrect in that.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > From what I know those of the 60's and there abouts were run by analog systems, today most are run by computers.
> ...








Yep, the US Navy is so primitive that while EVERY other country on the planet uses computers to run their reactors we are still stuck to the old switches and buttons

You really are a 'tard....


"Stuxnet, a computer virus that can infiltrate highly secure computers not connected to the Internet, a feat previously believed to be virtually impossible, entered the global political arena more than a year ago, in June 2010. The virus had attacked computers at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, where scientists are enriching uranium, and manipulated the centrifuges to make them self-destruct. The attack penetrated into the heart of the Iranian nuclear program."



Mossad's Miracle Weapon: Stuxnet Virus Opens New Era of Cyber War - SPIEGEL ONLINE


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> It's real easy to tell if a photo is real or not mammy old girl.  You clowns aren't capable of making a photoshopped image that couldn't be discerned in seconds so by all means please post a picture of whatever you have.



Westwall, just as Obama doesn't humor the birfers, I don't humor my liar-stalkers. 

After all, all of us know that whatever I would put up, you'd just lie and say it's a forgery. I hope you don't embarrass yourself by claiming otherwise.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yep, the US Navy is so primitive that while EVERY other country on the planet uses computers to run their reactors we are still stuck to the old switches and buttons



And Westwall now even fails to grasp the difference between a naval reactor and a land-based enrichment facility. It's the Westwall ideal stupidity law, that Westwall's stupid will expand to fill all available space.

Just why would the navy computerize something when there's no benefit to doing so, and many drawbacks?

And just what was this magical computer running the control software in 1960, as you all are claiming?

And just why can't a single one of you find any evidence for this control software, while I provided multiple examples showing it's not present?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2013)

depotoo said:


> In April of 1990 the reactors were changed on the ship to D2G's



No, they were D2G from the start. They were just refueled in 1990, after lasting 20 years.



> I do know that the new reactors now need less than 400 crew onboard with the computerized systems.



Where do you get the 400 number, and why does it mean anything? There are no nuclear cruisers in service, so there's nothing to compare the original crew size to, apples-to-apples.

Pinning the "computerization" theory solely on the crew size of a totally different ship looks like wishful thinking. Yes, automation reduces crew size, which is why the old battleships required such a big crew. And some things are being automated. But I see no evidence that it's the reactors being automated, and I showed the docs going up to 2004 showing it hadn't happened.


----------



## numan (Apr 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > NOBODY is using hardwired logic any more since pre 1960!
> ...


In 1979, when I was visiting Fudan University in Shanghai, China, I remember seeing large, hardwired computers in the Computer Science Department.
,


----------



## polarbear (Apr 8, 2013)

numan said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...







Your observation was correct. "Hard wired computers" are still being used to teach how the logic circuitry inside more complex IC`s works.
Unfortunately many computer science students today aren`t very interested.
That`s a shame I think and this is why the Chinese are gradually getting the upper hand in Computer technology. Their students with their "hard wired computers" as you called it have a better understanding how a flip-flop counter & memory element works, because they have to "bread board AND, NAND, OR, NOR, XOR gates to duplicate the functions that we all take for granted. Chinese Students also study the machine codes while our Students only learn the "higher" languages, such as C.
Knowing the hex-coded machine code instructions  you can write whatever commands you want, often  more powerful than the library functions of the "higher languages". Machine code instructions are very compact and over a 1000 times faster than the compiled versions, because the CPU does not have to look up which machine code sequence  it should execute for a mnemonic if a > b then let x=x+1 .
Many of the high speed IC`s that do the analog to digital conversion run directly on machine language hex-codes which is stored on a permanent ROM on the same IC. The engineers that were schooled on these "hard wired computers" you have seen in China have the advantage. Most of the other programmers have no idea what the ALU on an Intel CPU has to execute to perform a simple division.
So I`m not all that surprised that Chinese hackers can write code sequences that go right by the firewalls of secure nets and the software engineers that designed them.
China exports cell phones, laptops etc,.. the entire array of digital gadgets we use today and even our military  cyber security is unable to tell any more if there aren`t "sleeper codes" stored on  the highly complex ICs.
Many of the IC`s that are in "Made in USA" electronic consumer goods are made in China (not in "Silicon Valley")...but you need a good magnifying glass to spot the markings on the chips.
*See you can make some pretty sensible observations
Why aren`t you as sensible when it comes to AGW ?
P.S.
The physics courses that stud**ents take who study climatology are even more superficial than what some U`s teach in computer science
*


----------



## polarbear (Apr 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > the point could be that maybe things have changed yet you were not willing to admit to that.
> ...



Actually it`s people like you who have a vendetta against fact checkers, also called skeptics, but called "deniers" by people like you who cheered every time when the left consensus media went on a vendetta to smear every scientist who did some IPCC fact checks.


> Those two have *gotten all the facts wrong, I've gotten all the facts correct, *


Maybe you should do some fact checks.
Engineering has changed a lot since "the early 2000`s.


> I know things *could have changed*. However, *everything I read *shows no change by the early 2000's.


The problem you have is that all you read are enviro-activist blogs
I made my living as an engineer and *had to be up to date.*..unlike "climatologists" and their loyal following
I`m retired now but at least I still make the effort to inform myself and rather read stuff like this:
http://www.spiegel.de/video/testvideo-vom-passivradar-video-1221692.html
( Cassidian passive RADAR, using cell phone signals, digital TV or any other em from short wave to UHF all the way into the giga hertz range to pin point objects.
the military version is expected to be up and running by 2015..)
My guess is that it will be satellite based and revolutionize the current AWACS + *render all the existing shrike missile technology as useless*
The list of engineering innovations for the last 20 years is almost endless








http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-far-away-mind-machine-integration


> *How Far Away Is Mind-Machine Integration?*


----------



## mamooth (Apr 8, 2013)

numan said:


> In 1979, when I was visiting Fudan University in Shanghai, China, I remember seeing large, hardwired computers in the Computer Science Department.
> ,



Just to be clear, I'm talking about hardwired logic, which is a different thing than a hardwired computer.

Examples:

Breaker trips -> ABT (automatic bus transfer) shifts to a different bus and restores power

Tank low alarm -> pump tripping off.

Reactor power increase alarm -> reactor SCRAM

Such logic chains can go 3 or 4 steps deep and get fairly complex, and they don't require software, any sort of digital logic or IC, or even a transistor. People tend to forget how we humans built very complex systems well before any computers came on the scene. The Germans built working ballistic missiles without using transistors. The logic of a working nuclear plant is easy in comparison to that.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > In 1979, when I was visiting Fudan University in Shanghai, China, I remember seeing large, hardwired computers in the Computer Science Department.
> ...


You may have not noticed, when I responded to "Numans" Chinese *"hard wired computer" *I kept putting it in quotes or said "what you called a hardwired computer" because there is no such thing as hardwired logic in a microprocessor. They are all programmable.
Hardwired logic is when you hard wire logic gates so that they carry out a specific function a programmable chip could do.
A normally open or normally closed relay is not "hard wired logic" no more than a power source + an on/off switch and a load is "hardwired logic".
These ATB`s you are talking about are not used in any power plants, let alone a nuclear power plant. There are way too many circuits that can`t afford to be without power, not even for the fraction of a second it takes for a normal relay switch.
These control circuits are on their own U.P.S. and the rest of the load runs through high speed pneumatic switches which are always armed.
In the event of a necessary bus transfer the control system software fires the switch with millisecond accuracy. Even a small Navy nuclear power generator never runs on one single generator. There are at a minimum 2 electrical generators spun up at the precise same rpm and phase angle.
One carries the current load while the other one has the exciter voltage set so that the main coils don`t add power to the bus. Any time the bus voltage drops below the set point the software ramps up the exciter voltage in the second generator. The only time the switch opens for the other generator is if there was a failure.
I should know because it was my job to re-write Westinghouse Genesis software for land based systems. *As if the U.S. Navy which is second to none would use pre world war 2 technology  for naval reactors when you "used to run them"*
In case you did not know, the electrical generators run on their  own APU steam turbine. They are certainly not driven with the main turbine and the same drive shaft that turns the ship`s screws.
Like I said I never was in the Navy, but I know Westinghouse systems and their engineers would not be that dumb to design anything less for the U.S. Navy...nor would the U.S. Navy accept a piece of crap the way you figured it works.



> Tank low alarm -> pump tripping off.


You just called my sump pump and my septic tank pump and a float switch a "hard wired logic"
In case you did not know multiple tank systems do a :
Tank low- switch on tank feed pump...not "pump tripping off"
Imagine what would happen to an airliner with your "hard wired logic"
They have computer controlled cross feed pumps that take care of that problem and keep the CG where it`s supposed to be.. not create  a  situation with catastrophic consequences with "Tank low alarm -> pump tripping off" Siamese Cat hard wired logic.
Even a Navy as primitive as you would have it runs the steam turbine condensate from the inter coolers back to a tank.
Should the level sensor in that tank signal a low and you do your "Tank low alarm -> pump tripping off" instead off turning on the pump which feeds soft water from the make up tank you would get the reactor SCRAM you said you have been trained to respond to.
No way would the US Navy  let an idiot like that pass through their exams
I wasn`t in the US Navy but I know many air force pilots who admit that they would never qualify as a Navy Aviator...I`m pretty sure the US Navy has the highest standards of any armed forces in the entire world,...*which is depending on that being so, well let`s say the free world...the rest would prefer  you run nuclear reactors with your "hard wired logic"   on the US Navy aircraft carriers or submarines !

P.S.
People like you that have a huge ego problem are soooo predictable.
I know already what you are going to do next.
Maybe you get lucky and find a home brew DIY internet web site that shows the "hard wired logic" which could disable the starter motor when you car ran out of gas so that you quit cranking it till either the starter goes up in smoke or the battery is dead...because you didn`t know where the fuel gauge  is...you know that thingy that is "hardwired logic"..."tank low-> (fuel) pump trip off"  and start walking with a gas can to the next gas station.
Fuck my wife would be walking home almost every day. When she brings my car back its running on fumes.
*You would never make it into the US Navy today*, *but you may be qualified for team Obama..they need some "hard wired logic" that prevents them from fueling up Obama`s diesel Limo with gas:

Obamas Präsidenten-Limousine in Israel falsch betankt - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *                                 Obamas Limousine falsch betankt: Das Biest hat sich verschluckt*


 And they got another Limo stuck in a ditch in Ireland 

* Shit...let go of it already..
It`s okay by me if you have these "I used to be a Naval Nuclear Engineer" delusions.
This thread is about ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS
*Live goes on even though spring isn`t happening in Manitoba AGAIN this year:
And another "Manitoba Mauler" is on it`s way to Minnesota and the Dakotas
Must be all that "Chinese aerosol" you were talking about "dimming the sun"..or could it be that Climate Scientists have invented some "hardwired logic" and installed it in China, releasing "Chinese aerosols"  so that we don`t overheat the planet ?
Like in "+T anomaly -> increase smog" and if "T=normal print forecasts with lava red colors"


----------



## Saigon (Apr 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly that.
> ...



You are not waiting, because I pointed it out before, provided links and gave real world examples that you could check yourself. 

You ignored the material provided and kept posting the same nonsensical claim. 

At that point I figured that you understood that you were wrong, understood why you were wrong, and would then go through your usual ritual of telling everyone how smart you are and how it is not at all so that you were simply wrong. Again. Just as you do on every thread. Just as you will do again now in an attempt to save face. At the end of the day you know you were wrong, and so do I. 

For the record, here (again) is where you misunderstood the second law of thermodynamics:

For Greenhouse Effect to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:

1)    the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a &#8220;body of lower temperature&#8221; and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;

2)    the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the &#8220;body of higher temperature&#8221;.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> You are not waiting, because I pointed it out before, provided links and gave real world examples that you could check yourself.



Claiming that there is a greenhouse effect, and posting an article that describes your claimed greenhouse effect isn't proof that a greenhouse effect exists, or that I have said anything that violates any law of thermodynamics.  In fact, your claim that a greenhouse effect exists is a violation of the second law.



Saigon said:


> You ignored the material provided and kept posting the same nonsensical claim.



The material isn't evidence that I have said anything that violates a law of physics.  If you believe it is, then point to the particular passage or passages that you believe constitutes proof.

You post malarky that you don't understand and sit back believing that you have posted proof of somthing that you havent.



Saigon said:


> At that point I figured that you understood that you were wrong, understood why you were wrong, and would then go through your usual ritual of telling everyone how smart you are and how it is not at all so that you were simply wrong. Again. Just as you do on every thread. Just as you will do again now in an attempt to save face. At the end of the day you know you were wrong, and so do I.



Pretending that you have proved me wrong does not make me wrong.  Neuman proved me wrong  (to my satisfaction) with regard to the fact that it is theoretically possible to raise the atmospheric pressure 90 times on earth if all the carbon stored in the earth could be converted to CO2 and released into the atmosphere.  He provided, if not hard evidence, evidence that was strong enough to convince me and as a result, my position on the theoretical possibility of raising the atmospheric pressure of the earth has changed.

I can be convinced by srtong evidence.  So far, you have posted nothing on anything that raises to the status of convincing evidence.



Saigon said:


> 1)    the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a &#8220;body of lower temperature&#8221; and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;



Sorry, but that is quite wrong.  Do feel free to provide proof that energy will move from cool areas of an object to warm areas of an object.  Your author pretends that "deniers" are claiming that energy can't transfer from a gas to a non gaseous material.  That is a strawman since that isn't the claim being made.  The argument is that energy from a cooler atmosphere won't transfer to the warmer surface of the earth.  Since lightning is as hot as the surface of the sun, clearly we aren't discussing lightning.   What we are talking about is CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses radiating from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.

The laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature, not laws of systems.

Provide actual observable proof to support your statement.



Saigon said:


> 2)    the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the &#8220;body of higher temperature&#8221;.



The second law states that heat will not move from a cold temperature region to a high temperature region and energy will not move from a low energy state to a high energy state.  There is nothing there regarding whether the radiator or receiver is liquid, gas, or solid...the second law is about energy and heat transfer, not the materials doing the transfer.  Again, feel free to provide actual observable proof to support your claim.

Simply posting claims is not the same as posting proof.  You post claims that you don't understand and pretend that they are proof.  They aren't.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 9, 2013)

SSDD - 

The material is there for you, should you at some stage wish to get up to speed. 

The article is very complete, and provides both detailed analysis and real world examples that I am sure most posters would be able to understand. 

If you would rather keep your head in the sand on this topic, that option is available to you as well.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> The article is very complete, and provides both detailed analysis and real world examples that I am sure most posters would be able to understand.





Again, you have not posted proof of anything.  The article makes some claims but offers nothing like proof of a greenhouse effect.  It doesn't offer evidence of any direct measurements ever taken of a greenhouse effect or measurements ever taken at ambient temperature of backradiation happening.  It makes claims and offers up some strawman examples that sidestep the issue of backradiation altogether.



Saigon said:


> The material is there for you, should you at some stage wish to get up to speed.



I am up to speed which is what prompts my challenge to the material that you posted.  The fact that you are not up to speed is evidenced by the fact that you are completely unable to actually discuss the material you posted.  You read it and due to your own lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, you simply assume it is correct and the same lack of understanding prevented you from questioning the material yourself.  I have questions and challenges and the fact that you can't address either other than via the circular reasoning fallacy of referring me back to the material is the best you can do.



Saigon said:


> The article is very complete, and provides both detailed analysis and real world examples that I am sure most posters would be able to understand.



If you had any knowledge of thermodynamics at all, you would know that the material is far from complete and offers no real world examples of backradiation, and in fact, the words backradiation and or downdwelling are not even mentioned.   No discussion of the greenhouse effect can possibly be even adequate, much less complete without discussion of backradiation or downdwelling radiation which is the backbone of the AGW hypothesis.  Without backradiation, there is no climate alarmism.

Your materials are not even adequate, much less complete and your own lack of knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics are evident in your failure to even see such a basic failure of your article.



Saigon said:


> If you would rather keep your head in the sand on this topic, that option is available to you as well.



I am afraid that it is you who has your head buried deep in the sand...or perhaps your ass.  Your materials don't address backradiation...or downdwelling radiation and certainly don't prove that I have said anything that violates the laws of thermodynamics or any other physical laws.  They provide no proof of the very process required for there to be a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.  

You obviously don't understand the topic and have your head buried so far in the sand, or your ass that you can't hear questions that challenge materials that you don't know whether are true or not.  You simply assume them to be true and are absolutely unable to discuss the topic in your own words as you have no understanding of the topic at all.

So yes, I am still waiting for you to point out anything that i have said that violates any law of thermodynamics or any physical law whatsoever.  Feel free to bring forward any statement that I have made that meets either of those challenges...and be prepared to explain how they violate a physical law.


----------



## gslack (Apr 9, 2013)

It never ceases to amaze me how they claimed "global warming" and when it showed it wasn't always warming, they called it "climate change". All the while they screamed"science" and now that the science is against them, they scream "it's still true" and keep right on going...Like a cult, a religion..


----------



## Oddball (Apr 9, 2013)

> The Warmist conspiracy has reached a critical point, with doubters in the establishment speaking out. One of Sweden's top climatologists now admit global temperatures have barely changed (translated from Swedish): * "The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observation is the only way to go."
> 
> In March, a scientific study "Orbital forcing of tree-ring data" found that global warming is caused by that big yellow thing in the sky. Earth's orbit varies over the centuries. Changing distance to the sun affects temperature. Furthermore, Russian scientists have determined that the global temperature will cool by 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. (Reported in German in Bild.)*
> 
> The conspirators had banked on panic to help expand government control over the world's economies. But momentum in public opinion has swung against the doomsayers. As an example of the depth of opposition to the Warmists, consider some of the well-informed commenters on American Thinker who have made valuable points of their own commenting on three recent articles.



Read more: Articles: The Warmist Crisis
Follow us:  [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


----------



## mamooth (Apr 9, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Hardwired logic is when you hard wire logic gates so that they carry out a specific function a programmable chip could do.
> A normally open or normally closed relay is not "hard wired logic" no more than a power source + an on/off switch and a load is "hardwired logic".



Nope. A power switch is simple hardwired logic. You not liking the term doesn't make it not so. A series of relays that perform a "If this happens, then do this, and if this also happens, then do this" function is certainly hardwired logic.



> These ATB`s you are talking about are not used in any power plants, let alone a nuclear power plant.



As usual, you're totally wrong. There were several ABT's in the plant. 

Here's a quiz. If the Roving Electrician opens the EOS door and tells you charlie ABT didn't transfer, what should you do? I'll give you a hint. Denying that the ABT exists would not be a correct response.



> There are way too many circuits that can`t afford to be without power, not even for the fraction of a second it takes for a normal relay switch.



No. If you don't have any computers, most of your controls can handle short power dropouts without a problem. That would be one of the points of not using computers.



> These control circuits are on their own U.P.S. and the rest of the load runs through high speed pneumatic switches which are always armed.



Nope. No UPS's. If the reactor controls themselves lost power, the rods dropped and the reactor shut down. That's much safer than relying on flaky computers.



> In the event of a necessary bus transfer the control system software fires the switch with millisecond accuracy.



As usual, no. There was no control system. The Electrical Operator, a human being, would do it manually.



> Even a small Navy nuclear power generator never runs on one single generator. There are at a minimum 2 electrical generators spun up at the precise same rpm and phase angle.



Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS. Since the frequencies are always slightly different, phase angle between separate energized buses always varies, and it's not possible to instantly parallel buses. The Electrical Operator has to look at the phase difference meter, and manually close the breaker when he sees it hit eleven o'clock.



> I should know because it was my job to re-write Westinghouse Genesis software for land based systems.



Oh, land-based non-nuclear power system, you say? So why are you pretending to know jack about ship-based naval reactors?

Again, you seem to be the only human on the planet saying that Navy Reactors were software controlled. Why is that?

And again, just what kind of computers do you think were running this mysterious magical control software in 1960?

I've even showed you some docs that tell you you're full of crap, but it doesn't help. You're just too stubborn to admit how stupid your claims have been. That's why everyone is laughing at you now.



> People like you that have a huge ego problem are soooo predictable.
> I know already what you are going to do next.



Mock you for being stupid and crazy?

Oh look, you didn't predict that. You fail yet again.



> This thread is about ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS



And as you've demonstrated, you get every single thing about that topic wrong as well, hence your desperate attempt to deflect by questioning my credentials.



> Must be all that "Chinese aerosol"



Which you claimed came from paint sprayers. That was was one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet from anyone. You're like an artiste of stupid, the way you keep taking stupid to new heights.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 9, 2013)

mamooth said:


> And as you've demonstrated, you get every single thing about that topic wrong as well, hence your desperate attempt to deflect by questioning my credentials.



I don't believe you can point to anything regarding atmospheric physics that he has got wrong, but would be interested in seeing what you think he has got wrong and why.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 9, 2013)

Yes I am questioning your credentials because you attempted to use them


> me? I used to run nuclear reactors


and it has become abundantly clear that you have not. All you keep posting is Smithsonian museum pictures from "My Littler Sisters Jokes"
and then talk about a first generation reactor which was on ships built in 1950 like the SS Savannah, 







and claim at the same time:


> Nope. No UPS's. If the reactor controls themselves lost power, the rods  dropped and the reactor shut down. That's much safer than relying on  flaky computers


That`s called passive safety and that did not exist in W2 reactors.


> *Passive nuclear safety* is a safety feature of a nuclear reactor that does not require operator actions or electronic feedback in order to shut down safely in the event of a particular type of emergency (usually overheating resulting from a loss of coolant or loss of coolant flow). Such reactors tend to rely more on the engineering of components such that their predicted behaviour according to known laws of physics would slow, rather than accelerate, the nuclear reaction in such circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> *This is in contrast to some older reactor designs, where the natural tendency for the reaction was to accelerate rapidly from increased temperatures, such that either electronic feedback or operator triggered intervention was necessary to prevent damage to the reactor.*


*You don`t know which is what*,:


> And again, just what kind of computers do you think were running this mysterious magical control software in* 1960?*





> Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same  relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by  separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the  Electrical Control Panel in EOS.


*Even the most primitive civilian power plants *run more than one INDEPENDENT turbine and they are all at the EXACTLY the same frequency and the same phase angle.. 

The only time we "fine tune" the  modulator control circuitry is when a frequency driven electric clock is off by more than 1 second after 24 hours.

Electrical loads seldom increase so slow that a manual operator could keep up modulating the turbine as the generator calls for more torque while having to spin at EXACTLY the same rpm.
That`s why it`s all done electronically...and is software controlled.
As if there were no electrical surge loads on an huge aircraft carrier.
You have absolutely no idea what`s involved with a power on demand system. 

By the time you sit there and wait till the vintage phase angle meter you are  yapping about is near the top center it`s way too late.
Load surges are absorbed by the other standby generator(s) in less than the few milliseconds it takes for the system to ramp up the exciter coils of a spun up standby generator which was kept at the exact same rpm and the exact same phase angle....that`s the way it`s done...else you would have to have a crystal ball being able to fore cast if it`s just a transient load surge or if the increased demand is going to persist longer.
Did you ever see how fast you can smoke the field coils in a generator when the load exceeds the maximum rating?...By the time you sit there waiting for 





> The Electrical Operator has to look at the phase difference meter, and  manually close the breaker when he sees it hit eleven o'clock.


 *That generator is toast* !!
Even the most primitive Diesel power plants in remote areas are way more sophisticated than what you say how the US Navy is generating electrical power on an aircraft carrier which is using *4th* generation Westinghouse reactors/turbines and generators.
I  showed you a picture of an SG9 reactor:


> *SG9 nuclear reactor core drives the ship to nearly 32 mph when it's submerged*


*There is no way to call for more electrical power *without modulating the secondary loop unless the electronics which these 2 guys are monitoring lets you have the steam for it....and I`m pretty sure the sub commander would get pretty pissed off it the prop screw turns faster because of it. Like I said I never been in the Navy but I`m pretty sure that a Navy reactor control room doesn`t look like the picture you dug up from "My Little Sisters Jokes.com":


mamooth said:


> *Now _this_ is a reproduction of a navy reactor control room. (The  teletype and TV have been added, and do not exist in an actual EOS.)Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat.* I knew what  every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read,




And that picture was a practical joke that somebody posted on "My Little Sisters Jokes" and the hoaxter generated  with photo-shop from a picture taken at the Smithsonian Museum of a vintage reactor control room that depicts the first Naval Reactors built and which had been de-commissioned since 1960:








> Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same  relative phase angle,  given that generator frequency is controlled by  separate analog  circuits, with fine tuning being done from the  Electrical Control Panel  in EOS.



*

There are turbines/generators spinning in Canada at EXACTLY the same rpm and phase angle as the turbines/generators in the USA...we are on the same grid. 

If they were not in phase on the same frequency there would be the hugest cascading power failure ever...and you figure that`s being avoided by an army of people who continuously turn knobs as in:
*


> that generator frequency is controlled by  separate analog circuits,  with fine tuning being done from the  Electrical Control Panel in EOS.



*This is getting even more ridiculous than I thought it could possibly get*


----------



## mamooth (Apr 9, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Yes I am questioning your credentials because you attempted to use them



Yet you cite your credentials constantly, thus demonstrating what a hypocrite you are.



> and then talk about a first generation reactor which was on ships built in 1950



No, a second gen reactor built in 1970. One you claimed relied on software for control, a claim which you have still given zero evidence to back up. In contrast, I linked to multiple documents backing my claims. 

You initially made an incorrect claim, based on your mistaken assumption that a ship's reactor had to work exactly like the land-based generator plant you were familiar with. You should have just said "oops, I got that wrong". Not a big deal. But instead, you kept digging deeper, and now you've backed yourself into a corner. At this stage, you can't admit to being wrong, because that would be admitting how fundamentally irrational you've been.

I know that's what happened, you know it, and everyone knows it. Who do you think you're fooling?



> The only time we "fine tune" the modulator control circuitry is when a frequency driven electric clock is off by more than 1 second after 24 hours.



That's nice. You weren't on a nuclear-powered ship, so your experience means jack. The nuclear-powered ship didn't have a frequency driven electric clock. It had an analog regulator, one with some beefy power transistors in it. It's one of the few things that did use transistors.



> Electrical loads seldom increase so slow that a manual operator could keep up modulating the turbine as the generator calls for more torque while having to spin at EXACTLY the same rpm.



Which would be why the turbine generator had an analog regulator that controlled the steam flow valve and field voltage, like I said. Try responding to what I actually say, instead of what your voices told you I said.



> By the time you sit there and wait till the vintage phase angle meter you are  yapping about is near the top center it`s way too late.



No. If the different is 0.1Hz, that meter takes 10 seconds for a revolution. The delay is accounted for by hitting the breaker control when the meter arm hits the 11 o'clock position, instead of 12 o'clock. We'd listen for how much much of CHUNK the breaker made. Too loud, and we'd cheerfully mock the Electrical Operator for not matching phase well. Puts wear on the breaker, so one tries to avoid it.



> Load surges are absorbed by the other standby generator(s) in less than the few milliseconds it takes for the system to ramp up the exciter coils of a spun up standby generator which was kept at the exact same rpm and the exact same phase angle....that`s the way it`s done...



Not on a ship. One generator per bus. If generators are run in parallel, they can start oscillating, one generator grabbing all the load and driving the other generator, very bad news. Humans aren't fast enough to compensate for that, you need computers. Since there were no computers, generators were not run in parallel.



> I  showed you a picture of an SG9 reactor:



For the third time, that's not the EOS or the reactor area. Reactors are classified. Photographers from Business Week do not get invited inside to take photographs. It's also why I can't give you a picture of anything besides a museum display. 

That appears to be some sort of main engine monitoring room. Given that the Virginia-class pump-jet engines are electrically driven instead of steam-driven, they can be separate from the reactor spaces.



> Museum of a vintage reactor control room that depicts the first Naval Reactors built and which had been de-commissioned since 1960



First you claimed it wasn't a control room. Then when I showed the Navy said it was, you backpedaled to your current position of claiming it doesn't count because it's too old. You've flipflopped too often to have any credibility.

You also claimed software was running such control rooms by 1960. But despite me asking over and over, you won't tell us what computers were running that software. According to you, that old photo shows a plant that was run by computers. Can you point out the computer in the photo?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 9, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I am questioning your credentials because you attempted to use them
> ...



You keep posting the same crap over and over again.
Why don`t you start your own thread...till you do I just post again and again how full of shit you are:





> Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same  relative phase angle,   given that generator frequency is controlled by  separate analog   circuits, with fine tuning being done from the  Electrical Control Panel   in EOS.


*

There are turbines/generators spinning in Canada at EXACTLY the same rpm  and phase angle as the turbines/generators in the USA...we are on the  same grid. 

If they were not in phase on the same frequency there would be the  hugest cascading power failure ever...and you figure that`s being  avoided by an army of people who continuously turn knobs as in:
*

*This is getting even more ridiculous than I thought it could possibly get

*Show me something real to back up your claim


> *Meow I used to run nuclear power plants*


----------



## mamooth (Apr 9, 2013)

You can keep running, but I'll keep coming back with the same questions.

Which computers were running this mysterious control software in 1960, as you claimed?

Why is it you're essentially the only human on the planet claiming navy nuclear reactors were run by software?

I find it humerous that you don't understand the basics of shipboard power, such as separate buses for each generator. That's why cascading failures may affect a whole power grid, but they won't affect a whole ship. Worst case, you just lose the one bus. When you have to consider taking battle damage, that setup is a necessity.


----------



## gslack (Apr 9, 2013)

Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..


----------



## polarbear (Apr 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..



*Amazing isn`t it. *I got tired of this a long time ago and tried ignoring this psychotic cat. But the Siamese cat followed me around in every other thread and when I did not respond the cat started screeeeeeaching all kinds of accusations...and said I was "running away squealing".
I kept reminding her that this thread is about atmospheric physics...and that the "Spring what Spring" is not about Siamese cats running nuclear reactors...no matter which thread that psycho sits there 24/7 refreshing the screen to see if I logged in.
On one occasion I did`nt bother answering  the psychotic cat which followed me in every enviro forum.
I could not care less but that psych persisted, so I asked where is your "question"
The cat screeched "where do you think it is it`s not in the cooking section"
So I found it and all it was stuff like, that I`m a cat hater, I`m stalking her + assorted insults.
This psycho lurks here 24/7,l ike right now..





Meeow alias ex-Navy "Nuclear watch officer" :
Navy requirements  are that you must be a college graduate and attend their ODS  ~ 5years
1960 - 5 years ODS = 1955
Lets say you were a college graduate 1955
That means if you were at college studying engineering for say 4 or 5 years
after you came out of high school in 1950. which means you were 18 then
If you came out of high school or a college with a degree  in engineering  `round that time they would have drafted you for Vietnam
Unless you were a female.
And the navy did not have any females on aircraft carriers that time
being 18 in 1950 means you should be over  male, over 80 years old  and senile now if you were telling the truth.
No wonder you have no idea what`s going on and have nothing better to do.
*The sole purpose of this exercise is to bury posts* that AGW freaks like her, "Saigon" the fake from Finland etc don`t like with a ton of  garbage and insults.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..


The point is to bury anything and anyone who disagrees with their crap with more crap and by whatever method.
For example if you confront the "Numan" freak who fancies using S.Hawking`s face as an avatar..he insists that our atmosphere is an egg membrane about to blow up because we are inflating it with CO2:
"Explain how a 200ppm CO2 & 120 km atmosphere path length that absorbs all 15 µm IR could radiate more IR into space than an atmosphere with 380 ppm".
It`s a simple question...but as soon as you ask they come up with stuff like "you are ignorant...me I used to run nuclear reactor" stuff.
Then there were the "Chinese aerosols"
[*] that are supposedly reflecting enough sunlight to account for the missing heat the over 3000 Argus buoys cant find in the oceans, nor can it be found anywhere else for over a decade now.
If you ask why it`s hotter in cities they tell you it`s because city areas absorb more sunlight...and call you "ignorant".
As soon as you show then that pavement and concrete has a better albedo than a forest they take turns starting up arguments with either Westwall or SSDD about something totally different.
and so on and on and on..
What exactly are they trying to sell?
AGW.Inc doomsday prepper supplies?

[*] Nobody not even the EPA calls smog "aerosol" everyone who measures smog refers to it as airborne particulate matter...only enviro blogs and forum idiots call it "aerosol" . I even showed the instruments that measure the "smoke spot#" and how that is converted into mg per cubic meter airborne particulate matter...and then the cat started up again "Meow I used to run nuclear reactors in Fraggle Rock"





You can`t even post any more that the IPCC has given up on their outlandish "greenhouse effect" wattage:
It`s been (down) revised to :
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


> An update is provided on the Earth's global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses. In 1997, Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows, with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May *2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9 W m*&#8722;2. Revised estimates of surface turbulent fluxes are made based on various sources. The partitioning of solar radiation in the atmosphere is based in part on the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) FD computations that utilize the global ISCCP cloud data every 3 h


and just as soon as you post it...it gets buried by the forum AGW freaks.
Okay by me...nobody but them reads their crap anyway and I`m not obliged to respond to these freaks either.
But it is funnier than the lame comic sections in today`s news papers


----------



## gslack (Apr 9, 2013)

polarbear said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..
> ...



LOL, yeah meet all kinds on a web forum.

Not many navy nukes would even talk about what it was like to work on those old school reactors. Pretty hush, hush, and all who work on them even indirectly sign disclosure agreements with the DON and DOD. Usually last anywhere from 30 to 40 even 50 years or more. 

I'm no naval-nukes expert, I'm just a data dink. But pretty sure no former "nuke" has broken the disclosure agreement yet. It's tied into their veterans benefits, and those older reactors were hard on those who worked closely with them. Not many would risk the benefits..

Those mock-ups for museums are just that "mock-ups". Usually come from training vessels, and not an actual working ship. But hey I could be wrong..


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I am questioning your credentials because you attempted to use them
> ...








Uhhhhh.....no.  You have made unsubstantiated claims and been proven wrong on most of them.  PB has stated who and what he is and unlike you has the credentials to back up his claims.

HUUUUUGE difference.

He's real......you're a figment of some basement dweller's imagination.


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2013)

polarbear said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..
> ...







I calculated his age at 77 in a best case scenario....


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, yeah meet all kinds on a web forum.
> 
> Not many navy nukes would even talk about what it was like to work on those old school reactors. Pretty hush, hush, and all who work on them even indirectly sign disclosure agreements with the DON and DOD. Usually last anywhere from 30 to 40 even 50 years or more.



Not to mention the cancer clusters associated with them killing off operators at an even faster pace than agent orange exposure is killing off vietnam vets.


----------



## IanC (Apr 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


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



I can understand your frustration with SSDD's irrationality with his concept of the second law of thermodynamics.

can you understand _my_ frustration with _your _irrationality when it comes to supporting CAGW? lol, of course you can't.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 10, 2013)

IanC said:


> I can understand your frustration with SSDD's irrationality with his concept of the second law of thermodynamics.



Is it irrational to accept the statement of the second law at face value?  It is you who believes in a version that has not, nor will it ever be proven.  Backradiation is not physical...it is an ad hoc construction with no basis in the real world.



IanC said:


> can you understand _my_ frustration with _your _irrationality when it comes to supporting CAGW? lol, of course you can't.



I need only post the statement of the second law to support my position...siagon on the other hand can post nothing to support his position.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

Sigh. I tried to let this drop. I deliberately went a day without responding to PolarBear. And, as expected, this is what my forbearance got me.



polarbear said:


> I got tired of this a long time ago and tried ignoring this psychotic cat. But the Siamese cat followed me around in every other thread and when I did not respond the cat started screeeeeeaching all kinds of accusations...and said I was "running away squealing".



PolarBear has probably convinced himself this is true, but then PolarBear has demonstrated over and over how he instantly manufactures whatever reality is convenient for him at any given moment. It's a combination of his mental degradation,  his "the ends always justify the means for me" ethical code, and his emotional inability to ever admit an error.

I mentioned I ran reactors _once_, in an offhand comment here on 4/2, when I was discussing heat flow with SSDD.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-39.html#post7036879

Compare that to PolarBear's endless mega-picture spamming and irrelevent tales about his experiences. He thinks it's great when he yammers endlessly about his qualifications, but will instantly call anyone else a liar if they briefly mention their own experience. Quite the raging hypocrite, our PolarBear is.

Anyways, after the brief mention, I said nothing about it again. Problem is, I was spanking PolarBear on various topics. He needed some kind of deflection badly, so he decided he'd call me a liar about my qualifications. He started here on 4/2.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-39.html#post7037726

I ignored it for a day, figuring he'd get tired of it and go away. No such luck. By 4/3 PolarBear was in full psycho stalker mode, calling me a liar and coward over multiple threads.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-40.html#post7041445

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/286367-wonder-where-chris-is-3.html#post7041019

"Well fine", I says. "I tried to let it pass. But if the blowhard wants to rumble, he won't be the first bully I've sent home crying to mama".

The rest is history. I sent him home crying to mama. The point here is to document how PolarBear is being his usual eternal-victim lying-sack-of-shit self when he claims I started it.

He's nothing new in the world. Most men can handle growing old gracefully. A few, once they find they can't intimidate people physically any longer, turn into bitter raging assholes to compensate.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Not to mention the cancer clusters associated with them killing off operators at an even faster pace than agent orange exposure is killing off vietnam vets.



I wore a radiation dose monitor (TLD) at all times. There were periods when I was on topside watches, and periods when I was on reactor watches. When I was on topside watches, my radiation doses were _higher_. When I was down below in the engine room, the metal of the ship shielded me from cosmic radation, and the radiation I got from the reactor was small in comparison to that blocked cosmic radiation.

Oh, if you'd have bothered to read any of my sources, you'd have seen that nothing I said wasn't already in published materials. Yes, we all know PolarBear won't ever read any my sources, because if he did, he'd lose his excuses to lie about me.

PolarBear and Westwall have also outdone themselves in the fuktardery department concerning my age, given that I never said or implied in any way I was running a reactor in 1960. I don't know what prompted such a bizarre stupid assumption on their parts. I suspect early senility is a problem with both of them.

Anyways, Westy is no doubt raging he can't neg me again yet to compensate for his vanished manhood. HateStalking people is about the only thrill that bitter cranks like Westy and PolarBear can get any more.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention the cancer clusters associated with them killing off operators at an even faster pace than agent orange exposure is killing off vietnam vets.
> ...



Personally, I don't care what you do or what you did or didn't do.  The topic is atmospheric physics.  Either you can provide evidence of back radiation and a greenhouse effect or you can't.  My bet is that you can't since none exists.


----------



## gslack (Apr 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention the cancer clusters associated with them killing off operators at an even faster pace than agent orange exposure is killing off vietnam vets.
> ...



Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?

TLD huh? Well then you were in sometime after 1975. TLD's weren't used until after 75' in fact the "Nimitz" was commissioned in may of 75'.. Not exactly first-gen hardware...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?



The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure. Maybe you should let them know they're wrong.

Cosmic Radiation During Flights | RadTown USA | US EPA



> TLD huh? Well then you were in sometime after 1975. TLD's weren't used until after 75' in fact the "Nimitz" was commissioned in may of 75'.. Not exactly first-gen hardware...



Hardly shocking, given I specifically said I left in 1989. After one tour.


----------



## gslack (Apr 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?
> ...



1. Maybe you should talk to someone about your fear of cosmic rays WHILE ON A SHIP... You're link says the following in its title....

_*Cosmic Radiation During Flights

This page describes cosmic radiation and the reason our cosmic exposure increases when we fly in planes.*_

But hey let's not go arguing over whose cosmic rays exposed who. Let's go over your statement..


_*"The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure."*_

So cosmic radiation causes significant exposure... Think about it a minute... Exposure to some kinds of radiation (possibly cosmic if exposed to it) can cause any number of illnesses and diseases. But radiation to exposure not only doesn't, but actually makes no sense...

to die of "exposure" is to die from exposure to the elements. Whatever those "elements" may be, if they can kill then... you get the idea...

Exposure to radiation, well we already know that can be bad.

2. *2.Hardly shocking, given I specifically said I left in 1989. After one tour.*

Really? then why all the BS and use of old museum mock-up pics and implications of expertise in that particular reactor generation? You either are an expert on those old systems or you are not, which is it?

Wow dude. ROFL


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dude.... COSMIC RADIATION???? You fear cosmic rays when outside the ship??? WOW, were you on a naval vessel or the Starship Enterprise?
> ...







Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 feet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science.  Topside and nuclear watches huh?  No navy anywhere does that.  During wartime, yes, during peacetime....uhhhh...no.


----------



## gslack (Apr 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Careful wes, cosmic rays can cause exposure....


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 reet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science.



So Westwall is now actually denying that radiation comes down from the sky? Wow. One wonders what other basic science he'll be rewriting.



> Topside and nuclear watches huh?  No navy anywhere does that.  During wartime, yes, during peacetime....uhhhh...no.



Which would be why I said it happened at different times. Like I tell PolarBear, try responding to what I write, instead of what the voices tell you. 2 years down below, then a year topside. 

And gslack, I'm sure Westy and PolarBear appreciate your loyal rumpswabbing, but is that really the path you want to take? It's just led them to constant humiliation, expensive dental bills from all the teeth grinding, and chronic constipation. That's why they're so grumpy all the time.

Anyways, good luck in joining the obsessive vendetta against me. You're up to maybe 4 now. Get it up to 10 or so, and you'll start having a chance.


----------



## gslack (Apr 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 reet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science.
> ...



Way to try and divert to save your azz ... LOL

Nice try, but that wasn't even said..

What WAS said, by you, was the following...

_*"The EPA seems to think cosmic radiation causes significant exposure."*_

ROFL, so explain how long you have had this fear of cosmic rays killing sailors?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> ROFL, so explain how long you have had this fear of cosmic rays killing sailors?



Reduced to lying about me now?

Please show where I stated anything about killing sailors. If you're not lying, that should be easy. If you are lying, you'll squeal and run, like all my hatestalkers do when I call them on the BS.


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Might have something to do with the fact they are at 30,000 reet thus above 80% of the atmosphere but that would be science and you don't do science.
> ...








Not what I said at all nimrod.  See, there's that complete lack of scientific acumen rearing its ugly head again.  Atmosphere blocks a great deal of cosmic radiation.  My home is 8,000 feet ASL so we get far more cosmic rays than folks living at sea level.  

See how that works?

No?....I didn't think you would...

Vendetta huh?  Paranoid much?


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL, so explain how long you have had this fear of cosmic rays killing sailors?
> ...



LOL, what lie? you were a sailor, and claimed the cosmic rays were bad on the boat, prolonged exposure to cosmic rays can kill...

See how immature BS works? I can play your game too socko, only I'm much better at it..


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth reminds me of "pappy o'daniels son" in the movie "oh brother where art thou?"..

"Maybe we should get us some of that reform,daddy?"


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, what lie? you were a sailor, and claimed the cosmic rays were bad on the boat, prolonged exposure to cosmic rays can kill...



As predicted, a fine squeal and run.

They say a man is defined by his opposition. If my stalkers didn't hate me, I'd wonder what I was doing wrong.


----------



## gslack (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, what lie? you were a sailor, and claimed the cosmic rays were bad on the boat, prolonged exposure to cosmic rays can kill...
> ...



Run? from you? ROFL!

Sorry booboo kitty I won't run... Mr. Expert...


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I can understand your frustration with SSDD's irrationality with his concept of the second law of thermodynamics.
> ...



you misunderstand thermodynamics. it leads to macroscopic laws because of the interaction of large numbers. there is no forbidding of  microscopic fluctuations and  you cannot point to any mechanism by which they are forbidden.

in the specific case of atmospheric physics you arbitrarily separate the radiation in one direction from the radiation going in the other direction even though they are going on at the same time and continuously. the SLOT predicts the direction of net flow, not each and every interaction possible.

from wiki-


> Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that characterize materials and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what laws they change with time. Thermodynamics describes the average behavior of very large numbers of microscopic constituents, and its laws can be derived from statistical mechanics.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> you misunderstand thermodynamics. it leads to macroscopic laws because of the interaction of large numbers. there is no forbidding of  microscopic fluctuations and  you cannot point to any mechanism by which they are forbidden.



So they say...and still you can't show me a single measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperature.



IanC said:


> in the specific case of atmospheric physics you arbitrarily separate the radiation in one direction from the radiation going in the other direction even though they are going on at the same time and continuously. the SLOT predicts the direction of net flow, not each and every interaction possible.



Actually, the second law predicts one direction gross flow.  Neither heat nor energy will move from low energy areas to high energy areas or low entropy to high entropy and that simply can't happen.



IanC said:


> from wiki-
> 
> 
> > Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that characterize materials and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what laws they change with time. Thermodynamics describes the average behavior of very large numbers of microscopic constituents, and its laws can be derived from statistical mechanics.



Once more, it is interesting that physics texts leading to the hard science physics degree don't teach backradiation while physics texts leading to the soft science degree of climatology do.  The letter of the law says no backradiation...I will stick with that till such time as backradiation can be measured at ambient temperature.  I say ambient because backradiation can be measured if the temperature of the measuring device is lowered to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...at that point, you can measure all the downward radiation you like, but even that isn't backradiation since the downward radiation is only reaching the specific area that has been cooled down.  The second law predicts that if you cool the device down to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, energy will move from the cool atmosphere to the cooler device.


----------



## IanC (Apr 12, 2013)

Every physics text teaches that matter emits radiation according to its temp. I have never read about a mechanism that can turn this radiation off. Have you?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So they say...and still you can't show me a single measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperature.



I've seen it directly, with a military-grade FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared). The sky emits IR light, even at night.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> Every physics text teaches that matter emits radiation according to its temp. I have never read about a mechanism that can turn this radiation off. Have you?



I never said anything about turning radiation off, but there isn't any law that says that an object "must" radiate in every direction.  Stating that an object won't radiate in the direction of an object that is warmer and therfore receiving radiation from is no more radical than saying that if dropped, a marble falls down, or if stet on an incline will roll down hill.  The physical laws are what they are.  

You know that electricity only moves in one direction along a wire...Hook up a 12 volt battery to one end and a 6 volt to the other and no electricity from the 6 volt will travel to the 12 volt along the wire.  It simply won't "radiate" in a direction from which a higher energy is coming.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So they say...and still you can't show me a single measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperature.
> ...



No you haven't.  Maybe you are unaware that FLIR units are cooled.  They have to be cooled to a lower temperature than anything that they are likely to be looking at otherwise no image would be detected as backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object is not possible.  

No measurement...and I mean absolutely NO measurement of backradiation has been taken at ambient temperature.  If you were viewing with military grade hardware, then you were probably using something along these lines:






Apache 1K 
FLIR&#8217;s Apache 1K camera core is based on our high-performance, 18-micron pitch, 1024 × 1024 MWIR, Indium Antimonide (InSb) focal plane array. The Apache 1K camera core consists of a detector/dewar/*cooler assembly *(DDCA), with camera electronics packaged into a compact, rugged, military-qualified configuration. The camera core outputs both corrected 14-bit digital data and analog NTSC video.






Photon HRC  
The Photon HRC camera core consists of a detector/dewar/*cooler assembly *(DDCA), camera electronics, and a mechanical frame (pictured). It is one of the smallest high-resolution (640x512) MWIR cooled camera cores in the world, and is based on our 15-micron pitch, high performance, low power, Indium Antimonide (InSb) focal plane array

Or maybe even something as downgraded as this:






Key Features:
*Cooled Mercury Cadmium Telluride detector*
 Continuous optical zoom lens option eliminates the need for multiple lenses
 640 x 512 pixel resolution 
Powerful image processing algorithms embedded in hardware and software 
Easy to integrate and compatible with common power and video interfaces





And of course the sky emits radiation...just not towards the surface if the surface is warmer.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


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


mamooth seems to lie a lot.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


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



Maybe he has seen images on a FLIR display.  Like many, he just didn't know what he was looking at.  He saw images and figured that they must represent backradiation but had no idea that the images were the result of the FLIR device being cooled to a temperature blow anything it would likely be called to look at so that the radiation from the objects could actually radiate to the FLIR device.  All these people who believe in backradiation should realise that instruments like the FLIR represent observable evidence that backradiation does not exist.  

Hell, vist Dr. Roy Spencer's site.  He currently has a completely idiotic thread up trying to claim that his hand held infrared thermometer is proof of backradiation even though he knows that it takes extremely sensitive equipment that is being cooled to temperatures close to those found in the upermost atmosphere to measure backradiation.

He has had what is IR thermometer is actually reading dozens of times on various threads, even by a manufacturer of IR thermometers speaking on behalf of the company but he just keeps pushing the same old backradiation line of crap because he has so much of himself invested in it that he just can't beleive that he has been so wrong.  He may be a brilliant meterologist, but apparently doesn't know jack about atmospheric physics.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you misunderstand thermodynamics. it leads to macroscopic laws because of the interaction of large numbers. there is no forbidding of  microscopic fluctuations and  you cannot point to any mechanism by which they are forbidden.
> ...



Oh, you poor silly sad insane little retard.

From Dr. Roy Spencer, the 'darling of the deniers', the climate scientist who is probably the most cited and quoted by deniers because of his skepticism regarding climate sensitivity. The 'darling of the deniers' until, of course, he sticks to the actual science and doesn't go along with the kooky myths of the denier cult, at which point they turn on him savagely.

*Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still*
 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
(excerpts)
*...These arguments usually involve claims that &#8220;back radiation&#8221; can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect. Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff&#8217;s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, &#8220;How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?&#8221; The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I&#8217;m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER. 

Kirchoff&#8217;s Law of thermal radiation says (roughly), that a good infrared absorber is an equally good infrared emitter. So, each layer of the atmosphere is continuously absorbing IR, as well as emitting it. This is what makes the Greenhouse Effect so much more difficult to understand conceptually than solar heating of the Earth. While the sun is a single source, and most of the energy absorbed by the Earth is at a single level (the surface of the ground), in the case of infrared energy, every layer becomes both as source of energy and an absorber of energy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Can Energy &#8220;Flow Uphill&#8221;?
In the case of radiation, the answer to that question is, &#8220;yes&#8221;. While heat conduction by an object always flows from hotter to colder, in the case of thermal radiation a cooler object does not check what the temperature of its surroundings is before sending out infrared energy. It sends it out anyway, no matter whether its surroundings are cooler or hotter. Yes, thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions.*


*Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
Measuring The (Nonexistent) Greenhouse Effect in My Backyard with a Handheld IR Thermometer and The Box*
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 6th, 2010 
(excerpts)
*One of the claims of greenhouse and global warming theory that many people find hard to grasp is that there is a large flow of infrared radiation downward from the sky which keeps the surface warmer than it would otherwise be. Particularly difficult to grasp is the concept of adding a greenhouse gas to a COLD atmosphere, and that causing a temperature increase at the surface of the Earth, which is already WARM. This, of course, is what is expected to happen from adding more carbon dioixde to the atmosphere: &#8220;global warming&#8221;. Well, it is one of the marvels of our electronic age that you can buy a very sensitive handheld IR thermometer for only $50 and observe the effect for yourself. These devices use a thermopile, which is an electronic component that measures a voltage which is proportional to the temperature difference across the thermopile. If you point the device at something hot, the higher-intensity IR radiation heats up the hot-viewing side of the thermopile, and the IR thermometer displays the temperature it is radiating at (assuming some emissivity&#8230;my inexpensive unit is fixed at e=0.95). If you instead point it at the cold sky, the sky-viewing side of the thermopile loses IR radiation, cooling it to a lower temperature than the inside of the thermopile.

For instance, last night I drove around pointing this thing straight up though my sunroof at a cloud-free sky. I live in hilly territory, the ambient air temperature was about 81 F, and at my house (an elevation of 1,000 feet), I was reading about 34 deg. F for an effective sky temperature. If the device was perfectly calibrated, and there was NO greenhouse effect, it would measure an effective sky temperature near absolute zero (-460 deg. F) rather than +34 deg. F, and nighttime cooling of the surface would have been so strong that everything would be frozen by morning. Not very likely in Alabama in August. What was amazing was that driving down in elevation from my house caused the sky temperature reading to increase by about 3 deg. F for a 300 foot drop in elevation. My car thermometer was showing virtually no change. This pattern was repeated as I went up and down hills. The IR thermometer was measuring different strengths of the greenhouse effect, by definition the warming of a surface by downward IR emission by greenhouse gases in the sky. This reduces the rate of cooling of the Earth&#8217;s surface (and lower atmosphere) to space, and makes the surface warmer than it otherwise would be.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 12, 2013)

Guess you didn't read the comments where roy got himself a new one torn.  I am afraid that roy's thought experiment was an abject failure as well as his little construction project in his back yard.

You guys will believe anything won't you?  Guess that is because you really don't have a grasp of the science and just believe or disbelieve based on your political leanings.  Unfortunate. 

If you believe backradiation exists, then provide some actual measurements of it taken at ambient temperature.  We have no problem at all measuring incoming radiation of all wavelengths coming in from the sun at ambient temperature,  but oddly enough are completely unable to measure backradiation without cooling the instruments to temperatures near those found at the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere.

If so much backradiation is coming in from the atmosphere, why can't it be measured at ambient temperature?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> No you haven't.



Yes, I have. You can spout your kook theory about the magic fairies that prevent radiation in one direction, but it doesn't stop people from observing the radiation from the atmosphere.



> Maybe you are unaware that FLIR units are cooled.  They have to be cooled to a lower temperature than anything that they are likely to be looking at otherwise no image would be detected as backradiation from a cooler object to a warmer object is not possible.



So according to your crank theory, cooling the instrument causes the atmosphere far away from it to start emitting backradiation. Your theory is insanely stupid.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> mamooth seems to lie a lot.



Oddball, are you officially joining TeamDickless and claiming I lie about being in the military?

If you have, locate your balls and say it directly to my face. My virtual face, that is. I'll make sure to include you in all my future transmissions to TeamDickless.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Guess you didn't read the comments where roy got himself a new one torn.


LOLOLOLOLOL....is that your new myth???.....I did read the comments and there were a few denier cult retards like you who posted some nonsense and Dr. Spencer answered them with the facts. Since you have long since demonstrated your aversion to the facts, it is not too surprising that you don't recognize them when you see them.







SSDD said:


> I am afraid that roy's thought experiment was an abject failure as well as his little construction project in his back yard.


Well, that's the insane little myth you tell yourself anyway, but it has no relation to reality. And of course, you would never think of buying the sensitive handheld IR thermometer he mentioned and trying it for yourself. LOLOLOLOLOL......it might, after all, upset your precious myths and fantasies.







SSDD said:


> You guys will believe anything won't you?  Guess that is because you really don't have a grasp of the science and just believe or disbelieve based on your political leanings.  Unfortunate.


Oops, there you go, talking to yourself again, you poor deluded anti-science retard.






SSDD said:


> If you believe backradiation exists, then provide some actual measurements of it taken at ambient temperature.


Just did. You're just too stupid to comprehend it and too brainwashed to admit it if you could understand it.






SSDD said:


> We have no problem at all measuring incoming radiation of all wavelengths coming in from the sun at ambient temperature,  but oddly enough are completely unable to measure backradiation without cooling the instruments to temperatures near those found at the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere.


LOLOLOLOL.....where do you get this nonsense. Dr. Spencer just showed how to measure backradiation with a "_handheld IR thermometer for only $50_" that doesn't require any special "_cooling_". You are such a pathetically incompetent liar.






SSDD said:


> If so much backradiation is coming in from the atmosphere, why can't it be measured at ambient temperature?


It can. Only retarded fools deny it.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Every physics text teaches that matter emits radiation according to its temp. I have never read about a mechanism that can turn this radiation off. Have you?
> ...



No one on this thread has claimed that an object MUST radiate heat to a warmer object - only that it could given certain conditions.

Backradiation may not occur in every scenario with cushions, heaters and frogs, but we know for a fact that it exists in the earth & atmopshere, and you can go and watch it happen yourself if you are sufficiently interested. 

I've posted all of the information on this twice now - I've yet to see you address the science behind it.


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth seems to lie a lot.
> ...



You DO lie a lot tool... It's a well known fact now..


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


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



What conditions? What conditions allow for two-way heat flow? A perfect machine? Doesn't exist.. 

Backradiation is make believe, a hoax to sell a messed up theory. Ever see some of the convoluted equations and explanations they use to explain it? It's simply retarded..

The laws of physics do not stop working just to suit some theory. They are laws because in the natural world they have shown to be inflexible therefore laws. They are using complex mathematics and theoretical mumbo-jumbo to claim that in this one case, the laws of physics are broken.. Nowhere else in the natural world at anytime have they shown this phenomenon, but using their computer generated models, and theoretical math based on equations designed to give the result they want, they say it's fact now..

BS..


----------



## Saigon (Apr 13, 2013)

> Backradiation is make believe, a hoax to sell a messed up theory.



I suggest you do a little reading - this article explains how it works, and provides examples you can probably see from your own window. 

Some of Earth&#8217;s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth&#8217;s previously exported energy back to Earth &#8211; this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn&#8217;t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Backradiation is make believe, a hoax to sell a messed up theory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No thanks read his nonsense before.. Want a clue? His premise is false... His contention...

_For Greenhouse Effect to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:

the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a body of lower temperature and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and; the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the body of higher temperature._

The first part is the killer really.. First he has already set the parameters he would accept to make the theory in violation of the law. That's not how it works is it...

Why would the earth need to be a discrete body to be a body of a lower temperature? That's complete nonsense a discrete body in this scenario would have to be black-body emitter. The Earth is not a black body. It's just not.. And for that matter since when is a body of a lower temperature have to be absolute zero? That's what his implication is...

He then claims the second law has to preclude any feedback...Says who? What the hell kind of nonsense was that?? 

Then he states the only true thing he said at all..."...could slow the cooling of the body of higher temperature yes the only thing he said that was concise, and clear and true.. ALL the rest of it was circle talk nonsense designed to confound a simple matter really...

What he is doing is taking the theory in question, and using it to prove itself.. it's nonsense and plain ignorant..

The dudes a BS artist nothing more. I read his crap a few times, he's a charlatan, a paid storyteller with enough of a science background to make it seem like he's saying something..

Want an example? Sure..

If a cow and a half, weighed a tom and a half, how much would a pound of butter weigh?
One pound of course.. 

Now did I actually say anything of substance there? no I didn't it was just BS..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Yes, I have. You can spout your kook theory about the magic fairies that prevent radiation in one direction, but it doesn't stop people from observing the radiation from the atmosphere.



You have not observed backradiation at ambient temperature.  No one has.  It does not exist.  There is nothing magic about the second law any more than gravity is magic, or that the fact that electricity will only run in one direction in a wire or that air at normal atmospheric pressure won't enter a hole producing a slow leak in a baloon, or that a marble placed on an incline won't roll up hill.  These are all predicted by the second law.  Suggesting that energy will flow spontaneously from cool to warm is the claim of magic.

  There is no law stating that an object must radiate in every direction but there is a law that states that it can only radiate energy to areas of lower energy...that same object is receving energy from areas of higher energy.




mamooth said:


> So according to your crank theory, cooling the instrument causes the atmosphere far away from it to start emitting backradiation. Your theory is insanely stupid.



Not at all.  The problem is that you don't understand the laws of physics.  The second law states that energy won't spontaneously move from cool to warm.  

What sort of object do you believe you saw backradiation from with a FLIR?  What were you looking at that was colder than the FLIR unit?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 13, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Yeah but the thing is, slackjawed, you're a clueless, brainwashed retard with no real knowledge or understanding of the laws of physics or anything else in science, as you have clearly demonstrated every time you post. As SSooooDDuuumb has also done, almost as well as you. Two clueless dumbfucks, spewing ignorant drivel and nonsense.

I just posted some good explanations from Dr. Roy Spencer that detail just how you denier cult fools are misinterpreting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As he said: *"thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions"*.

If you mindless denier cult dupes actually knew anything at all about physics, you would realize just how absurd your claims are about the "_impossibility of backradiation_". What seems to be beyond your meager comprehension is the fact that infrared radiation is very close to the visible light wavelengths that we can see in the electromagnetic spectrum. and both IR and visible light are transferring energy with photons. If there were actually no backradiation possible, as you kooks would have it, we would certainly notice that when a 1000 lumens lamp and a 500 lumens lamp were pointed directly at each other, the lower intensity light source would just black out and refuse to emit photons in the direction of the other lamp. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Or point a flashlight at the sun and then hold up a mirror next to the sun and see if the flashlight is still shining. LOLOLOL....you Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted rightwingnutjobs are soooo hilarious when you try to explain how all of the scientists are wrong and you're right. You're just too stupid and ignorant to be able to recognize just how extremely stupid and ignorant you really are and you have no comprehension at all of just how much smarter most other people are than you imbeciles.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOLOL....is that your new myth???.....I did read the comments and there were a few denier cult retards like you who posted some nonsense and Dr. Spencer answered them with the facts. Since you have long since demonstrated your aversion to the facts, it is not too surprising that you don't recognize them when you see them.



There were no facts to answer with thunder. Thought experiments involve hypothesis and supposing what would happen if.  Actual experiments involve facts which is why his backyard experiment failed.



RollingThunder said:


> Well, that's the insane little myth you tell yourself anyway, but it has no relation to reality. And of course, you would never think of buying the sensitive handheld IR thermometer he mentioned and trying it for yourself. LOLOLOLOLOL......it might, after all, upset your precious myths and fantasies.



I have a hand held infrared thermometer.  Of course you can point it at the sky and get different readings, but it doesn't mean you are measuring backradiation.  Thermometer manufacturers have explained to roy that his instrument isn't measuring backradiation.

If you point an infrared thermometer at a clear sky, you are reading a temperature at a much higher altitude than if you point it at a cloud.  The cloud isn't backradiating, it is simply at a much lower temperature because it is at a much lower altitude.  You do realise that the atmosphere gets colder as you increase altitude don't you?



RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL.....where do you get this nonsense. Dr. Spencer just showed how to measure backradiation with a "_handheld IR thermometer for only $50_" that doesn't require any special "_cooling_". You are such a pathetically incompetent liar.



All spencer showed was that he doesn't have a clue as to what his insturment is reading.  If backradiation can be measured with a $150 hand held IR thermometer, why do you suppose meteorological agencies buy incredibly expensive instruments that are cooled far below the -20 degree average of the atmosphere to make direct measurement of atmospheric radiation possible?

Here is the sort of instrument they use:

The AIRS Instrument:
 Notice the amount of "Cooling" modules?
 They are used to cool the IR detectors in the Focal Plane Assembly.

AIRS: instrument
Cryogenic Cooling Systems

 -Dewar Assembly
 -Cryocooler Assembly
 -Radiators and Earth Shield Assembly

 Dewar Assembly
 "The focal plane assembly operates at 58 K for high sensitivity and is packaged in a permanent vacuum dewar which mates directly to the 155 K grating spectrometer."

58K = -215 deg C !!
AIRS: dewar

 Cryocooler Assembly
 "Low vibration, long life focal plane operation near 58 K is critical to the success of AIRS.."
AIRS: cryocooler


Spencer is no more measuring backradiation with his IR thermometer than he is measuring gravity.



RollingThunder said:


> It can. Only retarded fools deny it.



Then I am sure that you can provide some direct measurements, in watts per square meter taken at ambient temperature.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 13, 2013)

> No thanks read his nonsense before.. Want a clue? His premise is false... His contention...



Right.

So the scientists have got it wrong - again. It's surprising how often it comes down to that on this board.

Even more surprising that we can post research written by a Professor of Physics with 25 years experience, and he can be "proven wrong" by someone who struggled to pass high school maths. 

Enlightening.

btw, keep this in mind:

The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.htm


----------



## Saigon (Apr 13, 2013)

> The dudes a BS artist nothing more. I read his crap a few times, he's a charlatan



David C. Tobin

Dr. David C. Tobin received his PhD degree in 1996 at the University of Maryland ? Baltimore Campus (UMBC) where he worked under Professor Larrabee Strow. His Ph.D. research focused on molecular spectroscopy, infrared radiative transfer, and remote sensing. His dissertation work dealt with laboratory and theoretical studies of the infrared spectral line shapes of water vapor and carbon dioxide. For the past eleven years, Dr. Tobin has been a research scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Space Science and Engineering Center, where he is part of the center&#8217;s infrared high spectral resolution remote sensing group led by Dr. Hank Revercomb. He has made exceptional advances in the measurement and semi-empirical representation of the water vapor continuum absorption, including, (a) laboratory measurements of the water vapor continuum absorption in infrared window regions and in the 6 &#956;m vibrational band, (b) theoretical investigation and empirical representation of the near-wing super-Lorentz lineshape behavior, (c) measurement of the far-infrared absorption using ground-based downwelling sky view spectra, and (d) development and validation of the latest water vapor continuum model, MT(Tobin)_CKD, which is now used in state-of-the-art line-by-line radiative transfer models. He is involved with various projects involving infrared molecular spectroscopy and atmospheric radiative transfer, atmospheric water vapor, infrared spectro-radiometer calibration and validation, and infrared remote sensing. Current efforts include Level 1 and 2 product validation as part of the AIRS science and Aura (TES) validation teams, infrared radiance and flux closure studies for the ARM program, investigations of the water vapor continuum, NPP science team efforts including CrIS sensor and algorithm assessments, characterization studies of the Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS) and the Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI), and involvement in the center&#8217;s aircraft based interferometer program. In summary, Dr. Tobin's scientific contributions are extraordinary for a young scientist. His work has already had, and continues to have, a most significant impact on the field of atmospheric radiation. These outstanding contributions led the IRC to present Dr. Tobin with the 2008 IRC Young Scientist Award.

International Radiation Commission


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> No one on this thread has claimed that an object MUST radiate heat to a warmer object - only that it could given certain conditions.



The greenhouse effect claims that CO2 molecules absorb outgoing IR and in turn radiate it in all directions with something like 40 or 50% being radiated back to the surface.  They aren't claiming that it only happens during rare, and extremely localized events like temperature inversions where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface of the earth, in which case the atmosphere is radiating to the surface, but it isn't backradiation because the air is warmer than the surface....they are claiming that backradiation is happening everywhere 24/7.



Saigon said:


> Backradiation may not occur in every scenario with cushions, heaters and frogs, but we know for a fact that it exists in the earth & atmopshere, and you can go and watch it happen yourself if you are sufficiently interested.



Sorry, but you can't.  The only way to measure downdwelling radiation at ambient temperatures is to have a device that is cooled to a temperature far below the -20 degree average temperature of the atmosphere.

Here is some hard, experimental evidence that backradiation does not exist.

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

These people have put together a set of plans, and demonstration for a very inexpensive solar cooker for use in third world.  

Visit the page and look down towards the bottom at the section titled "How to Use the Solar Funnel as a Refrigerator/Cooler"



> university student (Jamie Winterton) and I were the first to demonstrate that the BYU Solar Funnel Cooker can be used - at night - as a refrigerator. Here is how this is done.
> 
> The Solar Funnel Cooker is set-up just as you would during sun-light hours, with two exceptions:
> 
> ...



Now, if backradiation is happening how is it that you can point a solar cooker at a clear sky and cause ice to form when the ambient temperature is more than 15 degrees above freezing?  Other sites talk about using this device, pointed at a clear sky during daylight hours and achieving temperatures 8 to 10 degrees below the ambient temperature.

If backradiation were happening, pointing the solar oven at clear sky would produce temperatures slightly warmer than ambient, not cooler.  The second law of thermodynamics predicts that the temperature in the well of the oven would cool as it is pointed towards the cold sink of space.  It does not predict that radiation coming from the colder atmosphere would cause the well in the oven to become warmer.

Now that is actual experimental evidence that backradiation is not happening.  Point a device at clear sky and get cooler temperatures...not warmer as the greenhouse hypothesis claims.  



Saigon said:


> I've posted all of the information on this twice now - I've yet to see you address the science behind it.



No you haven't.  That junk science article didn't even address backradiation which is the backbone of the greenhouse effect.  It pointed out some situations where energy could tansfer from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth, but those were, as I stated, rare, highly localized temperature inversions where the atmosphere was actually warmer than the surface.  In such a situation, you aren't seeing backradiation.  In those situations, backradiation would be if the cooler surface of the earth were radiating to the atmosphere.

Neither you, nor anyone else has ever posted evidence of backradiation being measured at ambient temperature because it simlply doesn't exist.  It is a myth.  It can not be measured at ambient temperature because it can't happen.  If you want to measure downdwelling radiation, you need an instrument that is cooled to a temperature far below the -20 degree average of the atmosphere and then you aren't measuring backradiation...you are only measuring radiative flux from a cold atmosphere to an even colder instrument.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I suggest you do a little reading - this article explains how it works, and provides examples you can probably see from your own window.



I have done a lot of reading which is why I can state categorically that you can not show any real world example of backradiation...anywhere...at any time...under any situation.  Any example that you might show of radiation transferrring from the atmosphere to the surface is not going to be backradiation, but an unusual example of a temperature inversion.



Saigon said:


> Some of Earths accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields). The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earths previously exported energy back to Earth  this is a feedback.



It is a feedback, but is not backradiation which is the issue here.  The greenhouse effect depends on backradiation and backradiation does not exist.

Here, from the IPCC...a discussion of the greenhouse effect.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf



> The Sun powers Earths climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earths atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect*.



That is the official climate science description of the greenhouse effect.  It isn't some small feedback like lightning striking the surface from the cold atmosphere, or rain on an ice field, it is the atmosphere radiating back more energy from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth where it is reabsorbed than comes in from the sun itself.

Your junk science article doesn't even touch on the idea of backradiation which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> I just posted some good explanations from Dr. Roy Spencer that detail just how you denier cult fools are misinterpreting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As he said: *"thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions"*.



So provide a link to one instance of two way energy flow being observed and measured...and if you are going to point out radio, or microwaves,  then point out an example where two waves at the same frequency and power were transmitted in two directions at the same time.

If such a thing were possible, communications companies could save a fortune paying engineers to design towers and relays that avoided exactly that.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation



If that is true, then you should have no problem providing an example of backradiation being observed and measured at ambient temperature.  If it is so simple, and observable, then you should be able to provide an example.  Lets see it.




Saigon said:


> This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.



Yes, it can be measured from earth...but not at ambient temperature.  Your instrument must be cooled to a temperature below the -20 average of the atmosphere and at that point, it isn't backradiation...it is radiation from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.  Backradiation does not exist....it has never been observed...it has never been measured...it has never happened except in thought experiments and computer models.

And no the atmosphere does not receive more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the sun.  The atmosphere is not an energy source..  Refer to the law of conservation of energy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The dudes a BS artist nothing more. I read his crap a few times, he's a charlatan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Having a PhD doesn't mean one has a clue.  Dr. Roy Spencer, admittedly is a great meteorologist believes that he is measuring backradiation with his $125 hand held infrared thermometer when his own UAH spends hundreds of thousands on instruments that are cooled to temperatures less than -20 degrees in order to measure some slight amount of downward radiation from the atmosphere.

Your junk science article doesn't address backradiation and without backradiation, there is no greenhouse effect.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 13, 2013)

SSDD - 



> Having a PhD doesn't mean one has a clue.



It means that he is more qualified to make a statement on the Second Law of Thermodynamics than you are. 

So much of your posting comes down to ignoring science - you can hardly be surprised to find people like myself find David Tobin to be a more informed source than you are.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Having a PhD doesn't mean one has a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> It means that he is more qualified to make a statement on the Second Law of Thermodynamics than you are.



Not if the claim is that energy can move from cool areas to warm areas in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.



Saigon said:


> So much of your posting comes down to ignoring science - you can hardly be surprised to find people like myself find David Tobin to be a more informed source than you are.



Once again, here is the second law:

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.




Given that statement, who is ignoring scinece if the claim is that energy from the cooler atmosphere can radiate down and be absorbed by the warmer surface of the earth?  

And the day you have a better grasp of the science is the day we all better start looking for ballistic umbrellas since pigs will be flying.

I can't help but note that you did not provide a single measurement of backradiation ever taken in any situation at ambient temperature...I can't help but notice that you failed to comment on the solar oven when pointed at clear sky actually cools to a temperature lower than the ambient; an impossibility if backradiation were real...I can't help but notice that you are never able to speak to any questions or challenges but instead, post something that you clearly don't understand and claim that you have provided an adequate rebuttal.  Better informed than me...what a laugh.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 13, 2013)

It is easy to be an AGW Faither.

Proclaim a devotion to "science" while ignoring the pesky actual laws of science.

Cite a hypothetical "consensus" about the alleged "agreement" of "scientists" (loosely speaking) as to the "settled" status of the so-called human "causation" of global warming ("climate change"), *while studiously ignoring* that _science does not operate_ on the principles of "majority rules."

Attack anybody who actually uses or cites actual science as being (wait for it) insufficiently grounded in "science."

Proclaim the faith.  Demand that "carbon" be taxed.  Pretend that humans can either cause climate change or do diddly fucking dog to prevent it.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 13, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> It is easy to be an AGW Faither.
> 
> Proclaim a devotion to "science" while ignoring the pesky actual laws of science.
> 
> ...


Belief and dis- belief as in non -"believers", "infidels", "atheists" etc are religious concepts.
So is a prophecy. Science makes projections, *AFTER it has established a scientific principle.*
No Geo-Physicist argues against that*, IF *the permafrost in northern regions  thaws Methane gas will be released.
If that happens then it is clear that Methane ppm in the atmosphere *LAGGED temperature *. It`s also clear then that *temperature was the cause and not the effect.*
However when it comes to CO2 the AGW religion has it the other way around and it matters not what Geophysics has found:













*( Solar activity  observed as magnetic disturbances)
* 


*Climate variations and historic events*











Top = precipitation
lower section = summer temperature deviations
The epoch labels from left to right are:
"Late Stone age" , Roman empire expansion, followed by a large human  migration event,  then the Medieval period and optimal climate, followed by the great famine, then the "black death" period, then the 30 year war, then the "Little ice age" which is followed by the " modern migration "

All the above has been presented by a joint Geophysics project which had most of the Geophysics and Physics faculties in German Universities participate and was published in book form.
*That`s how SCIENTISTS DO IT*

*And this is how "Climate scientists" do it:*





*With dramatic media stunt events* ( "demonstrating the effect of climate change")

When Journalists asked IPCC officials during their Kampala presentation in which they cited examples of climate change, such as the mud slides in Uganda how they linked that event to climate change the IPCC expert who responded said:
*"There are a number of circumstances that cause mud slides, but climate change can not be ruled out" *

Sounds a lot more like a religion than science:
There must be a God because you can`t rule out that there is one.

While science only accepts the cause of an effect theory after you have* positive proof *that nothing else can account for the effect....which then makes you a "denier" in  AGW terms and definitions.

In the not so distant past you had no chance in any country that did not separate church and government, and being a "denier of God" had very detrimental effects on your career.
The same is the case now with AGW which reversed all progress we have made in matters of democratic principles.
The way the AGW faithers in this forum respond to anything which is against their cult-religion is an indication how far they would go if they were in a position of authority.
Like that freak "Numan" who fakes a "higher education" fucking up the french language with words like "devotés"... and ponders by how many billions the world`s population could be lowered with Government enforced abortions in under developed countries....like in the  China he admires above all, while despising Western Democracy
Or that Siamese Cat freak who "used to run nuclear reactors" the way Fred Flintstone did it in Fraggle Rock.... and hasn`t got a clue what`s going on in the Navy.
Not to mention "Saigon" the fake journalist from Finland who had to Google who Finland`s current Prime Minister is.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 13, 2013)

@SSDD
It`s no use. If you show what happens with a solar fridge pointed at the clear sky they revert back to Roy Spencer`s "though experiment" where a colder bar heats up the warmer one in Roy`s vivid imagination.
If you place a colder object next to a warmer one, such as a bunch of ice cubes near a coke can in an icebox, they tell you it wasn`t a fair comparison because the coke can had no heat source. 
And when you point out that a transistor which does have a power source gets hotter without a heat sink than with a heat sink, where the cooling fins should heat each other with their own "back radiation" then they tell you it was not a fair comparison because the convection overpowers the "back radiation". 
Then if you point out how much more convection there is over *wide open* earth terrain  as compared to a power transistor heat sink *in a small box*, they recite  the 20 year old "Trenberth Energy budget" based on "estimates" which even the IPCC has discarded over 13 years ago...or try tell you that there is no such thing as a power transistor/heat sink arrangements without a cooling fan...just like the Siamese Cat is trying to tell me that no 2 turbine driven generators can run at the same rpm and phase angle while there are tens of thousands perfectly synchronized at any given time on our power grid


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> It is not possible for heat to flow



Yep, flow. Conduction. That particular way of stating the second law is specifically talking about about heat conduction, not energy radiation.

Your problem seems to be your confusion of heat and energy. The energy goes both ways, but the heat, which comes from a sum of the energies, only goes one way. The second law is a statement of statistics, not of tracking individual bits of energy.

Anyways, given how ignorant you and PolarBear are of the basic physics, why should anyone take you two seriously?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> What sort of object do you believe you saw backradiation from with a FLIR?  What were you looking at that was colder than the FLIR unit?



You actually think it needed to be colder than the FLIR to be measured? Again, your theory is insanely stupid. Only a gibbering retard could spout something that dumb.

I pointed the FLIR at the sky. The sky was dimly emitting IR. The clouds were emitting IR more strongly. That's backradiation, directly measured.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Or that Siamese Cat freak who "used to run nuclear reactors" the way Fred Flintstone did it in Fraggle Rock.... and hasn`t got a clue what`s going on in the Navy.
> Not to mention "Saigon" the fake journalist from Finland who had to Google who Finland`s current Prime Minister is.



Notice the pattern. Whenever someone spanks PolarBear and sends him running home to mama in tears, PolarBear goes psychostalker on them.

It's kind of typical of denialists. Since they suck so hard at every aspect of science, logic, ethics and common sense, cowardly deflections are the only tactic left to them. And no one does cowardly deflections better than PolarBear.

By the way PolarBear, you _still_ haven't told us what computers were running your magical control software in 1960, as you claimed. I understand that your type has great difficulty in locating your balls, but keep searching, and give us the answer when you find them.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is not possible for heat to flow
> ...



I suppose it is possible to misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics more profoundly than you apparently do, but I don't quite know how.  Conduction?  Are you kidding?  The second law describes any and all types of energy transfer.  The second law is a law of nature, not a law of systems.  It certainly covers conduction, but every sort of energy transfer imaginable is subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

For example, the water behind a dam has a great deal of potential energy.  The water behind the dam at its base is under more pressure than water at the surface.  As the water flows out from the bottom of the dam, doing work, or whatever, it comes out the other side under less pressure and as such the energy has moved from a concentrated state to a less concentrated state.  Water doesn't flow both ways in a single outlet and you can't get the water back to a higher energy state without doing some work to make it happen..either by pumping it back into the lake or building another dam or something similar downstream.

The second law governs the use of fuels whether they be gasoline, or carbohydrates and fats in food.  The second law states that the energy (highly concentrated in gasoline and food) once processed will move towards a less dense energy state.  The energy flow is one way.  You can't run your engine backwards and get gas out of the fuel injectors and you can't return the exaust to a useful high energy state without doing some work to make it happen. 

Put a marble on an incline and watch it roll down and you see a process governed by the second law.  The marble at the top of the incline represents potential energy...let go of it and it rolls down to a lower energy state.  It won't roll back up the incline unless some sort of work is done to make it happen.

Hold a rock out at arms length and let go.  What do you think the second law of thermodynamics predicts will happen?  High energy state held out at arm's length...low energy state laying on the ground and you can't get the rock back to where it was unless you do some work to make it happen.

The second law governs chemical reactions...iron + oxygen = rust.  The molecules of the piece of iron are in a higher energy state than the molecules in the rust.  Energy was released in the oxydizing process and you can't get back to where you started without having done some work to make it happen.

Pump up a tire and put a hole in it.  Again, the second law at work.  Pressurized air inside the tire...high energy state...air outside the tire...lower energy state.  The flow is one way and you can't get the air back into the tire unless you do some work to make it happen.

Every energy transfer is an example of the second law and in every energy transfer, energy moves from a higher energy state to a lower energy state and it can't go back to the higher energy state unless some work is done to make that happen.  

IR in the surface of the earth is at a higher energy state than IR in the atmosphere.  The IR disperses in the atmosphere and you simply can't get it to go back to the higher energy state (ie absorbed back into the surface of the earth) without doing work to make it happen.



mamooth said:


> Your problem seems to be your confusion of heat and energy. The energy goes both ways, but the heat, which comes from a sum of the energies, only goes one way. The second law is a statement of statistics, not of tracking individual bits of energy.



Your problem is that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.  Energy goes one way....period.  You can get energy to go two ways, but you have to do work to make it happen.  Whether you are talking about a marble rolling down an incline, air escaping from a tire, burning fuel in your vehicle or in your body, watching an old tractor rust, or speaking of IR radiation moving from the surface of the earth to space...energy moves in one direction unless you do work to make it move in the other direction.  Radiation is not an exception.  

By the way, absorption and emission is not work.

The second law is a statement of energy transfer.  If you beleive energy can move in two directions, give one example of it happening without work having been done to accomplish the task and offer some proof that the energy moved in two directions.



mamooth said:


> Anyways, given how ignorant you and PolarBear are of the basic physics, why should anyone take you two seriously?



I am afraid that it is you and yours who are ignorant.  Second law only about radiation....what a laugh.  I suggest that if you are actually interested, that you do some reading.  The second law governs every energy transfer everywhere under every condition and it states clearly, and proves every day that if energy is moving, it only moves in one direction...from a high energy state to a low energy state.

If you think otherwise, then show an observed, measured example and I will show you the basis for a perpetual motion machine.  We can both become billionaires overnight.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What sort of object do you believe you saw backradiation from with a FLIR?  What were you looking at that was colder than the FLIR unit?
> ...



Of course it had to be colder.  If it weren't, then you would get no image.  Why do you think the FLIR units are cooled?  



mamooth said:


> [I pointed the FLIR at the sky. The sky was dimly emitting IR. The clouds were emitting IR more strongly. That's backradiation, directly measured.



That isn't backradiation if the FLIR unit was colder than the sky you pointed it at and all FLIR units are cooled.  It isn't backradiation if the radiation is moving from one area that is warmer to an area that is cooler...the cooled FLIR being cooler than the sky or the clouds.

Of course it is possible that pointing at a clear sky, you were just seeing noise and not radiation at all.  A clear sky isn't what a FLIR unit is programmed to process.  You didn't see backradiation with a FLIR unit.  The fact that you think you did is just more evidence that you really need to put some effort into understanding the material.

Why don't you do yourself a google search for FLIR and backradiation and see how many hits you don't get.  If you could measure backradiation with a FLIR unit, do you think NASA would be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on equiment (which are failing by the way) to try and measure it?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The second law describes any and all types of energy transfer.



On a statistical level, not a photon level. That's your fundamental glaring error.



> The second law is a law of nature, not a law of systems.



Completely wrong. The second law is a description of statistics, not a description of photon-level physics.



> For example, the water behind a dam ....



... has zilch to do with the second law of thermodynamics. Conservation of energy is not the second law.



> The second law governs the use of fuels whether they be gasoline, or carbohydrates and fats in food.



Sounds a lot like Jeremy Rifkin's "entropy" babble, silly New Age pseudoscience.



> Put a marble on an incline and watch it roll down and you see a process governed by the second law.



Completely wrong. You see a function governed by gravitational force, which has nothing to do with the second law.



> IR in the surface of the earth is at a higher energy state than IR in the atmosphere.  The IR disperses in the atmosphere and you simply can't get it to go back to the higher energy state (ie absorbed back into the surface of the earth) without doing work to make it happen.



Since there's no work being done, your argument falls to pieces. The net flow of heat is outwards, even if individual photons come back in, hence the second law is obeyed. The second law doesn't care about the actions of individual photons. The second law only describes how a system behaves statistically on a macro scale.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> That isn't backradiation



It amuses me, how you think that backradiation is somehow magically different from plan old long-wave infrared radiation. In your world, instruments that detect longwave IR are inexplicably incapable of sensing backradiation.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

polarbear said:


> .just like the Siamese Cat is trying to tell me that no 2 turbine driven generators can run at the same rpm and phase angle while there are tens of thousands perfectly synchronized at any given time on our power grid



I never said such any such thing, you lying sack of shit.

Why can't you speak about me without lying, you big pussy...cat? Oh, that's right, it's because you're such a big pussycat.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> On a statistical level, not a photon level. That's your fundamental glaring error.



And yet, the whole of science can't prove what you seem to take on faith.  You call it an error but are completely unable to prove it.




mamooth said:


> Completely wrong. The second law is a description of statistics, not a description of photon-level physics.



Again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.  I would like to see you prove that energy moves from low states to high states.




mamooth said:


> ... has zilch to do with the second law of thermodynamics. Conservation of energy is not the second law.



Profound misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics on your part...Here is some basic level physics.  Try and learn something.

Entropy - a Further Look



> Water falling over a power dam converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy to turn a turbine.  In turn this kinetic energy is converted into electrical energy.   However, some energy is lost as heat is dispersed into the universe &#8211; the entropy of the universe increases.  It must do so, or the water would not flow over the dam and do useful work.



The Second Law of Thermodynamics (4)



> We make our whole technological world run by grabbing as much as we can of the energy flow available from concentrated energy mixtures like oxygen and fuels to run an infinite variety of machines, electrical generators and vehicles. (Our bodies, as we have said, use second-law energy flow from the oxidation of food for the synthesis of essential compounds and for all activity, from biochemical to muscular to mental.) However, when we change energy from one form to another, from energy in a fuel plus O2 to pushing a piston or even water running down from Hoover Dam to the dynamos below, it is impossible for us to get to use all of the energy in the concentrated energy source for the jobs we want it to do. Some always is diverted as the unusable energy due to faster moving molecules (i.e., "heat") to the environment. (That's where our body gets heat to maintain our 98.6º F/37º C.)



Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy and Systems - Free Intro to Natural Sciences Video



> On a much smaller scale, a reservoir of water held back by a dam contains potential energy, as its location gives it the potential to flow over the dam. In each case, the stored energy, once released, spreads out and does so without any applied effort or force. In other words, the release of potential energy is a spontaneous process. A spontaneous process is simply a process that occurs without the need for additional energy. Another way of putting that is that it happens automatically once you give it a little bit of a kick. As the energy spreads out, some of it is converted into usable energy and gets the work done that we need. The rest of the energy is converted into unusable energy, simply referred to as heat .



Laws of Thermodynamics Basic Significance



> One example of increasing entropy is water falling over a dam. When the water is above the dam it has some potential energy due to gravity, which can be used to generate electricity or turn a wheel to perform some useful task. Once the water has fallen to the level below the dam, its total energy is the same - as the fall warms the water increasing its thermal energy - but it no longer has the same capacity to do work. The water has moved from what is referred to as an "available" or "free" energy state (high grade energy) to an "unavailable" or "bound" energy state (low grade energy). This change in the energy state of the water as it falls over the dam is an increase in entropy.






mamooth said:


> Completely wrong. You see a function governed by gravitational force, which has nothing to do with the second law.



Further deep misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.  Hell mamooth, you don't even know what they are about..  Here, have some more...very basic, but apparently that is where you need to be your failure to understand the laws of thermodynamics is so profound.

The second law of thermodynamics - how energy flows from useful to useless.



> Energy flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature (heat flow).  Energy flows from a higher pressure to a lower pressure (expansion).  Energy flows from a higher voltage potential to a lower voltage potential (electric current).  Energy flows from a higher gravitational potential to a lower gravitational potential (falling objects). Marbles and trucks roll downhill. Water flows and falls from higher elevation to a lower elevation (downhill). And last, but not least, chemical reactions proceed from higher concentrations of molecular bond energy to lower bond energies.......So that's one part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Energy will flow to a more "spread out" or "less concentrated" condition. It stops flowing when there is no longer a difference in concentration levels - when things have reached the great state of equilibrium.



Entropy and Evolution



> Other Expressions of the Second Law
> 
> With some advanced calculus it is possible to take the mathematical expressions that underlie the description above, and find other equivalent principles that apply to situations other than closed systems. The second law can be seen as a fundamental principle behind why many processes occur in the direction that they do. For example, according to the first law of thermodynamics, a ball on a hill side could either stay where it is and maintain a high potential energy, or it could roll down the hill lowering its potential energy but gaining kinetic energy (as speed and rotation). The thing that tells you that it is the second one of these that will happen is the general form of the second law.



This is very basic stuff mamooth and you don't appear to have even a tenuous grasp of it.  Imagine, thinking that a marble rolling down an incline is not an example of energy transfer governed by the second law.  You apparently have no idea how pervasive the second law is.  In fact, you can't swing a dead cat without invoking the second law of thermodynamics.  You need to get a grip of the basics before you attempt to speak on the more advanced stuff...and if you have a firm grip on the basics, you too will know that spontaneous two way net energy flow is not physical and in fact, impossible.




mamooth said:


> Since there's no work being done, your argument falls to pieces. The net flow of heat is outwards, even if individual photons come back in, hence the second law is obeyed. The second law doesn't care about the actions of individual photons. The second law only describes how a system behaves statistically on a macro scale.



And even more deep misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.  Because there is no work being done, there is no backradiation.  The IR in the atmosphere is at a lower energy state than the IR stored in the surface of the earth.  

And there is no net flow...there is gross flow in one direction.  The second law doesn't allow two way energy flow without some work being done to accomplish it.

The second law is a description of the physical world..  Your claims regarding net two way flows of energy are at best, hypothetical and even today remain completely unproven.  No example of a spontaneous two way energy flow between a high energy state and a low energy state has ever been observed.  In short,  two way net energy flow is an ad hoc construct.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That isn't backradiation
> ...



Backradiation, by definition would be energy radiated back to its source.  That is energy spontaneously returning to its original high energy state from a lower energy state.  I am afraid that simply is not possible.  If you think otherwise, provide real world measurements of backradiation at ambient temperature.

And detecting longwave IR does not imply backradiation.  Backradiation is a physical impossibility.  It would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy.  Suppose you have a source radiating 100 watts per square meter and it receives and absorbs backradiation of 1 watt per square meter resulting in an output of 101 watts per square meter.  Where did that extra watt come from?  The sky isn't an energy source for the radiator since IR there is at a lower energy state than the surface so it can't provide any energy.  Where did that 1 watt come from?  It had to be created because the system is only capable of radiating 100 watts per square meter.  What created it...where did it come from?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > .just like the Siamese Cat is trying to tell me that no 2 turbine driven generators can run at the same rpm and phase angle while there are tens of thousands perfectly synchronized at any given time on our power grid
> ...



What you said comes pretty damned close.. You said:



			
				mamooth said:
			
		

> Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS. Since the frequencies are always slightly different, phase angle between separate energized buses always varies, and it's not possible to instantly parallel buses. The Electrical Operator has to look at the phase difference meter, and manually close the breaker when he sees it hit eleven o'clock.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> And yet, the whole of science can't prove what you seem to take on faith.  You call it an error but are completely unable to prove it.



Given that the whole planet over the past two centuries agrees with me, I'm not the one who needs to prove anything. Sucks to be you that way, but you freely chose to spout crank nonsense.



> Again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.  I would like to see you prove that energy moves from low states to high states.



Individual molecules certainly can and do move from a low state to a high state. The system as a whole can not. The statistics, the sum of the individual probabilities, always goes from high to low, even if some individual molecules go the opposite way. That's the second law, a description of statistics. And you fail hard at understanding it.

And no, none of your examples contradicted my statements in any way. The fact that you didn't understand that simply showed the magnitude of your failure to understand. You really need some hard physics behind you, some college level physics department thermo classes where they delve into the statistics that form the foundation of thermodynamics.



> Because there is no work being done, there is no backradiation.  The IR in the atmosphere is at a lower energy state than the IR stored in the surface of the earth.
> 
> And there is no net flow...there is gross flow in one direction.  The second law doesn't allow two way energy flow without some work being done to accomplish it.



Your glaring failure there, again, is your confusion of the micro with the macro, due to your failure to understand what the second law of thermodynamics actually says.



> The second law is a description of the physical world..  Your claims regarding net two way flows of energy are



... directly observed in the real world, over and over. Hence, I _know_ you're a raging kook. Your denial of reality does not make the reality go away.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> What you said comes pretty damned close.. You said:



Leaving out the part where I said there was no computer control on the ship, and that computer control could manage the trick? That comes close to lying by omission on your part.

You really, really don't want to be jumping on PolarBear's idiot vendetta bandwagon. It never ends well for the people who do.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> And detecting longwave IR does not imply backradiation.  Backradiation is a physical impossibility. It would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy.



Just like those silvery space blankets violate energy conservation. I mean, put one next to you, and instead of 0 watts bouncing back at you, a bunch of watts start bouncing back at you, and it raises your own temp, and you start radiating more. Where did that extra energy come from? 



> Suppose you have a source radiating 100 watts per square meter and it receives and absorbs backradiation of 1 watt per square meter resulting in an output of 101 watts per square meter.  Where did that extra watt come from?



From energy that was sent back instead of going out into space. What, you thought that was a hard question?



> The sky isn't an energy source for the radiator since IR there is at a lower energy state than the surface so it can't provide any energy.  Where did that 1 watt come from?



From the same mysterious dimension from which the space blanket "created" energy, obviously.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > .just like the Siamese  Cat is trying to tell me that no 2 turbine driven generators can run at  the same rpm and phase angle while there are tens of thousands perfectly  synchronized at any given time on our power grid
> ...


 
 Typical. You get caught with your b.s. and if somebody reads you back  your own words then you deny you said it and call others a "lying sack  of shit".

 Here is the crock of shit you posted 04-09-2013, 01:28 PM #748 (permalink) :
 04-09-2013, 01:28 PM #748 (permalink) 


> *There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle,*  given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog  circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel  in EOS. *Since the frequencies are always slightly different, *phase  angle between separate energized buses always varies, and it's not  possible to instantly parallel buses. The Electrical Operator has to  look at the phase difference meter, and manually close the breaker when  he sees it hit eleven o'clock.


As if anyone would let a retard like you run loose in a power plant.
Instead  of calling us names show us some proof, a document , a badge or a  picture. You won`t because you can`t. You are a fraud . Not even  your  Googled buzzwords and jargon match reality. You did not even recognize  the Westinghouse PLC programming manuals I showed you and figured that  was "Microsoft Windows". The only time we phase in a second  turbine/generator unit manually is when we check out a newbe to see if  he understands how the PLC`s do it when there is a demand surge which  exceeds what`s feeding the common bus.
EVERY power plant works that way from nuclear to coal fired, hydro and even power plants with multiple diesel generators.
Power  plants got 1/2 their generators running 1 or 2 of these actually  generate power the rest are spun up and are being held in sync and the  rest sit idle for backup, but  go on standby sync just as soon as as the  producing 1/2 of the plant begins to approach max load capacity.
It`s  all fully automatic and controlled by the same Westinghouse  Programmable Logic Control system which has been an industrial standard  since the early 1970`s.
Even the latest Windmill farms use the same  control system which has been upgraded from a 16 bit data bus to 32 and  64 bits and is in use in EVERY MODERN POWER PLANT  *regardless what the power source is.*
Hydro  and steam turbines , including nuclear are the easiest,  Diesel powered  gen-sets are more difficult. All it takes to modulate a turbine is to  open the intake wicket gates and the turbine spins up. With a > 10 00 or  more hp air turbine started Diesel there is a lot more involved. You  can`t put in on line till all the cylinder and turbo temps have  stabilized...and it`s all done by the same Westinghouse software I  showed you twice already...:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aanSnb6FrjU"]C280-16 Startup - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-VlTKL7U6A"]MAN Diesel engine starting with pneumatic starter - YouTube[/ame]

That genset can go on standby while  in sync with the power grid.
The  sensors that the software is monitoring continuously, check  if there is any power being fed  to the bus by this generator, if so then it simply reduces the current to the rotor coils and the electronic speed governor prevents  the turbine or Diesel engine from speeding up.
With a wind turbine the same software adjusts the blade pitch and that`s why wind turbines are so troublesome, because at fine pitch the torque drops and with a coarser pitch the rpm`s drop. *(They should hire you to turn knobs manually like you said you did when you were  "running nuclear power plants"..to keep a wind farm in sync*)
If the generator is  drawing power from the grid because it`s out of sync then the software  checks the phase angle and decides it if the turbine wickets have to be  modulated up or down. For a 60 Hertz 3 phase system it performs this  check 360 times per second and adjusts accordingly.
Turbine intake wickets or fuel racks on > 17 000 hp Diesel Engines.
The entire North American Power grid runs like that. It matters dick all what kind of generator contributes they are all perfectly in sync like a huge symphony orchestra no matter if there are fiddles or brass instruments playing along. The only time it doesn`t matter if a sector  is out of sync if that sector transforms their 3 phaes HVAC to HVDC  long range transmission, because then it`s synchronized at the HVDC to HVAC converter station 
There is no way a dummy like you could keep up watching gauges and turn knobs.

*You are just too fucking dumb to wrap your little hate filled shit brain around it. 
*
When somebody ignores your utter bullshit, then you claim "Polarbear is running away scared" and when I  debunk your crap then it`s a "vendetta".
*Go get  a Rabie shot and then see a shrink.* People with severe Paranoia are a risk to public safety *and there is no way a twisted weirdo like you ever passed DOD clearance*


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



See blunder I gave you rational thought and you respond with name-calling and foot stomping... You are a troll nothing more...


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > No thanks read his nonsense before.. Want a clue? His premise is false... His contention...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That guy isn't a scientist, he's a website entrepreneur and  PR man. He may have been trained to be one, but he has forsaken it in exchange being famous and rich..

One post, to one thread.. WTF?


----------



## gslack (Apr 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The dudes a BS artist nothing more. I read his crap a few times, he's a charlatan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SO he's been educated to prove AGW theory, got that already..  I know you see titles and degrees and big words, and suddenly assume they are all meaningful. But save it, most of that is a repeat of the same qualifications using different language...

So he's an educated con-man... Lot's of them out there..


----------



## Saigon (Apr 14, 2013)

> SO he's been educated to prove AGW theory, got that already.. I know you see titles and degrees and big words, and suddenly assume they are all meaningful. But save it, most of that is a repeat of the same qualifications using different language...
> 
> So he's an educated con-man... Lot's of them out there..



So who is a better source for information on thermodynamics - Dr Tobin, or you and SSDD?

Who is more likely to be right, would you say?


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > SO he's been educated to prove AGW theory, got that already.. I know you see titles and degrees and big words, and suddenly assume they are all meaningful. But save it, most of that is a repeat of the same qualifications using different language...
> >
> > So he's an educated con-man... Lot's of them out there..
> 
> ...



Or you? A guy who takes what he's told by Al Gore as gospel?

Look, we are telling you what is common knowledge. No BS, I have no damn agenda, nobody pays me to post shit, I don't play party politics, I give a shit less which assholes in office because they are all equally worthless. 

If you took some kind of basic science in middle or high school, you should know the basic laws of physics, and the laws of thermodynamics can be found anywhere on the net. Why are they laws? Because they are inflexible and thereby laws. They became laws over time because they have shown to be true and factual in the natural world whenever tested.

Now you are buying into some ridiculous theory that claims it has "special conditions" or "special circumstances" where those laws are flexible to the point of complete breakdown.They can't show you this in any true, honest physical experiment, they can only show you using thought experiments and equations designed to give a desired result.

DUDE!!! Seriously if they can't show you a true and honest physical experiment of this theory actually doing as they claim, and it by it's very definition defies the laws of physics, what the hell is so damn believable about it? 

I'll tell you, you were sold this by people you trust.  Politicians made it popular and one in particular well trusted by liberals and progressives, was the leader in this scam. He stood to make Billions off of the taxes, and markets he had planned to capitalize on it. So did many of the scientists, researchers, universities, and green tech companies.

Now it's shown false,and you can't accept it, you won't accept it.. They get caught lying time and again, you still believe it, they tell you exactly what their plans are with the carbon credit/tax and ,markets, and you accept it even excuse it. Their top scientists tell you in their own words that they are going to exaggerate claims and hide any doubts in the scientific community and you excuse them for it anyway. They defy all known laws of physics and you just accept it as true anyway..

What's it gonna take man?  Seriously how many false claims, how many exaggerated findings, how many lies, how many times will they have to betray your trust before you can man the fuck up and call them on it?

I manned up right after I found out about the carbon credit market AL gore started. Saw that, then read what was out there, then read the theory, and I got freakin mad.. You should too.. 

You want to blame me, call us "deniers" and stomp your foot. Fine, just remember they are the ones who made you look the fool countless times now. They fuck up you defend em, they lie, you defend em, they BS you and you defend em... Now they defy the laws of physics and tell you "hey it's true even if we can't physically show you, trust us" and you still do...

Yeah go ahead, and when you run out of excuses and just can't trust or forgive them anymore, think about this conversation...


----------



## Saigon (Apr 14, 2013)

> we are telling you what is common knowledge.



Apparently not. 

What you are saying is NOT the opinion of a single international scientific body, is contradicted by the overwhelming majority of experts in the fields, and is contradicted by evidence you can see from your own living room window. 



> A guy who takes what he's told by Al Gore as gospel?



I always laugh that you guys think American politicians are important, household names right around the world...Al Gore is nobody in Europe. He has no influence here at all. I couldn't care less what Al Gore thinks. 

Opinion here is influenced much more by local scientists, politicians, journalists and scientific organisations, the great majority of which are conservative. 

The thing I notice you guys really struggle to understand is that climate science is NOT a political issue outside the US. It's not something that political parties fight about, because the scientific evidence here is such that basically everyone agrees on it. The solutions are debated, but the science itself is accepted as science, and there has never been a single accusation of fraud or poor science against any Finnish research centre or scientist.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > we are telling you what is common knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WHat majority? The one they told you about? Gimme a break, they also told you the oceans would rise 30 feet...

No we understand exactly what it is, you are the one told that it's non-political. By the same politicians and political bodies, running the same paid for scientists and studies, that have lied to you repeatedly..

Notice my signature at the bottom of my posts? Thats exactly what they do... One of the heads of the IPCC scientistson climate change told you that thye were going to exaggerate findings and give scary scenarios, and downplay any doubts, and what do you say about it? Nothing you just pretend that it meant nothing, or pretend he was one guy, or that the IPCC isn't a political body.. Sorry , wrong on all counts..

But hey keep on buying it... Eventually they will tell you to ignore what you see, for they are the truth...


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



It's been fun watching you twist in the wind and back yourself into an insane little corner, SSoooDDuuumb. In the future, anyone on this forum who wants to totally discredit your bullshit claims only has to point to this thread where you once again get your ass handed to you on a plate. You have exposed yourself in no uncertain terms to be a scientific ignoramus and an idiot and, of course, severely afflicted by the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*.

*Pyrgeometer*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*A pyrgeometer is a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.

Pyrgeometer components





Example of a pyrgeometer showing the principal components

A pyrgeometer consists of the following major components:

    * A thermopile sensor which is sensitive to radiation in a broad range from 200 nm to 100 µm

    * A silicon dome or window with a solar blind filter coating. It has a transmittance between 4.5 µm and 50 µm that eliminates solar shortwave radiation.

    * A temperature sensor to measure the body temperature of the instrument.

    * A sun shield to minimize heating of the instrument due to solar radiation.

Measurement of long wave downward radiation

The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:

    \ E_{net} = { \ E_{in} - \ E_{out} } 

Where:
E_{net} - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
E_{in} - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²]
E_{out} - Long-wave radiation emitted by the sensor surface [W/m²]

The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

    \ E_{net} = { \ U_{emf} \over \ S} 

Where:
E_{net} - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
U_{emf} - thermopile output voltage [V]
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]

The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]

To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:

    \ E_{out} = { \sigma * \ T^4} 

Where:
E_{out} - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
\sigma - Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m²·K4)]
T - Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]

From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

    \ E_{in} = { \ U_{emf} \over \ S }+ {\sigma * \ T^4} 

Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.

As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.

Usage

Pyrgeometers are frequently used in meteorology, climatology studies. The atmospheric long-wave downward radiation is of interest for research into long term climate changes.

The signals are generally detected using a data logging system, capable of taking high resolution samples in the millivolt range.*

(Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.)


*Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics*
1997, Volume 63, Issue 3-4, pp 217-226
Cover Date
    1997-09-01
DOI
    10.1007/BF01027386
Print ISSN
    0177-7971
Online ISSN
    1436-5065

Authors
    L. C. Schanz (1) (2)
        P. Schlüssel (1) (3)

Author Affiliations

        1. Meteorologisches Institut, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
        2. Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Luft und Raumfahrt, D-51140, Köln, Germany
        3. Meteorologisches Institut, Universität München, Theresienstrasse 37, D-80333, München, Germany

*Summary

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.
*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Given that the whole planet over the past two centuries agrees with me, I'm not the one who needs to prove anything. Sucks to be you that way, but you freely chose to spout crank nonsense.



Appeal to authority doesn't constitute a rational argument and since you are the one making the claim that I am wrong, of course it falls to you to prove it.  

Don't worry about it though.  We both know that you can't and at least one of us (me) knows that you can't because there doesn't exist the smallest bit of observed evidence to support the claim.



mamooth said:


> Individual molecules certainly can and do move from a low state to a high state. The system as a whole can not. The statistics, the sum of the individual probabilities, always goes from high to low, even if some individual molecules go the opposite way. That's the second law, a description of statistics. And you fail hard at understanding it.



Of course they can, and do.  But not spontaneously.  Some work must be done to move them from a low energy state to a high energy state.  Again, if you believe I am wrong, then bring some actual evidence to support the claim.  

Again, don't worry because we both know that such evidence won't be forthcoming.



mamooth said:


> And no, none of your examples contradicted my statements in any way. The fact that you didn't understand that simply showed the magnitude of your failure to understand. You really need some hard physics behind you, some college level physics department thermo classes where they delve into the statistics that form the foundation of thermodynamics.



Of course they did.  Your failure to see that is as glaring as your misunderstanding, at a very basic level of the laws of thermodynamics.  Really.  Claiming that a marble rolling down an incline isn't governed by the second law..or water falling over a dam.  Did you really not know these things and every other energy transfer is an example of the second law?  

You claimed that the second law only covered convection...clearly you were terribly wrong....not that I would expect you to admit it even with credible evidence that proves you wrong.




mamooth said:


> Your glaring failure there, again, is your confusion of the micro with the macro, due to your failure to understand what the second law of thermodynamics actually says.



Not my failure mamooth.  Here are several variations of the statement of the second law.

_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. _

_The natural tendency of the heat is to flow from high temperature reservoir to low temperature reservoir._

_It is impossible to construct a device which, operating in a cycle, will produce no effect other than the transfer of heat from a colder to a hotter body. _

There are more but these represent the statement accurately enough.  Now, what have I said, at any point that is contrary to these statements?  We both know what you have said.  There is no mention of two way net energy flow...there is no mention there of any situation in which energy might spontaneously flow from cold to warm...there is no mention there of a molecule spontaneously moving from a low energy state to a high energy state...and on and on.  It is you who is making claims that are contrary to the second law and you who remains unable to provide even the smallest bit of observed evidence to support your claim.



mamooth said:


> ... directly observed in the real world, over and over. Hence, I _know_ you're a raging kook. Your denial of reality does not make the reality go away.



Directly observed in the real world over and over.  Really?  I suppose that is why you can't seem to provide a single solitary example.  Your claim that FLIR units record backradiation is demonstrably false by the fact that they must be cooled.  If they could see backradiation...if backradiation exists...the device would not need to be cooled to a temperature lower than the ambiet in order to see the image.  

There are no examples of observed backradiation anywhere in the history of the world because backradiation does not exist.

As I suggested, try doing a search of FLIR and backradiation...no such claim has ever been made of the device because it can't happen because backradiation doesn't exist.  If a device existed that could detect backradiation at ambient temperature, then the AGW debate would be over.  There is no device anywhere that can detect, and measure something that doesn't exist.

Your failure to provide any example while still faitfully claiming that it is possible is just sad.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What you said comes pretty damned close.. You said:
> ...



Didn't I say pretty damed close?  Did I say that you said exactly that?  Touchy aren't you?  Evidence of a lack of confidence.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 14, 2013)

Gslack - 

Unfortunately much of your last post is simply gibberish. 



> No we understand exactly what it is, you are the one told that it's non-political. By the same politicians and political bodies, running the same paid for scientists and studies, that have lied to you repeatedly..



Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that politicians are telling people that climate change is not political?

Try and post with a little common sense. Climate change is not a political issue in much of the world, because politicians and political parties are in general agreement about the science. 

This is proven by the fact that the conservative parties of almost every western country have climate change policies on their websites and in their manifestos. By all means go and check.

Until you understand that, you are never going to get to grips with this topic at all.  

And again - there has never been as much as an allegation of fraug against any Finnish scientific institude involved in climate change - you are just making up stories and presenting them as facts. 

Try and present facts, actual examples and real information - not just your own paranoid conspiracy theories.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Just like those silvery space blankets violate energy conservation. I mean, put one next to you, and instead of 0 watts bouncing back at you, a bunch of watts start bouncing back at you, and it raises your own temp, and you start radiating more. Where did that extra energy come from?



Of course they don't.  They block convection and conduction.  They will not cause the temperature of my skin to raise above my internal temperature and certainly can't cause my internal temperature to raise.  

There is no extra energy...there is just the trapping of the radiation coming off my body being blocked from dispersing because convection and conduction are being blocked.

Microwave a bowl of dry rice for 45 seconds...take its temperature every 30 seconds and record the results till it reaches something like room temperature.  Record the time from removal from the microwave till it reached room temperature.

Now warm it up again...take its temperature and put one of those emergency blankets over it.  You will note that its temperature won't go above the temperature it was when you put the blanket over it since there is no additional energy.  It will cool down slower because you have blocked convection and conduction, but it will never get even a fraction of a degree warmer than it was when you put it under the blanket.  Slowed cooling is not warming.



mamooth said:


> From energy that was sent back instead of going out into space. What, you thought that was a hard question?



You really don't undestand thermodynamics do you?  The energy reflected back is at a lower energy state than the energy going out...it can't be absorbed by the radiator.  If it could, then you would have the basis for a perpetual motion machine.  That additional watt of energy being radiated out constitues creation of energy.

You have a system whose maximum output is 100 watts per square meter suddenly radiating 101 watts per square meter without the input of additional energy.  Its magic...its impossible...it is the basis for perpetual motion.  Once energy is lost out into space, you can't spontaneously get it back to its source.  The energy is concerved, but it is degraded so that it is no longer usable by the source.  That is why perpetual motion is not possible.  If you could spontaneously get it back to the source, then you would increase the output of the source whereby you would have the energy to do what the source was already doing, and have a little bit left over...in the example above, 1 watt.....1 impossible watt.  

If you could increase the output of a device putting out 100 watts by 1 watt, why not make a device putting out 10,000 watts, reflect its enrgy back to it and collect the additional 100 watts to do something else with...or bump up the output to 100,000 watts and collect the extra 10,000 watts to do something else with?

You see, if you could get one watt by reflecting energy back, then it stands to reason that you could get 10,000 watts by reflecting energy back or a million by reflecting energy back.  If that were possible, don't you think we would be doing it?  If you could cause any radiated energy to be spontaneously reflected back to and absorbed by its source you would have a perpetual motion engine.



mamooth said:


> From the same mysterious dimension from which the space blanket "created" energy, obviously.



The space blanket doesn't create energy...it simply slows cooling.  Go back to the rice experiment.  If you could increase the temperature of that rice by putting the blanket over it, then you would be creating energy.  You can't reflect energy back to its source and expect that source to absorb it and warm.  You can't get a high frequency energy source to absorb energy from a lower frequency source.  Backradiation would be at a lower frequency than the source from which it radiated and therfore could not be absorbed.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> It's been fun watching you twist in the wind and back yourself into an insane little corner, SSoooDDuuumb. In the future, anyone on this forum who wants to totally discredit your bullshit claims only has to point to this thread where you once again get your ass handed to you on a plate. You have exposed yourself in no uncertain terms to be a scientific ignoramus and an idiot and, of course, severely afflicted by the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*.
> 
> *Pyrgeometer*



I figured some idiot would jump up and point at a pyregometer.  May as well be you.  Here, have a read.



> How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer


So you see thunder, your pyrgeometer isn't measuring backradiation, it is inventing it via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzman equation for a blackbody emitting into a void at absolute zero. Is the pyrgeometer in a void at absolute zero?  If not, why does its internal programming tell it that it is?  

Your device is measuring temperature but reporting radiance which is a fiction.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Of course they don't.  They block convection and conduction.  They will not cause the temperature of my skin to raise above my internal temperature and certainly can't cause my internal temperature to raise.



And so we come back to your ludicrous claim that an insulator won't raise the temperature of a heat-creating body, something that the entire industrialized world would be very surprised to learn.



> It will cool down slower because you have blocked convection and conduction, but it will never get even a fraction of a degree warmer than it was when you put it under the blanket.  Slowed cooling is not warming.



Irrelevant, since the rice isn't creating new heat. A body creating heat will absolutely positively get warmer if you insulate it. Blankets make people warmer. A layer of dust will make your CPU overheat.



> You really don't undestand thermodynamics do you?  The energy reflected back is at a lower energy state than the energy going out...it can't be absorbed by the radiator.



Many people have told you many times how laughably wrong that statement is, being it's based on your whackaloon misinterpretation of the second law. Since you fail hard at that step, all your subsequent claims are also totally fail.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Appeal to authority doesn't constitute a rational argument and since you are the one making the claim that I am wrong, of course it falls to you to prove it.



Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. You're saying the rest of planet is wrong. If you want to overturn that, you'll have to do a bit better than endless repetitions of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".



> Of course they can, and do.  But not spontaneously.  Some work must be done to move them from a low energy state to a high energy state.



Molecule absorbs backradiation photon, jumps to higher vibrational state. It's not complicated. You've just got this emotional block. You don't understand because you willfully don't want to understand.



> You claimed that the second law only covered convection



Even accounting for your convection/conduction gaffe, I still didn't say that. I said that one particular phrasing of the second law (there are many different ways to say it), the one saying heat flows from hot to cold, refers only to conduction. And that's correct.

Radiative heat flows from hot to hotter quite freely. Deny it all you want, but the universe isn't going to pay attention to your kook rambling.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> And so we come back to your ludicrous claim that an insulator won't raise the temperature of a heat-creating body, something that the entire industrialized world would be very surprised to learn.



An insulator slows cooling...nothing more.  In order to raise temperature, it wouild have to be an energy source.  It isn't.  The more I talk to you people, the more I see why you believe in the hoax.  



mamooth said:


> Irrelevant, since the rice isn't creating new heat. A body creating heat will absolutely positively get warmer if you insulate it. Blankets make people warmer. A layer of dust will make your CPU overheat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Ok....lets narrow this conversation down to just this, since this is the crux of the whole argument.  Is it your contention that radiation from the atmosphere is at the same frequency as radiation emitting from the surface of the earth?  A simple yes or no will do.



That is not what you claimed. 

You claimed that climate change science breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics - which is simply false. 

Your error was based on a fairly basic misunderstanding of what the law says, as it seems a half dozen posters have explained to you.

The fact that you are now trying to twist the debate on to something else is fairly clear evidence that you understand that your original point was false - although to be fair, I think everyone realised that a week ago!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. You're saying the rest of planet is wrong. If you want to overturn that, you'll have to do a bit better than endless repetitions of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".



I am not making extraordinary claims.  I am stating that the second law means that backradiation is not possible.  You are claiming that it is.  I admit that evidence of backradiation would be extraordinary, but that is all you have to provide to prove me wrong.  Backradiation measured at ambient temperature.



mamooth said:


> Molecule absorbs backradiation photon, jumps to higher vibrational state. It's not complicated. You've just got this emotional block. You don't understand because you willfully don't want to understand.



Molecule can only absorb a photon at a higher frequency than itself.  Lower frequencies are not absorbed.



mamooth said:


> Even accounting for your convection/conduction gaffe, I still didn't say that. I said that one particular phrasing of the second law (there are many different ways to say it), the one saying heat flows from hot to cold, refers only to conduction. And that's correct.



The gaffe was yours, claiming that the second law of thermodynamics only applied to convection rather than every energy transfer in the universe.  Then you went on to claim that energy transferrs such as water over a dam, a dropped rock, air escaping a tire, electricity running down a wire, and rolling marbles were not examples of the second law in action.  The fact is that you don't know enough about the topic to even speak to it.



mamooth said:


> Radiative heat flows from hot to hotter quite freely. Deny it all you want, but the universe isn't going to pay attention to your kook rambling.



Then show a single measurable, observable  example of it happening spontaneously.  You keep making the claim and keep being unable to provide any bonafied example.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ok....lets narrow this conversation down to just this, since this is the crux of the whole argument.  Is it your contention that radiation from the atmosphere is at the same frequency as radiation emitting from the surface of the earth?  A simple yes or no will do.
> ...



 I claimed that backradiation violates the second law of thermodynamics.  Backradiation can not happen because once energy is radiated, it is at a lower frequency and after it has done any kind of work, it is at a lower frequency still.  



Saigon said:


> Your error was based on a fairly basic misunderstanding of what the law says, as it seems a half dozen posters have explained to you.



I have posted half a dozen different statements of the second law.  As of yet, none of you have pointed out anything that I have said that is contrary to any one of them.  Feel free to bring a quote forward from me that is contrary to the second law.



Saigon said:


> The fact that you are now trying to twist the debate on to something else is fairly clear evidence that you understand that your original point was false - although to be fair, I think everyone realised that a week ago!



Evidence of how far over your head this discussion is.  The frequency of energy is at the foundation of the whole discussion.  Backradiation can't happen because radiation from the atmosphere is at a lower frequency (or energy state since you obviously don't grasp the topic) than energy stored in the earth.  Because of that, it can not be reabsorbed by the surface of the earth.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 14, 2013)

> I claimed that backradiation violates the second law of thermodynamics. Backradiation can not happen because once energy is radiated, it is at a lower frequency and after it has done any kind of work, it is at a lower frequency still.



Yes, that is what you claimed. 

And how many scientific papers which explain exactly why you are wrong need to be posted before you will read one of them?

We both know that posters here could present a dozen pieces of research from professors of physics, and you'll just carry on posting "No, no, no , no, no!"

It's what you do.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Ok....lets narrow this conversation down to just this, since this is the crux of the whole argument.



How so?



> Is it your contention that radiation from the atmosphere is at the same frequency as radiation emitting from the surface of the earth?  A simple yes or no will do.



No. The earth and atmosphere will be slightly different temps, so their radiation emission curves will not be the same.

Now let's explore your theory.

Imagine a binary star system with a red star and a blue star. The blue star is much hotter than the red star. 

The red star emits photons in the direction of the blue star. Under your theory, the blue star can't absorb those photons, because it's hotter. So just what happens to those photons and all the energy they carry?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Yes, that is what you claimed.
> 
> And how many scientific papers which explain exactly why you are wrong need to be posted before you will read one of them?



The greenhouse hypothesis is based on flawed atmospheric physics.  The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a low energy state to a higher energy state therefore backradition which is energy at a lower state in the atmospehre can not move to the surface of the earth which is at a higher energy state.



Saigon said:


> We both know that posters here could present a dozen pieces of research from professors of physics, and you'll just carry on posting "No, no, no , no,



Hell, I bet that you could produce papers from a hundred different professors...maybe a thousand...but not one piece of observed, empirical evidence.  You can't produce a single instance of observed, measured backradiation at ambient temperature so no, I don't believe what the professors are saying.

Climate science claims that more than twice as much energy is radiating back from the atmosphere to be absorbed by the surface of the earth than is coming in from the sun.  We have no problem measuring incoming solar radiation because it is physical..it is energy transferrring from a warmer source (the sun) to a cooler source (the surface of the earth); and even though the claim is that more than twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than from the sun, not a single measurement of that backradiation has ever been made at ambient temperature for one reason...it does not exist.



Saigon said:


> It's what you do.



Insist on some actual evidence when someone claims that energy can radiate spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area...of course I want to see some evidence.  I am not going to believe something like that just because someone says so.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 14, 2013)

> I bet that you could produce papers from a hundred different professors...maybe a thousand...but not one piece of observed, empirical evidence.



It's been posted THREE times already, actually. 

Here is for you again a 4th time:

Some of Earth&#8217;s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. *The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth&#8217;s previously exported energy back to Earth &#8211; this is a feedback. *Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn&#8217;t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

Honestly what is the point of you pretending you don't get this?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Typical. You get caught with your b.s. and if somebody reads you back  your own words then you deny you said it and call others a "lying sack  of shit".



But you _are_ a lying sack of shit.

I specifically said computer-controlled turbines could operate in parallel.

---
Humans aren't fast enough to compensate for that, you need computers. Since there were no computers, generators were not run in parallel.
---

You deliberately ignored my statement that the computer-controlled computers could operate in parallel. You then cherrypicked another statement, out-of-context, where I was talking about shipboard turbines with a primitive analog frequency control, and used that to pretend I said the opposite of what I actually said.

In other words, you were a lying sack of shit. Though if you'd like to admit you were just mistaken, I can accept that. However, since you're a manchild who is incapable of admitting any error, ever, you won't do that, and we'll have to go with "lying sack of shit".

By the way, how are you going with your quest to locate your balls?

Not so well, given how you still haven't told us which computers were running your magical control software in 1960, as you claimed was the case.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> No. The earth and atmosphere will be slightly different temps, so their radiation emission curves will not be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

PolarBear said:
			
		

> Instead  of calling us names show us some proof, a document , a badge or a  picture.



I've got my DD214 right in front of me, listing all the schools I attended. It's got "NUCLEAR POWER SCHOOL" and "NUCLEAR POWER UNIT, BALLSTON SPA, NEW YORK" and "CGN-36" typed very clearly.

However, before I post it, I'm going to require you accept a wager.

I post the DD214. If it's legit, you have to publicly apologize for lying about me, and then leave the board forever and never return.

If it's not legit, I'll leave and never return.

If you want to pre-squeal that it's a forgery, let's get it out of the way now. Tell me what I have to do with the image to get you to accept it's legit. And give me a bit of time, as I've been procrastinating on my taxes.

Oh, that also goes for the rest of my psychostalkers. If you're going to question my credentials, you need to sign on to the bet. If you don't, I'll be telling you to chow down on a big can of spotted dick if you ever raise the topic again.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > I bet that you could produce papers from a hundred different professors...maybe a thousand...but not one piece of observed, empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.  It is talking about very localized feedbacks like lightning striking the ground and rain on an ice field.  That is not backradiation which is the backbone of the greenhouse effect.

Without backradiation, you have no greenhoue effect...RAIN AND LIGHTNING ARE NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.  Your guy has built a couple of strawmen to fight, but completely avoids the issue of backradiation.  Backradiation is not even mentioned in his paper.  All he talks about are a couple of feedbacks that no one would argue with.  The discussion is about backradiation where it is claimed that the cooler atmosphere causes the warmer surface of the earth to warm even further.

Here, again from the pages of the IPCC's own documents:



> Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.



If you aren't talking about backradiation from the atmosphere you aren't talking about the greenouse effect.  A couple of feedbacks that are predicted by the second law are not the same as backradiation which is not.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You are assuming that the red star must emit photons in the direction of the blue star.  There is no law that says that an object must radiate in every possible direction



This. Is. Insane.

You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?

Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 14, 2013)

> What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.



Perhaps if you ***shudder*** read the report before commenting on it?

This is the OPENING LINE of the report, genius:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earth&#8217;s Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Learn how to properly use the quote function so that it will provide a link to the "quote" in question.  It really is not difficult.  It shouldn't be difficult even for you.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 14, 2013)

Does Earth's atmosphere serve as a kind of blanket to help keep some of the energy (warmth) that it takes in from the Sun here instead of having it all transmitted back out to the cold of space?

Sure.

Those who deny the AGW Faither's claims do not deny and do not need to deny that the atmosphere can act like a blanket.  If this was all that was meant by the Greenhouse Effect, there would probably be no disagreement.

But that is not what the AGW Faithers say -- at least not alone.  

No.  THEY maintain that man-made or man-caused release of "carbon" into the atmosphere (amongst other so-called "greenhouse gasses") significantly changes the degree to which the atmosphere serves as a heat-trapping blanket resulting in the slow "cooking" of planet Earth. 

What they have yet to demonstrate by reputable science (as opposed to their contrived "proxy data" and computer models) is that any increase of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere from human sources has any appreciable impact on the "greenhouse effect."


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> Unfortunately much of your last post is simply gibberish.
> 
> ...



Don't like the truth so pretend nothing made sense. Old tactic, and just as lame as usual..

Can't argue the logic of it? What does it take a chart and some nonsense that you really can't grasp, with a simple explanation of it all, all simple and easy for you? If that's the case, stop using the word science,because you are incapable of understanding it..

Thanks for confirming you can't think critically, and you certainly don't understand the implications and reality of what you are supporting..  Nice..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> This. Is. Insane.
> 
> You're telling me the red star magically knows not to emit photons towards the blue star? Could you describe the physical process behind that?



It doesn't "know" which way to emit photons any more than a rock "knows" which way to fall, or a marble on an incline "knows" which way to roll, or air in a tire "knows" which way to move out of a hole.  The laws of physics determine what will happen given any particular circumstance.



mamooth said:


> Heck, the red star would have to know how to not emit photons towards every warmer star in the universe, even the ones that hadn't formed yet, but which would form by the time the light arrived. Could you describe the physical process behind that?



Does the rock have to know which way to fall when you drop it?  Can you describe the physical process behind that...there is a nobel in it for you if you can actually describe the physical process of gravity.  And since most of space is empty, emitting in the direction of cooler space isn't a problem.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Water is warmer than ice...water falling on ice transfers heat to the ice...not the greenhouse effect.

Lighting, being hotter than the surface of the sun is warmer than the surface of the earth...not the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is specifically the claim that the cooler atmosphere radiating IR back to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed and in turn cause the surface of the earth to warm further.  Point out to me anywhere in your paper where the author addresses backradiation.  He believes that because he can point out a couple of feedbacks that he has proven the greenhouse effect when he doesn't even touch on the mechanism that is claimed to be the cause of the greenhouse effect...ie backradiation


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> THEY maintain that man-made or man-caused release of "carbon" into the atmosphere (amongst other so-called "greenhouse gasses") significantly changes the degree to which the atmosphere serves as a heat-trapping blanket resulting in the slow "cooking" of planet Earth.



Actually, the data says that. The data doesn't go away just because your cult disapproves of it.



> What they have yet to demonstrate by reputable science (as opposed to their contrived "proxy data" and computer models)



Here we see the usual politically-correct conspiracy nonsense which the cult mandates from the cultists.



> is that any increase of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere from human sources has any appreciable impact on the "greenhouse effect."



We see the outward IR flux decreasing in the CO2 absorption bands, you know. Check with your cult to tell you how to handwave such politically inconvenient data away.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> It doesn't "know" which way to emit photons any more than a rock "knows" which way to fall, or a marble on an incline "knows" which way to roll, or air in a tire "knows" which way to move out of a hole.  The laws of physics determine what will happen given any particular circumstance.



Enough with the touchy-feely handwaving. Which law of physics causes the star to not emit light in the direction of its neighbor? Given how many binaries occur near us, we should certainly be able to directly observe this magical shutdown of one sector of a star. So why haven't we observed it?



> Does the rock have to know which way to fall when you drop it?  Can you describe the physical process behind that...there is a nobel in it for you if you can actually describe the physical process of gravity.  And since most of space is empty, emitting in the direction of cooler space isn't a problem.



When your interpretation of the second law demands a universe of stars that somehow know when to shut down a tiny directional slice aimed at some other object, you should probably take that as a hint that your interpretation of the second law is bugfuck crazy.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are assuming that the red star must emit photons in the direction of the blue star.  There is no law that says that an object must radiate in every possible direction
> ...



Boo boo kitty, taking the obtuse angle again...

That was not what he claimed at all, why not try and be honest for once? Would it kill you?

You are equating intelligence and choice to an act of nature. There is no choice at all, for either side here. 

Think about this; *Two identical heat lamps placed exactly two meters apart. Wait until it reaches optimum levels and the heat levels out, then Take temperature readings of the surface of each lens. Let's say the temps are about 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Now point the lens to face each other squarely. Wait a while lets say 2 hours and come back and measure the temperature of each lens again.

What do you think the temperature will be? Will it increase, decrease or stay the same?*


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 14, 2013)

gslack said:


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



There are probably a bunch of variable that need to be accounted-for to properly answer that question.

Halogen lamps?  Or, two 100 Watt incandescent bulbs drawing 100 Watts of power each?  Or a three-way bulb drawing 100 Watts verus a 100 Watt incandescent bulb drawing 100 Watts of power?

If it is two of the same kind of bulbs each drawing the same power, then the temperature of each bulb might be maxed-out just producing the light.  The additional energy coming into each bulb from the other bulb may not be able to to "add" any increase to the temperature, that way.

Of course, I used to be a Republican and am not in rderp's 6%, so I confess my grasp on physics might be incomplete.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> That was not what he claimed at all, why not try and be honest for once?



Intelligence is the only explanation for the theory he gives us.



> You are equating intelligence and choice to an act of nature. There is no choice at all, for either side here.



Can you postulate a scenario of a star not emitting photons towards an empty pinprick on the other side of the galaxy where a star will form/move to in the future that _doesn't_ involve intelligence? Skip the outraged handwaving, and tell us about the physics that drive such a thing. How does the star know the future location of the other star? That requires a degree of omniscience, which means intelligence.



> Think about this; Two identical heat lamps placed exactly two meters apart. Wait until it reaches optimum levels and the heat levels out, then Take temperature readings of the surface of each lens. Let's say the temps are about 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Now point the lens to face each other squarely. Wait a while lets say 2 hours and come back and measure the temperature of each lens again.
> 
> What do you think the temperature will be? Will it increase, decrease or stay the same?



It's going to increase, obviously. Was that supposed to be a tough question?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Enough with the touchy-feely handwaving. Which law of physics causes the star to not emit light in the direction of its neighbor? Given how many binaries occur near us, we should certainly be able to directly observe this magical shutdown of one sector of a star. So why haven't we observed it?



How many times do you need to see it"

The 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

I suppose you would not be able to see it unless you were standing on the blue star somewhere along the plane where the red star would be emitting.  The fact that the blue star doesn't keep gettting hotter and hotter and the red star doesn't get hotter and hotter as a result of the additional energy being input into the blue star, it is a pretty sure bet that it isn't happening.  Since you can't see radiation from a side angle, there would be no way to measure it from an outside point of view.



mamooth said:


> When your interpretation of the second law demands a universe of stars that somehow know when to shut down a tiny directional slice aimed at some other object, you should probably take that as a hint that your interpretation of the second law is bugfuck crazy.



You really are stuck in a box.  Laws of physics are why things don't have to "know" what to do.  The laws of physics make things happen in a certain, predictable way.  Again, an object doesn't need to know in which direction to radiate any more than a rock needs to know which way to fall when it is dropped.  Both have no choice but to act as the laws of physics demand.  Since the second law says SPECIFICALLY that energy can't spontaneously move from your red star to your blue star, where do you think the photons go if they are, in fact, radiating towards the blue star?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

gslack said:


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




One small error...you would need to take the temperature of the fillaments in the bulbs since they are the emitters.  Radiation from one lamp could cause the lens of the other lamp to increase in heat as it could in fact radiate to the lens since the lens of that lamp is cooler than the fillament.  If the filaments are the same temp, then no change would happen..if one is hotter, then it would cause the other to heat up and possibly fail but its own temperature wouldn't increase.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Can you postulate a scenario of a star not emitting photons towards an empty pinprick on the other side of the galaxy where a star will form/move to in the future that _doesn't_ involve intelligence?



You do know don't you...or maybe you don't that the radiation from any given source decreases with the inverse square of the distance it is travelling. You obviously like to pretend that you know what you are talking about, but not knowing that radiation diminishes with distance is the sort of error someone who really doesn't have a grasp of the subject makes.   If the star in the distance is a tiny pinprick, then it's incoming radiation would be far smaller your star's own output wouldn't it.  Two stars in close proximity, however, are an entirely different matter.  Whether or not a star will radiate in the directon of any given star is determined by how much radiation is reaching it from its neighbor.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

LOL, relax guys it's a simple thought experiment. The type of bulbs, the wattage doesn't matter I already told you the parameters that matter here. The fact that both bulbs are equal and are at 150F.. 

You guys are forgetting the fact its a simple thought experiment, not a hypothesis for peer review.. Don't think too hard just remember entropy and how it behaves..


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, relax guys it's a simple thought experiment. The type of bulbs, the wattage doesn't matter I already told you the parameters that matter here. The fact that both bulbs are equal and are at 150F..
> 
> You guys are forgetting the fact its a simple thought experiment, not a hypothesis for peer review.. Don't think too hard just remember entropy and how it behaves..



I am relaxed.  I guess the problem is, I am not a well versed scientist.

They are at 150 BEFORE the experiment.

What does your understanding of entropy have to do with whether (or not) the bulbs would each gain a bit of temperature from the energy provided by the "other" respective bulb?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The fact that the blue star doesn't keep gettting hotter and hotter and the red star doesn't get hotter and hotter as a result of the additional energy being input into the blue star, it is a pretty sure bet that it isn't happening.



You do realize stars radiate in 360 degrees in 3 dimensions, right? They don't radiate back and forth solely at each other.

Each star heats up one side of the other. That extra heat moves through the entire star, due to convection and conduction. Since the whole star gets a little hotter, it radiates more in all directions and reaches a new equilibrium. However, the total energy shed to the universe stays the same, since neither star can radiate to the universe through the other star. Smaller radiating area but higher average output, so energy output is the same.



> Since you can't see radiation from a side angle, there would be no way to measure it from an outside point of view.



If we place a rocket between the two stars, we'll be able to see this mysterious black spot, yes? Oh wait, we won't. Our spaceship is cooler than both stars, so the photons will flow again ... but only to our spaceship! You've created a perfect bit of pseudoscience, as it's impossible to falsify!

The second law just says how total heat flow works statistically. It makes no attempt to explain what turns the source of the heat on and off. Claiming the second law controls a stellar fusion process is like claiming a speed-measuring radar gun controls the functioning of an internal combustion engine. It's just nonsense.

You wave your hands around, shout "SECOND LAW", and think that supposedly means something. It doesn't, except that you're essentially invoking magic to explain your pseudoscience.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, relax guys it's a simple thought experiment. The type of bulbs, the wattage doesn't matter I already told you the parameters that matter here. The fact that both bulbs are equal and are at 150F..
> ...



Remember this quote...

"_Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension."

Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids[4]_

Now before you guys get all bound up let's review the thought experiment. Remember we are assuming all things being equal here, it's not hypothesis up for review, just a thought experiment to get the idea of entropy. All things being equal would mean in this case, Assume the experiment takes place in a perfect vacum and the natural ambient temperature of the surrounding vacum to be absolute zero. That way we can eliminate the nit-picking over atmospheric make-up, wattage of the bulbs, etc..Just remember all things being equal...

Two heat lamps whose operating temperature on their own at the lens is 150F, two meters apart, facing one another squarely. Wait a few hours and measure the lens temps again and tell me if the temps increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

Think on it, but don't overlook the 2nd law, in the process. Also remember conservation of energy..

The short answer is the temperature won't go beyond 150F, reason? It's the temperature of BOTH heat sources, there is no gain over the energy output of either source. The system is in equilibrium.

I know some of you are going to wonder what happened to the 2nd 150F source right? Your thinking being 150 and 150 should be 300F. No for the effects of the two sources to double effectively they would have to act upon another object.

It may seem like it flies in the face of all that you know, and in some ways it probably does. But remember the quote I told you to memorize? Make sense now?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> The short answer is the temperature won't go beyond 150F,



That violates conservation of energy. Both lamps will get hotter.



> reason? It's the temperature of BOTH heat sources, there is no gain over the energy output of either source. The system is in equilibrium.



No. To see why that's wrong, think of one big imaginary bubble drawn around both heat lamps. The energy going out through that bubble is the energy being created by the heat lamp system.

The old way, each heat lamp is beaming its heat directly out through the bubble. Most of the heat goes out as that directed heat radiation beam, while a little goes out as radiation/convection/conduction from the lamp housing.

The new way, each heat lamp is beaming at the other lamp. Little heat energy is leaving by the directed beam, since all the beam radiation is going into the other heat lamp, and none of it is being beamed out the bubble.

Energy conservation says that, at the new equilibrium, the same amount of heat will have to be leaving the bubble. If it's not going out by the beams, it has to go out by increased radiation/conduction/convection from the housing of the lamps. And for that to happen, the temperature of the lamp must increase.



> I know some of you are going to wonder what happened to the 2nd 150F source right? Your thinking being 150 and 150 should be 300F.



If the experiment was done in a vacuum so that only radiation mattered, 150 + 150 = 178. Black body radiation is proportional to the 4rth power of the temperature.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > The short answer is the temperature won't go beyond 150F,
> ...



AAAAAAHHHH!!!!

Conduction, convection, those require what?

BTW, a heat lamp isn't a black body.... Neither is a star. or the earth....

Come on now use your noodle...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> Conduction, convection, those require what?



In this case, an atmosphere. What's that got to do with anything? Your thought experiment doesn't change if run in a vacuum.



> BTW, a heat lamp isn't a black body.... Neither is a star. or the earth....



What's that got to do with anything? It's a rough approximation. The point is that you only have to raise temperature by around 19% (the fourth root of two minus one) to double the radiated heat.

Anyways, your claim is still wrong, since it violates conservation of energy.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Conduction, convection, those require what?
> ...



Nope and nope... You are using stefan-boltzman incorrectly. Your use here requires two black bodies (two bodies in thermal equilibrium with their environment). Neither of these are black bodies at all, nowhere near they are heat sources, their surroundings are a perfect vacum and ambient temps are absolute zero. They are not touching and there is no fluid or atmosphere to interact with...

If there were a third object at equal distance between the two sources of heat (all thing being equal and the third object being a perfect blackbody) S&B law would be correct, in the case of the 3rd object...

My conclusion does not defy conservation of energy.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> Neither of these are black bodies at all, nowhere near they are heat sources,



Heat sources can certainly be black bodies. Why would you think they can't?



> their surroundings are a perfect vacum and ambient temps are absolute zero. They are not touching and there is no fluid or atmosphere to interact with...



Doesn't change your lamp experiment a bit. With conduction/convection removed, it means the lamps have to heat up a little more so they emit more radiation through the lamp housing.



> If there were a third object at equal distance between the two sources of heat (all thing being equal and the third object being a perfect blackbody) S&B law would be correct, in the case of the 3rd object...



I have no idea why you're dragging a 3rd object into it, as it's irrelevant.

Point is, your experiment cuts the ability of the lamps to beam out power to the universe through the lens, meaning they have to radiate that heat out through the lamp housing instead. And that means the temp has to rise. Pointing the lamps at each other is as if the lamp had a shutter in front of the lens that you closed. It's going to get hotter.



> My conclusion does not defy conservation of energy.



Because you say so? Fine refutation.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Neither of these are black bodies at all, nowhere near they are heat sources,
> ...



No junior you're insane googling is irrelevant.. You spent all that time googling up half truths and unrelated tidbits, not even stopping to understand any of it in reality. S&B is not applicable in this thought exercise. Neither of the two objects are blackbodies and neither of them are in equilibrium with their environment. They are in equilibrium with one another, not the environment...

The heat coming back through the housing now? LOL, really? what google search gave you that conclusion?  So your contention is that the energy from each light flows against their opposing yet equal counterpart and effects real heat change in the apparatus it's connected to? ROFL, please patent your theory now and you can solve the world's energy problems..

Your contention defies the 2nd law. And if it were factual we could create perfect machines easily.


----------



## gslack (Apr 14, 2013)

ROFL, okay now ask me if I can actually PROVE MY CLAIM...

Got me I can't prove it, just like you can't prove I'm wrong.. See that's how AGW theory works. It uses some slight discrepancies in observations versus equations and theory, and then makes bold claims it cannot actually prove in reality, but knows you can't really fully disprove it either..

They are using the same concept to sell you nonsense..Wake up people...


----------



## Saigon (Apr 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > What you aren't getting is that that paper isn't talking about the greenhouse effect.
> ...



You don't get any smarter, do you, SSDD?

Honestly - you claim the report is not about the greenhouse effect - and yet in the first line if the report it mentions the greenhouse effect.

Now you claim it is not about backradiation - even though the report clearly states that it is?

Look - you know you are wrong, I know you are wrong, and anyone who has followed the thread knows you are wrong. 

Let's just leave it at that, shall we?


----------



## numan (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Molecule absorbs backradiation photon, jumps to higher vibrational state. It's not complicated. You've just got this emotional block. You don't understand because you willfully don't want to understand.
> ...


Oh, my lord! Imagine anyone claiming a knowledge of physics saying that! What a howler!! You've got it exactly ass-backwards!!

*Bohr atom*







> According to Bohr theory, which accurately predicts the energy levels for one-electron atoms like H, He+, Li2+, the energy of an electron in the nth energy level is given by:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!

The same holds for molecules -- it just becomes more complex to calculate!*
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> If we place a rocket between the two stars, we'll be able to see this mysterious black spot, yes? Oh wait, we won't. Our spaceship is cooler than both stars, so the photons will flow again ... but only to our spaceship! You've created a perfect bit of pseudoscience, as it's impossible to falsify!



So what would falsify the greenhouse effect for you?  Nearly 20 years of non warming while the CO2 continues to increase hasn't done it.  What would falsify it for you?



mamooth said:


> The second law just says how total heat flow works statistically. It makes no attempt to explain what turns the source of the heat on and off. Claiming the second law controls a stellar fusion process is like claiming a speed-measuring radar gun controls the functioning of an internal combustion engine. It's just nonsense.



Statements like "not possible" and "will not" are not statistical statements.  The second law is a statement of fact, not statisitics.  Show me a statistical study that speaks in absolutes.



mamooth said:


> You wave your hands around, shout "SECOND LAW", and think that supposedly means something. It doesn't, except that you're essentially invoking magic to explain your pseudoscience.



"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  

Guess that goes for laws of nature for some people as well.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> You don't get any smarter, do you, SSDD?
> 
> Honestly - you claim the report is not about the greenhouse effect - and yet in the first line if the report it mentions the greenhouse effect.



It seems as if it is you who doesn't get any smarter.  The guy says greenhouse effect in the first line, then goes on to talk about everything except the greenhouse effect and you believe it is a paper about the greenhouse effect.  In order for him, or anyone to talk about the greenhouse effect, they must be talking about backradiation since backradiation is, by definition, what causes the greenhouse effect.



Saigon said:


> Now you claim it is not about backradiation - even though the report clearly states that it is?



You think rain falling on ice is backradiation?  You think lightning striking the ground is backradiation?  Ordinarily I don't find ignorance funny, but in your case....


----------



## Saigon (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD -

IF you read the report, THEN it may make sense to you.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

numan said:


> *The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!
> 
> The same holds for molecules -- it just becomes more complex to calculate!*
> .



I was in error there, but the electron can only absorb energy of a specific frequency and there is still the matter of energy at a lower concentration in the atmosphere to a higher concentration in the surface of the earth.  And the fact that every time energy moves from one place to another it becomes less organized.  You can not get around the fact that energy always...always...always moves from more organized to less organized.

All natural processes...and radiation escaping from the surface of the earth is a natural process are irreversable.  Once energy is emitted from the surface of the earth in the form of radiation..that energy can not be put back.

What are Reversible and Irreversible Processes in Thermodynamics?



> There are two main types of thermodynamic processes: the reversible and irreversible. The reversible process is the ideal process which never occurs, while the irreversible process is the natural process that is commonly found in the nature.



Thermal Processes and State Variables



> All Natural processes are Irreversible.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> IF you read the report, THEN it may make sense to you.



I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation.  If you aren't discussing backradiation, you aren't discussing the greenhouse effect.  The fact that he said greenhouse effect in the title and never actually discussed the greenhouse efffect should have registered with you if you had ever taken the time to actually learn what the greenhouse effect is...here is a clue...IT IS BACKRADIATION.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 15, 2013)

> I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation.



Ok, so you're going to lie. 

I do think lying is a realy good way to convince people that you have a strong argument. And probably no one will actually notice the lie anyway, right?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...


Don`t forget that "Saigon, the educated journalist in Finland" had to Google who Finland's current Prime Minister is.
You are overtaxing his mental capacity.
A "Global warming back radiation" 15 µm photon has an energy of 6.08 × 10^-18 Joules. 1 Joule = 1 Watt second.
*A Watt second does have a heat energy equivalent, but it`s not heat till a watt second is converted into heat*.
If it`s one watt second's worth of electrical energy then only a resistor can convert that energy into heat. An oscillator will convert this watt second into electromagnetic radiation instead of heat.




Only an ideal black body can convert the 6.08 × 10^-18 watt seconds into heat and neither CO2 nor the earth is a black body because both allow other energy avenues for the 6.08 × 10^-18 watt seconds carried by the CO2 re-emitted 15 µm photon.





When air gets heated by 1 deg C the average molecular speed increases and the energy of the gas increased by the square of the velocity times the mass divided by 2 (thermal energy of gasses). The equation can be solved for the average molecular velocity :
v= &#8730;(3*T*k/m)
T is the temperature in Kelvin, k is the Boltzman constant = 1.3805*10^- 23 J/K and m is the mass of the gas particle. 
average mass of air  is ~ 29 g/mol  each gas particle ~4.799*10^-26), at room temperature is 27 C (300K)  and at that temperature the average molecular motion is ~ 500 meters per second.
When the temperature goes up by 1 degree the molecular speed is increased by 29 meters per second.
That *can be observed very accurately* by the Doppler effect in the IR absorption band when CO2 is heated
To increase the speed of a mass work has to be performed and that in turn consumes energy which has to come from the 6.08 × 10^-18 Joules 15 µm photons. When the molecular speed of a gas is increased the gas expands and the 1 deg C temperature rise heat energy equivalent has already gone poooof because it performed work while it expanded against a 1 atm pressure.
But not in "back radiation climatology".
They make it real simple for themselves and assign an "average albedo effect " of 35% to the entire planet.
7/10 th of the surface is liquid water.






Which  does not absorb 15 µm and convert it into  heat like a black body and not even like a "35% albedo black body".


> The water molecule, in the gaseous state, has three types of transition that can give rise to absorption of electromagnetic radiation
> The infrared spectrum of liquid water is dominated by the intense absorption due to the fundamental O-H stretching vibrations.
> There is no rotational fine structure, but the absorption band are broader than might be expected, because of hydrogen bonding.[18] Peak maxima for liquid water are observed at 3450 cm&#8722;1 (2.898 &#956;m), 3615 cm&#8722;1 (2.766 &#956;m) and 1640 cm &#8722;1 (6.097 &#956;m).


*And none of the liquid water O-H bond stretching are in the 15 µm band where CO2 "back radiates".*

Water molecules in the vapor state  does have in contrast to liquid water vigorous O-H stretching and scissoring ability because there are no hydrogen bridge bonds hindering it.
Water vapor absorbs ~ 74 % of the entire IR that that comes from the sun and the earth`s surface.
CO2 absorbs only in a very narrow region of the 26% "IR window".


> In the atmospheric window between approximately 8000 and 14000 nm, in the far-infrared spectrum, carbon dioxide and water absorption is weak.[28] This window allows most of the thermal radiation in this band to be radiated out to space, keeping the Earth's atmosphere from going into thermal runaway. This band is also used for remote sensing of the Earth from space, for example with thermal Infrared imaging.


But pointing that out to the wacko- phyics "experts" in this forum makes you not just a "denier"...they invented a new superlative : "denialist"


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No he's not lying, you are.. Either that, or you saw the word in the title and assumed the rest... LOL, that's exactly what you did wasn't it...


----------



## Saigon (Apr 15, 2013)

Gslack - 

And IF you read the article, you also may understand it. 

Honestly - if you want to hide something from a deniar, put it in a book. They'll NEVER find it.

btw, Greenhouse gases aren't mentoned in the title, genius. It is in the first line of the article - where SSDD apparently couldn't find it.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > I read the report...he does not discuss backradiation.
> ...



He just wants to bury what I just posted with his usual garbage...
Fuck him I`ll copy& post it again over his garbage:



SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...


Don`t forget that  "Saigon, the educated journalist in Finland" had to Google who Finland's  current Prime Minister is.
You are overtaxing his mental capacity.
A "Global warming back radiation" 15 µm photon has an energy of 6.08 × 10^-18 Joules. 1 Joule = 1 Watt second.
*A Watt second does have a heat energy equivalent, but it`s not heat till a watt second is converted into heat*.
If it`s one watt second's worth of electrical energy then only a  resistor can convert that energy into heat. An oscillator will convert  this watt second into electromagnetic radiation instead of heat.
*Tunable high power Laser*




Only an ideal black body can convert the 6.08 × 10^-18 watt seconds into  heat and neither CO2 nor the earth is a black body because both allow  other energy avenues for the 6.08 × 10^-18 watt seconds carried by the  CO2 re-emitted 15 µm photon.





When air gets heated by 1 deg C the average molecular speed increases  and the energy of the gas increased by the square of the velocity times  the mass divided by 2 (thermal energy of gasses). The equation can be  solved for the average molecular velocity :
v= &#8730;(3*T*k/m)
T is the temperature in Kelvin, k is the Boltzman constant = 1.3805*10^- 23 J/K and m is the mass of the gas particle. 
average mass of air  is ~ 29 g/mol  each gas particle ~4.799*10^-26), at  room temperature is 27 C (300K)  and at that temperature the average  molecular motion is ~ 500 meters per second.
When the temperature goes up by 1 degree the molecular speed is increased by 29 meters per second.
That *can be observed very accurately* by the Doppler effect in the IR absorption band when CO2 is heated
To increase the speed of a mass work has to be performed and that in  turn consumes energy which has to come from the 6.08 × 10^-18 Joules 15  µm photons. When the molecular speed of a gas is increased the gas  expands and the 1 deg C temperature rise heat energy equivalent has  already gone poooof because it performed work while it expanded against a  1 atm pressure.
But not in "back radiation climatology".
They make it real simple for themselves and assign an "average albedo effect " of 35% to the entire planet.
7/10 th of the surface is liquid water.






Which  does not absorb 15 µm and convert it into  heat like a black body and not even like a "35% albedo black body".


> The water molecule, in the gaseous state, has three types of  transition that can give rise to absorption of electromagnetic radiation
> The infrared spectrum of liquid water is dominated by the intense absorption due to the fundamental O-H stretching vibrations.
> There is no rotational fine structure, but the absorption band are broader than might be expected, because of hydrogen bonding.[18] Peak maxima for liquid water are observed at 3450 cm&#8722;1 (2.898 &#956;m), 3615 cm&#8722;1 (2.766 &#956;m) and 1640 cm &#8722;1 (6.097 &#956;m).


*And none of the liquid water O-H bond stretching are in the 15 µm band where CO2 "back radiates".*

Water molecules in the vapor state  does have in contrast to liquid  water vigorous O-H stretching and scissoring ability because there are  no hydrogen bridge bonds hindering it.
Water vapor absorbs ~ 74 % of the entire IR that that comes from the sun and the earth`s surface.
CO2 absorbs only in a very narrow region of the 26% "IR window".


> In the atmospheric window between approximately 8000 and 14000 nm, in the far-infrared spectrum, carbon dioxide and water absorption is weak.[28]  This window allows most of the thermal radiation in this band to be  radiated out to space, keeping the Earth's atmosphere from going into thermal runaway. This band is also used for remote sensing of the Earth from space, for example with thermal Infrared imaging.


But pointing that out to the wacko- phyics "experts" in this  forum makes you not just a "denier"...they invented a new superlative : "denialist"
They are so ignorant and keep posting the same crap over and over again 24/7 just as soon as a post appears that they can`t stomach.
*Tunable Lasers and the Laser cooling of atoms is incompatible wit their Fred Flintstone "back-radiation" physics.
Here we got a bunch of morons lecturing engineers on the laws of thermodynamics they keep copy/paste/posting the same garbage from enviro.org blogger sites over and over gain..Then I`ll do likewise and at the end of the day or week I`ll keep pasting a re-posting whatever these trolls want to bury...They sit there all day long and refresh their screen to see if there is a new post and then bury it.
What a pitiful bunch of psychos.
*


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> And IF you read the article, you also may understand it.
> 
> ...



Okay then point it out.. Simple really, we say it didn't address it you say it did, sopoint out where and how it does...


----------



## Saigon (Apr 15, 2013)

Bauble- 

It is in LINE ONE of the report:

Sporadically we are challenged over the reality of Earths Greenhouse Effect (GE) on the grounds this represents a heat flow from a cooler to a warmer body and hence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law).

Go and look for yourself, and then you can also explain to SSDD how many references there are to feedback and back radiation!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Permit me to dumb that down for a second.  If you "direct" any portion of 150 degrees at the second lens, which is already AT 150 degrees, the second lens will gain no heat.

If you add the heat from the heat source to an ice cube, the ice cube might melt since it can certainly gain some temperature that way.  But if you direct added heat to a hotplate from a lens, and the lens is emitting heat at a lower temperature than the plate, the plate will not gain any additional heat.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Okay then point it out.. Simple really, we say it didn't address it you say it did, sopoint out where and how it does...



He does a "thought experiment" where the sun sends in 100 units, and the earth radiates back 1 which causes (get this) the sun to get warmer and then radiates 50 units straight out into space and 50 units into the atmosphere...wonder how 50 of those units got back to space without passing through the atmosphere?  Then the atmosphere radiates 25 to space and 25 back to earth.

He makes no mention of how this energy in the atmosphere at a lower concentration gets back into the surface of the earth which is at a higher concentration.  I guess because he could demonstrate some well known and unargued feedbacks, that it was ok to violate the 2nd law with the rest...imagine, the earth causes the sun to get warmer.

I suppose in siagon's little mind, that constitutes an actual discussion on the greenhouse effect.  If you don't know anything about a topic, I suppose anything might sound like a rational discourse on the topic.  The guy raises far more questions than he answers and like most warmers...a "thought experiment" is all he has to offer as evidence to support his claim.  Can you say circular reasoning?....


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Bauble-
> 
> It is in LINE ONE of the report:
> 
> ...



Already told you whats wrong with it and the whole site in general, remember?

To the point, the article addresses the authors circle-talk and nonsensical musings on how the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't violated by the greenhouse effect. Thats it. Doesn't explain the theory behind it, doesn't address anything else really. What's worse it tries to justify it's claims by using the very theory that is in question..

Do you like to let the fox guard the hen house or do you simply not understand it...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Bauble-
> 
> It is in LINE ONE of the report:
> 
> ...



Why don`t you, the "educated Journalist in Finland", the Siamese cat "physics expert" or the "erudite Numan" explain it to the engineers who worked out how to use high energy photons to cool matter to near absolute zero K.
According to you and the rest of the AGW forum poster "photon experts" that should not be possible. *
It`s "heresy" and only what you idiots write is "reality":
Numan :
*


> *I beg the sensible reader not to be thwarted by these feral predators. Just go to the page which lists all my postings, *and then read only those. then you will have the wheat without the chaff, and the barbarians will be defeated.
> 
> The posters -- *mamooth, Dot Com, editec, Dugdale_Jukes, Old Rocks, joewp* -- have demonstrated the ability to make rational comments on this subject. It would be good to link to the Postings Pages of these thoughtful people, too.



*Holy shit, are you on Numan`s ignore list? Or did he simply forget to mention you?*


> Laser cooling refers to a number of techniques in which atomic and molecular samples are cooled down to near absolute zero through the interaction with one or more laser light fields.
> Laser cooling is primarily used for experiments in Quantum Physics to achieve temperatures of near absolute zero (&#8722;273.15°C, &#8722;459.67°F).
> 
> This may soon change, as a new breakthrough in the technology has successfully cooled a macro-scale object to near absolute zero


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> If you add the heat from the heat source to an ice cube, the ice cube might melt since it can certainly gain some temperature that way.  But if you direct added heat to a hotplate from a lens, and the lens is emitting heat at a lower temperature than the plate, the plate will not gain any additional heat.



Of course it won't, but that is what warmers believe will happen.  They think that if you point a flashlight at a mirror, the flashlight will burn brighter...or if you aim a mirror at your fireplace, you will get more heat than the burning wood alone could produce.  It's crazy, but they believe it right down to the depths of their pea sized brains.

Eventually practitioners of hard physics are going to decend on climate science and show them precisely where they have gone wrong..  It is already apparent that the hypothesis has failed and yet they continue to beleive rather than doing the rational thing which would be to return to the drawing board and work on a different hypothesis.   Perhaps something that doesn't violate laws of physics.


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Nicely done! Now that's critical thinking at work.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 15, 2013)

> Thats it. Doesn't explain the theory behind it



Ok, so you didn't read the article either. 

Here is some of the theory you apparently could not find:

All matter with a temperature above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation due to the conversion of a body&#8217;s thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (that&#8217;s why it&#8217;s called thermal radiation). It is a spontaneous process of radiative distribution of entropy. Overall entropy is increasing as Sol distributes energy to space, Earth is in the emission path of some of this energy and is warmed (you can play with calculators here to derive expected equilibrium temperature under various conditions) and in turn emits to space at a lesser intensity than the sun by virtue of its having a cooler temperature.

Gaia fantasies notwithstanding, Earth does not &#8220;choose&#8221; to radiate selectively in particular directions any more than the sun or any other object does, they simply radiate in all directions. At the same time as the sun is irradiating Earth, Earth is irradiating the sun, albeit at a much lower intensity. Technically Earth is keeping the sun slightly warmer than it would otherwise be by returning a tiny portion of the energy the sun radiates. This is possible under the 2nd Law because the sole result of the continuous exchange of energy at disparate intensity is the transfer of heat from the body of higher temperature to the body of lower temperature.


----------



## westwall (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Bauble-
> 
> It is in LINE ONE of the report:
> 
> ...







What?  You're still here?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 15, 2013)

Back Radiation:

This is one of 3 articles on this sight which explain it all in GREAT detail - 

Whats amazing about back-radiation is how many different ways people arrive at the conclusion it doesnt exist or doesnt have any effect on the temperature at the earths surface.

Atmospheric longwave radiation is the surface radiation budget component most rarely available in climatological stations due to the cost of the longwave measuring instruments, the pyrgeometers, compared with the cost of pyranometers, which measure the shortwave radiation. Consequently, the estimate of longwave radiation for no-pyrgeometer places is often done through the most easily measured atmospheric variables, such as air temperature and air moisture. Several parameterization schemes have been developed to estimate downward longwave radiation for clear-sky and cloudy conditions, but none has been adopted for generalized use.

The Amazing Case of ?Back-Radiation? | The Science of Doom


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Back Radiation:
> 
> This is one of 3 articles on this sight which explain it all in GREAT detail -
> 
> ...



No that article you linked to, is the authors take on why the 2nd law isn't violated by greenhouse effect. Whatever other articles he has, you didn't link to and frankly given his BS in the one you did link to, i didn't want to bother..

He doesn't PROVE backradiation in any of it. he claims it works and uses the very theory in question to try and prove it...

Again, fox + hen house = bad for the chickens...  Get it?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 15, 2013)

> is the authors take on why the 2nd law isn't violated by greenhouse effect.



EXACTLY. 

And there are two other closely related articles on the same site. I can provide links for those if you can't find them, but they are on the same site. All three are well worth a read.

The fact that both of the sources I have used provide real world examples of feeback are fairly clear evidence that it is real, no?


Westwall - 

Please limit the off-topic spamming. We know you are lost without you proving it ten times a day.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Here we got a bunch of morons lecturing engineers



Because in this case, the engineer lacks any vestige of knowledge about physics, as well as lacking any vestige of common sense. 

But then, maybe the whole world is wrong, and only a select few gibbering right-wing-fringe cultists know the real truth about thermodynamics. No doubt the anal probes which they received from the aliens must have imparted such special knowledge.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Of course it won't, but that is what warmers believe will happen.



If you have to make up crazy stories about what we supposedly believe, we'll correctly take it as your admission of surrender.



> They think that if you point a flashlight at a mirror, the flashlight will burn brighter



No we don't, being that the light reflected back into the filament is negligible. Remember, just because you lack common sense and an engineer's sense of scale, don't assume we're so handicapped.



> ...or if you aim a mirror at your fireplace, you will get more heat than the burning wood alone could produce.



Wow. That's so crazy, I simply have no idea where you got it or how to respond to it. You're off the rails in your own happy crazy dimension.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Bauble-
> ...



Of course he is so is the rabid Siamese cat. They are glued to their PC all day long every day since they registered.
Trolling and posting over every post that goes against their weirdo beliefs.
Notice how many posts in a row that "Meow i used to run nuclear reactors" psycho makes every time somebody else posted something?
*4 or five posts in a row so that the other stuff is buried at least 2 pages deep.* None of it is subject related but are just sucker punches that you are supposed to react to. 
*Typical Libtard tactics*


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > is the authors take on why the 2nd law isn't violated by greenhouse effect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, you really aren't very good at critical thinking are you... I thought it was your defense, but it's genuine, you're an idiot and not acting at all....

Again, it uses the theory to try and prove itself... Therefore is not proof at all..

Is this thing on? You catchin any of this yet?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



...:
                       Originally Posted by *mamooth* 

 
_



			Here's the wiki page on current uniforms:

Uniforms of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

_


> _
> *So,  I've been accurate about every single thing, and you've been a raging  'tard who has gotten every single thing wrong. According to you, that  proves I'm a fraud.
> 
> Good luck with that.*_



A page taken right out of AGW "science" where everything is true unless proven wrong by "denialists"..which is a "newspeak" superlative of "deniers" that are skeptical of what comes out of the Siamese cat crap hole


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> S&B is not applicable in this thought exercise.



That's nice. It doesn't matter. Your claim still fails energy conservation, whether S&B applies or not. I only brought it up to give a rough idea of the temperature increase of the lamp.



> Neither of the two objects are blackbodies and neither of them are in equilibrium with their environment. They are in equilibrium with one another, not the environment...



That's meaningless handwaving. Your claim still violates energy conservation.



> The heat coming back through the housing now? LOL, really? what google search gave you that conclusion?



Unlike ivory tower theorists such as you, I don't need google. I just look at the actual world. I reach over, touch my desk lamp, and feel that the lamp housing is hot, and is radiating heat.

Do you, perhaps, have a some kind of magic incandescent lamp that doesn't emit heat through the lamp housing? If so, you might want to bring such a miraculous invention to market.



> So your contention is that the energy from each light flows against their opposing yet equal counterpart and effects real heat change in the apparatus it's connected to?



Restate that in English please? I have no idea what you're saying there.

Let's break it down.

Assume we have two 200-watt heat lamps.

Assume 90% of the energy (180 watts) goes out as radiation through the lens (the "beam"), and 10% (20 watts) is waste heat, heating up the lamp housing to 150F. So at equilibrium, the housings radiate at a steady 20 watts each.

With lamps pointed away from each other, total power flow out of the entire system into the universe is 400 watts at equilibrium. 360 watts in the 2 beams, and 40 watts in radiation from the lamp housings.

Now aim the lamps at each other. Assume 50% of the beam is absorbed by the other lamp, and 50% is reflected/scattered. 

So, now we have the 40 watts from the lamp housings, and 180 watts from the scattered beams going out into the universe. 220 watts total.

Yet the system is producing 400 watts. That extra 180 watts has to go somewhere. So it goes into heating up the lamp housings. The lamp housings will heat up until it they radiate 110 watts each instead of 20 watts. At that point, the new equilibrium is reached.


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > S&B is not applicable in this thought exercise.
> ...



Yes, yes, you're High Admiral bookitty popeye, you worked reactors and who knows all and sees all... We know junior, we know...

All of that you wrote, I started to doze off after you tried to sneak boltzmann back into it...

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, and you regurgitated the same nonsense you tried before.. Don't change my thought experiment, make your own! My experiment my parameters, don't like it, don't play...

Once again you embarrassed yourself, and now you want to BS and confound the argument or change it to save face... Too late junior, you missed that part again..

But hey you were an admiral, you knew all of this anyway...ROFL


----------



## IanC (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > This. Is. Insane.
> ...



Good God! I wish you werent nominally on 'my side'. worse yet you have brought back that retarded little ankle biting chihuahua Gslack.

you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions. you say it is an analogue of gravity but give no details. while gravity cannot be 'explained' it can be described to very high degree of precision. where is the description of this new found natural law? I have never heard of it.

and if you could be so kind to answer a few questions about the redstar/bluestar scenario.
1. would it make a difference if the red star was a red giant? the nuclear core in red giants are 'burning' elements other than hydrogen at a much higher temperature. is it the internal temp that matters or just the surface temp?
2. what wavelengths are forbidden? the graph of emissions for stars are composed of almost identical  wavelengths. are you saying that IR wavelengths from the hotter star are allowed to be emitted while the UV wavelengths from the cooller star are forbidden?

and one other thing. light from even nearby stars takes a finite amount of time to cross distance. there are many chaotic processes that make it impossible to predict the exact location of matter in the future. therefore you are implying that _all_ photons are _virtual photons_ and only become real when they actually contact a bit of matter, like the force carrying photons of the electric or magnetic force. is that your position?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Yes, yes, you're High Admiral bookitty popeye, you worked reactors and who knows all and sees all... We know junior, we know...



You claim _still_ violates energy conservation, no matter what evasions you try to use.

So, is pursuing your obsessive idiot vendetta against me worth the ongoing humiliation it brings you?


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

IanC said:


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



No one "brought me" shithead. I smelled luke warmer BS and knew it was you.. How ya been? Gotten any better with critical thinking? No I see you haven't sorry...


----------



## gslack (Apr 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, yes, you're High Admiral bookitty popeye, you worked reactors and who knows all and sees all... We know junior, we know...
> ...



Yes, yes Admiral "nuke" "I don't wear black ever" fraud.. and "you" claim is still ignorant and irrelevant... Cry me a river fraud, fake, phony, con-man, Bullshitter..

What's next? Gonna tell us all about your adventures aboard the only boat in the navy that lets any old swabby man the reactors? What was it called? The USS Lollipop?


----------



## westwall (Apr 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Ye, they must be paid by the admins to stir up crap like truthiness etc.  They have no thoughts of their own they merely take contrarian POV's to try and stir up the educated people here on the board. 

There is no other explanation that makes sense based on how completely ignorant and stupid they are.


----------



## westwall (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > is the authors take on why the 2nd law isn't violated by greenhouse effect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...









  The queen of the spammers whines yet again......


----------



## numan (Apr 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> *Numan :*
> 
> 
> > *I beg the sensible reader not to be thwarted by these feral predators. Just go to the page which lists all my postings, *and then read only those. then you will have the wheat without the chaff, and the barbarians will be defeated.
> ...


I _DID_ forget to mention you, *Saigon*, for which I apologize.

In extenuation, I will point out that the Endangered Arctoid lifted the quote, entirely without acknowledgement, from a completely different thread to which you did not contribute comments on global heating.

I do think, however, that comments on the color of naval uniforms and the like are completely inappropriate to either thread, and detract seriously from the discussion of the topics.
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gaia fantasies notwithstanding, Earth does not choose to radiate selectively in particular directions any more than the sun or any other object does, they simply radiate in all directions.



That is an assumption.  There is no law that says that an object "must" radiate in all directions.



Saigon said:


> At the same time as the sun is irradiating Earth, Earth is irradiating the sun, albeit at a much lower intensity. Technically Earth is keeping the sun slightly warmer than it would otherwise be by returning a tiny portion of the energy the sun radiates.



Not happening...but feel free to prove it if you believe it is.

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*. 


Earth, being a lower temperature object than the sun can not radiate energy to the sun.  How is it that you can take something on faith when the second law says explicitly that it can not happen?


----------



## westwall (Apr 15, 2013)

numan said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > *Numan :*
> ...







I love it!  The sock acknowledging the drone!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Back Radiation:
> 
> This is one of 3 articles on this sight which explain it all in GREAT detail -
> 
> ...



No one argues the existence of long wave radiation...the discussion arises when you try to spontaneously put it back into the surface of the earth from which it radiated...you can not spontaneously put it back.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> If you have to make up crazy stories about what we supposedly believe, we'll correctly take it as your admission of surrender.



If you believe that the atmosphere can reflect energy back to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed making the earth warmer, why wouldn't you belive you can reflect energy back to anything and get more out of it than is coming from its energy source?




mamooth said:


> No we don't, being that the light reflected back into the filament is negligible. Remember, just because you lack common sense and an engineer's sense of scale, don't assume we're so handicapped.



Negligible means some when in fact, none is absorbed.  If you believe the atmosphere can radiate energy to a warmer surface and make it warmer...why not believe that a mirror can radiate back to a flashlight, be reabsorved, and make the flashlight radiate more (burn brighter)?  If you believe one can happen, why not the other when they are the same principle?



mamooth said:


> Wow. That's so crazy, I simply have no idea where you got it or how to respond to it. You're off the rails in your own happy crazy dimension.



It is no more crazy than saying that the atmosphere can radiate energy back to the surface of the earth and cause it to warm.  We are talking about the same principle here.  What makes one crazy and one rational?  If you think about it for just a second, the mirror makes more sense (even though it is impossible} because it is a hell of a lot better reflector than a trace gas in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, you really aren't very good at critical thinking are you... I thought it was your defense, but it's genuine, you're an idiot and not acting at all....
> 
> Again, it uses the theory to try and prove itself... Therefore is not proof at all..
> 
> Is this thing on? You catchin any of this yet?



Maybe you should spell out circular reasoning for him and give him a definition.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions. you say it is an analogue of gravity but give no details. while gravity cannot be 'explained' it can be described to very high degree of precision. where is the description of this new found natural law? I have never heard of it.



I can't explain exactly how the second law is enforced in nature any more than I can explain pecisely how gravity works...just like you can't either.  The fact remains that energy can't transfer from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...it simply can't happen and any claim to the contrary is false and completely unprovable.



IanC said:


> and if you could be so kind to answer a few questions about the redstar/bluestar scenario.
> 1. would it make a difference if the red star was a red giant? the nuclear core in red giants are 'burning' elements other than hydrogen at a much higher temperature. is it the internal temp that matters or just the surface temp?
> 2. what wavelengths are forbidden? the graph of emissions for stars are composed of almost identical  wavelengths. are you saying that IR wavelengths from the hotter star are allowed to be emitted while the UV wavelengths from the cooller star are forbidden?



Easy answer.  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. 



IanC said:


> and one other thing. light from even nearby stars takes a finite amount of time to cross distance. there are many chaotic processes that make it impossible to predict the exact location of matter in the future. therefore you are implying that _all_ photons are _virtual photons_ and only become real when they actually contact a bit of matter, like the force carrying photons of the electric or magnetic force. is that your position?




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. 

I don't need to be able to explain the process any more than I need to be able to explain gravity...the second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm.  If you can prove that it will...actual proof as opposed to some "thought experiment" I am all ears.  Got any observed, measured proof that energy will move from cool to warm?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> I love it!  The sock acknowledging the drone!



Are you sure it isn't two socks talking to each other?


----------



## numan (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Earth, being a lower temperature object than the sun can not radiate energy to the sun.


Well, I think that says it all.

The man (if such he be) is clearly a raving lunatic.
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 15, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Earth, being a lower temperature object than the sun can not radiate energy to the sun.
> ...



Do you believe the earth radiates energy to the surface of the sun where it gets absorbed and causes the sun to warm further?


----------



## westwall (Apr 15, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Earth, being a lower temperature object than the sun can not radiate energy to the sun.
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Do you believe the earth radiates energy to the surface of the sun where it gets absorbed and causes the sun to warm further?



That's exactly what happens, though the the amount of warming it causes on the sun will be too small to be measurable.

And no, the second law doesn't forbid it at all. Your whackaloon misinterpretation of the second law may forbid it, but the universe is not constrained in any way by your bizarre fantasies.

Go on, tell us again how entire stars shut down in a certain direction because, as you claim, the second law commands it. That may be the dumbest single thing I've ever seen posted on the internet.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> That is an assumption. There is no law that says that an object "must" radiate in all directions.



Yes, there is. Learn some statistical thermodynamics, will ya? Molecules emit in random directions. Given how many molecules there are in an object, the object must radiate in all directions.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Yes, yes Admiral "nuke" "I don't wear black ever" fraud.. and "you" claim is still ignorant and irrelevant... Cry me a river fraud, fake, phony, con-man, Bullshitter..
> 
> What's next? Gonna tell us all about your adventures aboard the only boat in the navy that lets any old swabby man the reactors? What was it called? The USS Lollipop?



Your wacky claim _still_ violates conservation of energy.

Are you ever going to talk about science again, or do you plan to spend the rest of your life here just blubbering about how I humiliated you?

And gslack? Let's talk science. Do you agree with SSDD's insane rant about how a red star will shut down photon production on the side facing a blue star? A simple yes or no will do.

Westwall, you should answer that as well.


----------



## IanC (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> It is no more crazy than saying that the atmosphere can radiate energy back to the surface of the earth and cause it to warm.  We are talking about the same principle here.  What makes one crazy and one rational?  If you think about it for just a second, the mirror makes more sense (even though it is impossible} because it is a hell of a lot better reflector than a trace gas in the atmosphere.




there is a difference between energy and useful heat differentials. the atmosphere does send radiation down towards the surface which cancels out a fraction of the outgoing surface radiation. energy from the Sun is what warms the surface, not the energy from the atmosphere which of course is in a two way equilibrium with the surface with the net movement of energy being outwards to space.

there is a (purposeful) misunderstanding over the meaning of the term 'warmed'. the atmosphere causes conditions that reduce the loss of IR radiation from the surface which in turn allows the energy input from the Sun to raise the surface temperature higher. the atmosphere does not _directly_ warm the surface, except perhaps in a very localized way and for a very short time until overall outward radiation loss returns the temp to stasis.


----------



## IanC (Apr 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > and if you could be so kind to answer a few questions about the redstar/bluestar scenario.
> ...



please attempt to answer the questions. are you now saying that stars are not capable of doing work?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That is an assumption. There is no law that says that an object "must" radiate in all directions.
> ...



Prove that.  You can do it by showing observed, measured examples of backradiation.

Lets see them.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> there is a (purposeful) misunderstanding over the meaning of the term 'warmed'. the atmosphere causes conditions that reduce the loss of IR radiation from the surface which in turn allows the energy input from the Sun to raise the surface temperature higher. the atmosphere does not _directly_ warm the surface, except perhaps in a very localized way and for a very short time until overall outward radiation loss returns the temp to stasis.



The IPCC documents describe the greenhouse effect as energy being radiated down from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and causing warming beyond that which the sun can provide on its own.

Do you think the earth radiates energy to the sun which causes the sun to warm by even the smallest fraction of a joule?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> please attempt to answer the questions. are you now saying that stars are not capable of doing work?



The energy they emit is capable of doing work.  No work is being done by simply radiating.  Radiating may be the result of work, but radiating iself isn't work and that is all we are talking about here.  The second law is all you need to answer that question...it says that energy won't transfer spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.  How are you going to get it to happen in order to satisfy the predictions of your hypothesis?


----------



## IanC (Apr 16, 2013)

here are emission curves for three different temps in the star range.

it is easy to see that each curve has almost the exact same range of wavelengths as the others, although the higher temps produce more radiation and the average wavelength is in a higher energy band.

this type of graph makes the second law of thermodynamics easy to understand when dealing with radiation. although the range is almost exactly the same for each temperature, the amount of radiation at any particular wavelength is always larger for the hotter object. this is why heat alway flows from warmer to cooler. if you subtract the graph of the cooler object from the warmer one you get a visual amount of radiation which is available to be transfered to the cooler object. note well that all three curves produce photons in the full range, with the exception of very few extra high photons at the very left side. a 500nm photon produced by any of the temps is indistinguishable from the others.






here is a graph for temps more likely to be found under earthly conditions. same basic shape, same relationship as to why heat flows one way, towards the cooler because the warmer object is always producing more radiation in every range.


are the earth's surface and atmosphere perfect black bodies? of course not. I reccomend Glickstein at WUWT (Google Image Result for http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gw-heat-light-detail.jpg or the guy at Science of Doom (Google Image Result for http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/goody-p4.png?w=500) depending on which blogs you read. better yet, read both sets of article. better still read the comments after the articles as well. and the other articles on the same subject by the authors. and more articles on the subject by different authors. etc, etc, etc, until you understand the basics, understand the differences according to which side is talking, and then make up your own mind.


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, yes Admiral "nuke" "I don't wear black ever" fraud.. and "you" claim is still ignorant and irrelevant... Cry me a river fraud, fake, phony, con-man, Bullshitter..
> ...



Sorry phony, I don't care what you want. I post how I please..


----------



## polarbear (Apr 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


And in the process he invented more "newspeak".
Arctoid and "global heating".
Besides all that it`s his pet, the Siamese cat who incessantly harps on what kind of rags Navy personnel are wearing in the engine decks.
Watch the pattern. 
They are all silent for almost 20 hours. But as soon as anyone writes a subject related post the entire Numan crowd appears seconds later after you  post something relevant.
First "Saigon" chimes in and he is supposed to be in a time zone where normal people are no longer glued to their PC .
Then he digs up something SSDD said over a week ago and wants to start up an argument about a detail which he ignored for 7 days or more, just to bury what has been posted minutes ago.
The weird Siamese cat does the same thing. Minutes after you post something informative about the subject that`s being discussed it pops up and plasters a dozen or more one liner posts into any active thread in order to spam it with as many screen pages as possible. Mostly insults and sucker punches hoping somebody will fall for it and oblige that bitch to change the subject yet again. 
It`s a typical libtard tactic. 
If they get cornered they dig up stuff like "guess who was a corporate lawyer for Monsanto 40 years ago" . Or that the "animal abuser" Romney had his dog riding on the roof rack decades ago when the dog had diarrhea when Americans wanted to know what happened in Benghazi. 
I`ll post a reply to IanC and SSDD later tonight and watch how fast the asshole crowd piles in moments later with a ton of spam and sucker punches. It`s  the same predictable stimulus and response effect as you would get poking lab rat brains with a probe.
They really squirm when you pin prick their inflated ego...then their involuntary spasms continue for almost a month


----------



## Meister (Apr 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12.



Your Skepticalscience.com site?

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science

Keep up the good work....they like a good tool.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> here are emission curves for three different temps in the star range.
> 
> it is easy to see that each curve has almost the exact same range of wavelengths as the others, although the higher temps produce more radiation and the average wavelength is in a higher energy band.
> 
> ...



For now just a short response, because I`m certain the AGW spammers will bury it with as much of their garbage which has zilch to do with what you just posted. There is nothing wrong with any of your statements in this post.
*However:*
If you just "eyeball" the emission curves then they appear more similar than they really are..
Look at the Y-axis "Relative Brightness" and note the wavelength where each curve peaks.
If you got a CAD drag that graph into a window and examine each curve a little bit closer:






The 350 nm peak of the 7500 K curve has a Rel.Br. which is 11 times higher than the 650 nm peak of the 4500 K curve.
It only takes a few mouse clicks with a CAD program and you get the integral for each curves.
The relation ship is the same as for the relative peak values. 
But none of that takes into consideration what should be the third dimension, which is completely missing on that graph.
And that is the energy increase of photons as the wavelength gets shorter. You could draw in that line yourself .
A 350 nm photon carries ~ 1.9 times the energy of a 650 nm photon.
Plot that relationship on the Z-axis which is not on that graph and then you can cube the graph which the familiar E= proportional relation ship with T in fact does.
From that extrapolate down to 20 C and the 15 000 nanometer photons that CO2 "re-emits" or "back radiates" with each of these photons .Then cube that graph again and you will notice that the CO2 "back radiation"  effect is as miniscule as a fly having a head on collision with a freight train going in the opposite direction.
Last not least be aware that this graph is for IDEAL black bodies in a theoretical IDEAL vacuum. Only under IDEAL condition can an object convert heat energy quantitatively into light with that spectral distribution.
In the real world a  30mW Laser 532 nanometers needed 250mW at 650 nm for equal brightness.
That's *8.3 times more power.*..way more than what it would take  with an ideal black body for a wavelength spectral span of only  118 nanometers...*which is only 1 tick unit increment on the X-axis on that 2 dimensional graph

*I should paste in what the Siamese cat and "Saigon" buried yesterday within minutes after I posted it:
The distinguishing difference between the terms _kinetic energy_ and _thermal energy_ is that thermal energy is the _mean_ energy of disordered, i.e. random, motion of the particles or the oscillations in the system. The conversion of energy of ordered motion to thermal energy results from collisions.

For gaseous systems, the factor _f_, the number of degrees of freedom, commonly has the value 3 in the case of the monatomic gas, 5 for many diatomic gases, and 7 for larger molecules at ambient temperatures. In general however, it is a function of the temperature of the system as internal modes of motion, vibration, or rotation become available in higher energy regimes
*Today's narrow definition of heat in physics contrasts with its use in common language, in some engineering disciplines, and in the historical scientific development of thermodynamics*






sqrt (3 *  Kelvin *  Blz. constant(1.3805*10^- 23 J/K)  divided by molecular mass of air 28.9 g/mol (*4.799*10^-26)  =average V is 500 meters per second at 300 K*.
When you heat a gas by 1 deg then the average molecular speed increases by almost 30 meters per second and expands in an open system as a consequence.
It does so against a 1 atm pressure and that means work was performed, consuming energy...which in turn is no longer available to produce it`s energy equivalent in photons


----------



## polarbear (Apr 16, 2013)

Meister said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12.
> ...


Global Warming Petition Project


> 31,487 American scientists have signed this      petition,
> including 9,029 with PhDs


Engineers can`t make a living just by publishing papers. They have to use cutting edge science to design systems that actually function.
Cooling to near absolute Zero K with high energy tunable Lasers:









Laser Cooling of Solids


> It is possible to cool a material by anti-Stokes fluorescence. *This  simply means that the material emits photons which have a higher mean  energy than those it absorbs.* The energy difference arises from thermal  excitations in the sample. Effectively, heat is converted into light,  which leaves the material and is dumped onto a heat sink elsewhere.
> The cooling efficiency can be defined as the ratio of the cooling  power in the active material to the input electric power to the pump  light source.


And that simply exploits what was mentioned by many engineers that commented on low energy photons being "absorbed" by a black-body resonator which at the hotter temperature is forced to emit most of it`s photons at a higher energy level (shorter wave length).





Something AGW "scientists" keep *denying. 
..but call us "Denialists"...which is a "Saigon",Siamese Cat, and "Numan newspeak" superlative for 19th century AGW(-stone- age-"science") deniers. All they got is Roy Spencer "thought experiments" and wacky "computer models"
Engineers or "Denialist dévotes" as the "erudite Numan" calls our "occult" don`t deny anything else they would all be unemployed in short order.
None would get another paycheck if all they did so far, was making silly video game animations  ( they call "computer models") of spinning globes that heat up with 380 ppm CO2.
*
*Quote: Originally Posted by numan 







*


> *Advice on avoiding denialist predators
> 
> *Just go to the page which lists all my postings, and then read only  those. then you will have the wheat without the chaff, and the  barbarians will be defeated.
> 
> The posters -- *mamooth, Dot Com, editec, Dugdale_Jukes, Old Rocks, joewp*  -- have demonstrated the ability to make rational comments on this  subject. It would be good to link to the Postings Pages of these  thoughtful people, too.


They go insane when I post pictures of Greenland and compare them with what Greenland looked like when the first wooden ships navigated through the Nares Strait all the way up to where CFS Alert is..which was named after Admiral Nares HMS Alert.
Found some good pictures today in "Der Spiegel.de" when Stephan Oth retraced his grandfathers footsteps on Greenland being diligent even when to be where what day of the year exactly 100 years later:
Opas Eisberg von Stephan Orth: Sensationsfund auf dem Dachboden - SPIEGEL ONLINE





Same spot now:






*And exactly 100 years ago*:

















I got pictures from Fort Conger. 















When Greely was there they went Duck hunting. Now it`s too cold for any ducks to venture this far north.
And when Greely was there there was no ice on "them there hills" either:





But all around that area we find huge trees and tree stumps that should not exist according to the hockey stick theory:





Every time I post pictures from Greenland the "skepticalscience" dot comers  freak out and call it a "rant, that has nothing to do with global warming"..."Numan" already calls it "global heating"...
The more pissed off they get the more amusing it gets for me.
I`m actually looking forward to see how they will enrich the English language with even more leftwingnut "newspeak" to add to their hatred and ever more intense tirades


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2013)

That would be because your pictures of Greenland have nothing to do with global warming. They're just random pictures of Greenland. My vacation photos have as much relevance.

Say, why don't you something unusual for you, and try discussing science, instead of running from the science by way of picture-spamming?

Let's start with your interpretation of the second law.

SSDD says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star.

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

Try to reign in the BS, and restrict your answer to the either the single word "correct" or "incorrect".


----------



## westwall (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> That would be because your pictures of Greenland have nothing to do with global warming. They're just random pictures of Greenland. My vacation photos have as much relevance.
> 
> Say, why don't you something unusual for you, and try discussing science, instead of running from the science by way of picture-spamming?
> 
> ...









They are only irrelevent to a science denier such as yourself.  Polarbears photo's show quite clearly that Greenland has been MUCH warmer in the not too distant past, something that Mann and Co. have tried to erase from the historical record...like all good revisionists do...

Eh mr. neo nazi?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> That would be because your pictures of Greenland have nothing to do with global warming. They're just random pictures of Greenland. My vacation photos have as much relevance.
> 
> Say, why don't you something unusual for you, and try discussing science, instead of running from the science by way of picture-spamming?
> 
> ...


I know it bugs the hell out of you and the "erudite Numan" when I post pictures because he whines that his PC takes forever to load ....which explains why you took more than 1 minute to get out of the kitty litter box and start crapping in here.
Last edited by mamooth; Today at 05:59 PM. 
This time 6 minutes after I was done. Usually you had 5 or more posts about your "Meow I used to run nuclear reactors".
We are all waiting for you to post your service record.


> Let's start with your interpretation of the second law.
> 
> SSDD says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star.
> 
> Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?


How dumb can you get. I already posted a reply.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-63.html#post7099220
Was it too complicated for you?
A whole bunch of people read it already and none of them had a problem with it.


> Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?


1.) I`m not like you and don`t sit here all day and read everything every person on your lengthy hate list writes.
2.) Where do you get the idea that you can tell me *how *to answer your question "correct or incorrect".
3.) It`s the wrong question. SSDD did not publish "skepticalscience" blogs or any of the gobbledygook "climatology" crap you keep quoting and posting "Like all ski races had to be cancelled in Greenland and here is a satellite picture"
4.) What the fuck dies a distant red and a blue star have to do with the earth's atmosphere.
Ooops my microwave just dinged and my road coffee is ready.
The snowplow even did my driveway. It`s a balmy -5C and bright sunshine.
So now I`m off "running away" (with my wife) to town and we'll have a nice sea food dinner at my favorite restaurant.
You`ll have to find somebody else to pay attention to you.
Go watch some global warming color cartoons @ skeptical "science" or something. I can`t sit here all day because you want me too, else my wife might start wondering what`s taking me so long to start my car.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Polarbears photo's show quite clearly that Greenland has been MUCH warmer in the not too distant past,



No they don't. Where do you get such nonsense?



> something that Mann and Co. have tried to erase from the historical record...like all good revisionists do...



Yes, we know you cult commands you to lie about Mann, and we know you would never dare disobey your cult's orders. No need to remind us.



> Eh mr. neo nazi?



I get all tingly when you play internet tough guy.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Was it too complicated for you?



It was unreadable gibberish. That would be why not a single person referred to it. No one read it, because it was unreadable gibberish.



> A whole bunch of people read it already and none of them had a problem with it.



Nobody read it. That's the point. No one reads anything your write, because it's just mountains of crap. If there's something intelligent buried inside the mountain of crap, it's never worth the effort to dig it out of the crap, thus everyone just skips over the crap.

When you ask me questions, I answer them clearly, briefly and directly. That's because I want people read what I say. Understand the virtue of brevity. If you keep posting mountains of crap, people will continue to keep skipping over it all.

Now, let's see if you've learned that simple lesson. Answer this very simple question with "correct" or "incorrect".

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect when he says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star?


----------



## Meister (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Polarbears photo's show quite clearly that Greenland has been MUCH warmer in the not too distant past,
> ...



Read up on Greenland, M. 

Climate helped drive Vikings from Greenland | Brown University News and Events


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> That would be because your pictures of Greenland have nothing to do with global warming. They're just random pictures of Greenland. My vacation photos have as much relevance.
> 
> Say, why don't you something unusual for you, and try discussing science, instead of running from the science by way of picture-spamming?
> 
> ...



You still haven't caught on yet have you... You still have no idea why people generally dislike you... Don't have a clue why we call you fake or phony.. Completely oblivious aren't you..

ITS YOU JUNIOR! ROFL

You act like a child desperate for attention. With you it's always Oh,oh look at me, look at me. It's impossible to take you seriously, or believe your claims because you just aren't believable dude.. Seriously, go google or photoshop a better forgery, that one's unreadable...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> You still haven't caught on yet have you... You still have no idea why people generally dislike you... Don't have a clue why we call you fake or phony.. Completely oblivious aren't you..



Would you please restrict your creepy obsessive psychostalking of me to just one single thread? That would currently be the "human footprint" thread. Thank you.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2013)

Meister said:


> Read up on Greenland



It's warmer now in Greenland than it was during the Medieval Warm Period

Oh, you didn't know that? You probably should read up on Greenland.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Was it too complicated for you?
> ...


I guess you need a lesson in basic high school physics.
I hope you ate some cat food so that your little brain`s neurons fire up because most of them seem to be on the blink.
I had a great evening,steak & lobster. Unfortunately our table guests kept talking about the Boston bombing and we were glad that these horrific acts have not yet spilled over into Canada. While they were wondering what kind of psycho would do such a thing I was reminded of your friend "Numan" who said if he knew how he would like to create a bio-weapon that could sterilize most people who he considers beneath his "erudite" demi-God status. I`ve seen that you were at it while I was out and called some people neo-nazis and all kinds of stuff.
So there is little hope that you would be able to think outside your filthy litter box. But I`ll give it a try. It may not do you any good but all the rest who read my answer to you will realize at once just how fucking stupid this question was that I`m supposed to answer with on e word...either "correct" or "incorrect".


> Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect when he says a red star won't radiate in the direction of a blue star?


Well you dumb fuck if that`s all you understand that`s your problem, not mine. I don`t want to spend all evening digging around what SSDD said EXACTLY and I don`t believe anything that you say he said, because you lied the same way about me.
I`ll take a best guess and assume SSDD said that photons from a  red star don`t add heat to a blue star.
Let's pick the nearest red star, Betelgeuse which is "only" about 640 light years from us and the nearest star our sun which is far from being a "blue star". Yet even the sun's outer mantle is almost all hydrogen in a plasma state. That means there are no electrons in a ground state that could possibly absorb any photons from a cooler red star.
I know that for a fact because I did a lot of atomic absorption spectroscopy and when too many atoms are ionized you get sweet fuck all as an absorption signal and when the whole lot is ionized as in a plasma not a single photon is absorbed from the corresponding spectral line light source
Atomic absorption spectroscopy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Ionization  &#8211; depending on the ionization potential of the analyte atoms and the  energy available in a particular flame, atoms might be in part converted  to gaseous ions.
> Each of these stages includes the risk of interference in case the  degree of phase transfer is different for the analyte in the calibration  standard and in the sample. Ionization is generally undesirable, as it  reduces the number of atoms that is available for measurement, i.e., the  sensitivity


We have to mix in ionization "buffers" to avoid excessive ionization at the temperature it takes to get an atomic ion to the "ground state" where it has the electron that can absorb a photon.
So how many "ground state" Hydrogen atoms do you think are in a plasma D'OH ?





*Just like you he is an expert in physics and "used to run nuclear power plants".
*The difference between you and Homer is, that Homer might know how to run 2 turbine generator sets in sync at the same rpm and phase angle.
I bet you cant even run your right index finger in a right circle on the table and do a circle to the left under the table with your right foot at the same time.
* When the temperature of a REAL body gets hot enough to ionize then all you got is EMISSION, there is no more ABSORPTION and sure as hell not on a star which has a mantle that exists entirely  in the plasma state
*


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I guess you need a lesson in basic high school physics.



There's your problem. This is way beyond high school physics, but high school physics is as far as you go.



> I hope you ate some cat food so that your little brain`s neurons fire up because most of them seem to be on the blink.
> I had a great evening,steak & lobster....



Please restrict your grandpa Simpson type stories to a more appropriate venue.



> I`ll take a best guess and assume SSDD said that photons from a  red star don`t add heat to a blue star.



No, he said the red star won't even emit photons in the direction of the blue star. You seem to disagree. Good. I won't press you, because I know it causes you physical pain to even think of saying that another member of your cult is incorrect, and that the dirty liberals are right.



> That means there are no electrons in a ground state that could possibly absorb any photons from a cooler red star.



You're assuming ground state absorption is the only way for photons to be absorbed. That's some fine high-school level physics there, but the universe is more complicated than that. Absorption of photons by a plasma is a very complicated topic that dives deep into quantum mechanics, and is beyond the scope of anyone here.

However we know it happens because ... conservation of energy. The energy of the photons has to go somewhere. It can't just vanish.



> I know that for a fact because



Because you again assumed your limited knowledge had to be the entire answer, and thus didn't look any further.


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > You still haven't caught on yet have you... You still have no idea why people generally dislike you... Don't have a clue why we call you fake or phony.. Completely oblivious aren't you..
> ...



Oh junior stop all the drama.. no ones stalking you. If anything you are the stalker here. With your obsessive "bet me  to post my DD214, go on bet me" nonsense...You practically begged us to look at it and when you finally do it's a blurry mess we can't make heads or tails of.



Lighten up Admiral, you aren't even that important to anybody..


----------



## mamooth (Apr 16, 2013)

Again, please restrict your creepy stalker routine to a single thread, the "human footprint" thread. To quote the forum rules:

"No Cross posting. Cross posting is posting the same content repeatedly or in multiple forums. Pick one."

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## gslack (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Again, please restrict your creepy stalker routine to a single thread, the "human footprint" thread. To quote the forum rules:
> 
> "No Cross posting. Cross posting is posting the same content repeatedly or in multiple forums. Pick one."
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation.



Don't be a baby junior. I didn't post the same content tool.. It may have had the same point (you being an obsessive moron), but the content was different..

Like right now I will call you Admiral Poopey-pants. Now look and see if I called you that in another thread..


----------



## westwall (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Polarbears photo's show quite clearly that Greenland has been MUCH warmer in the not too distant past,
> ...








From historical fact nimrod.  We know when it was warmer in Greenland and When it wasn't.  We also get to use carbon dating to fix the time frame of those logs and voila! they are thousands of years old and could only have grown in that area when it was much warmer....like the Holocene Thermal Max for instance.

And once again for the learning impaired (such as yourself) we don't have to do anything to mock Mann...he is his own worst enemy.  I look forward to his being shot down in flames with his incredibly moronic lawsuit against Dr. Ball.

Hoist on his own petard and you're too fucking stupid to realise it....you must be one of his janitors....


----------



## Saigon (Apr 16, 2013)

Westwall - 

So the climate records dating back to the Holocene Era are accurate? 

Would you mind providing your source for those, because they could perhaps provide a useful, objectie basis for discussion.


----------



## westwall (Apr 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Read up on Greenland
> ...





  No it's not you moron.  They were able to grow things there that we can't grow even now.  The same go's for Scotland where they were able to grow wine grapes during the MWP you fool.  We KNOW this because of the Domesday Book, which was a tax record of all the farms and settlements in the UK so that the King could get his money.

Before you go making a complete ass of yourself you might want to do just a _little_ bit of research.  Just a little....I know it taxes your tiny little mind, but really...just do it...


----------



## westwall (Apr 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> So the climate records dating back to the Holocene Era are accurate?
> 
> Would you mind providing your source for those, because they could perhaps provide a useful, objectie basis for discussion.







No, the records aren't "accurate" in the sense that you would like to use them.  However, those logs certainly exist.  They have certainly been dated, and they certainly weren't dropped there by aliens.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 17, 2013)

Westwall -

Is there a flow of logic in these two statements?



> We know when it was warmer in Greenland and When it wasn't





> No, the records aren't "accurate"


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Is there a flow of logic in these two statements?
> 
> ...








Of course there is.  Tree's grow within a certain temperature band.  In fact some can only grow within a certain temp and altitude band.  If the temps are too cold they simply can't grow.  

You guys like to fantasize that you can measure the global temperature within tenths of a degree C which is silly.  So in that respect the temp record is not "accurate".  But it IS accurate in terms of relationships with current temps.

Your buddy Mann has built an entire "record" based on upside down trends of tree rings that are really adept at measuring the amount of WATER that the tree received...but not so good at telling us the temperatures...that is based on a whole lot of hand waving...as evidenced by the demolition of his statistical methods...


----------



## Saigon (Apr 17, 2013)

Westwall - 

I do agree with you about variations within one tenth of one degree. And of course the further we go back the less accurate the records are, particularly once we start combining data compiled from different methodologies. I have always found Mann's research interesting and quite useful when taken as evidence of general trends, but of little value for anything more detailed.


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I do agree with you about variations within one tenth of one degree. And of course the further we go back the less accurate the records are, particularly once we start combining data compiled from different methodologies. I have always found Mann's research interesting and quite useful when taken as evidence of general trends, but of little value for anything more detailed.







You find research based on a single tree, within a rather large grove of trees, useful?  Why?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 17, 2013)

Westwall -

I'm never sure whether this is an issue of literacy in that you sometimes simply do not understand what is posted, but if you wish to discuss something I posted - try to find something that I did actually post.


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I'm never sure whether this is an issue of literacy in that you sometimes simply do not understand what is posted, but if you wish to discuss something I posted - try to find something that I did actually post.







You said you find Manns "research" interesting.  I'm asking why you find it interesting based on the fact that it is basically non-existant.  Feel free to do your own research on his methodology, I suggest you look at more than just revisionist sites, they don't do a very good job of reporting the current state of affairs as regards him......I wonder if his support for those sites might color their reporting?

What do you think about that?


----------



## Saigon (Apr 17, 2013)

Westwall - 

Please read what I posted, and respond to that. 

I simply can not respond to questions or comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Please read what I posted, and respond to that.
> 
> I simply can not respond to questions or comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.







I believe you wrote this...yes?

"I have always found Mann's research interesting and quite useful when taken as evidence of general trends, but of little value for anything more detailed"

I asked why you found it interesting when it has been shown to be crap.


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > here are emission curves for three different temps in the star range.
> ...



thanks for a short and concise comment (by polarbear standards). 

the virial theorum (sp?) for maximizing efficiency between kinetic and potential energy in the atmosphere is an underutilized tool for understanding. I am still holding out for a Nobel to be given to the mad hungarian.

the interesting and useful thing about Planck curves is that they keep their basic shape and relationship throughout the range of temperatures. a twenty degree difference in temp looks the same at 300 or 3000, just the position on the x axis is different. most temperature differentials that drive the climate are small, especially if you are looking at microscopic reactions and distances. the idea that radiation is somehow forbidden from the nominally lower temp area is preposterous.

polarbear, your discussion about different laser wavelengths is interesting but not really applicable to earth conditions. not many 3000K temperature differentials exist for any appreciable amount of time. but 0.003K differentials are as common as grains of sand on a beach.

....

someone commented on how the Sun would not be able to absorb an IR photon because there are no ground state electrons available to interact. interesting idea. what are the possibilities for the photon? 1. absorption of the photon with the energy stored for later emission. 2. reflection. 3. the photon traverses the Sun and comes out the other side.

how could you tell the difference between a reflected, naturally emitted or simply transversed photon? any form would be measured as radiation from the Sun, therefore it has 'added' to the Sun's total energy, even if it is a totally insignificant portion.


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...





Saigon-  Westwall is referencing the single tree (YAD061) that singlehandedly gives the Yamal proxy its hockey stick shape after being massaged by Mann's rather bizarre methodology. Yamal is also one of the proxies that has not been updated with additional cores even though they are available, quite likely because the new info does not tell the 'right story'.











and this rather pertinent comment- 


> Guest comment by Caleb:
> Ive worked outside since I was a small boy in the 1950s, and have cut down hundreds of trees. I always check out the rings, for every tree has its own story.
> Ive seen some rather neat tricks pulled off by trees, especially concerning how far they can reach with their roots to find fertilizer or moisture. For example, sugar maple roots will reach, in some cases, well over a hundred feet, and grow a swift net of roots in the peat moss surrounding a ladys azaleas root ball, so that the azalea withers, for the maple steals all its water.
> Ive also seen tired old maples perk right up, when a pile of manure is heaped out in a pasture a hundred feet away, and later have seen the trees rings, when it was cut down, show its growth surged while that manure was available.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

polarbear said:


> > Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?
> 
> 
> 1.) I`m not like you and don`t sit here all day and read everything every person on your lengthy hate list writes.



Don't worry about hurting my feelings polar bear.  I am a grown up and don't get my panties in a wad if someone doesn't agree with me.

As to the radiation, I may not have correctly phrased what I think.  The second law says that heat won't move from a cool object to a warm object.  relatively speaking, a red star is a cooler object than a blue star so heat won't move from the red star to the blue star if the second law of thermodynamics can be believed.  My take on that is that radiation from the cooler source simply doesn't move in the direction of the warmer source just like a marble placed on an incline won't roll up.  Maybe the red star does radiate in the direction of the blue star but doesn't ever get there since the cooler object can not transfer heat or energy to the warmer object.  I find simply not radiating along those particular vectors easier to explain that the energy starting out in that direction and not making it to the blue star.

In any even, energy can't move from the red star to the blue star...how that happens exactly  doesn't require explanation any more than gravity...which we also can't fully explain even though we have great experience with it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

Meister said:


> Read up on Greenland, M.
> 
> Climate helped drive Vikings from Greenland | Brown University News and Events



It wouldn't do for him to read up on the history of Greenland...it doesn't mesh with his beliefs.  In that respect...warmers are a lot like 6000 year old earth fundamentalist Christians.  They beleive what the believe even though the evidence just doesn't support their beliefs..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Read up on Greenland
> ...



I think it is you who should read up a bit:

Perner, K., Moros, M., Lloyd, J.M., Kuijpers, A., Telford, R.J. and Harff, J. 2011. Centennial scale benthic forminiferal record of late Holocene oceanographic variability in Disko Bugt, West Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 2815-2816.



> .....where one of the warm intervals was said by them to constitute "the time period of the 'Medieval Climate Anomaly'," which they graphically identify as occurring over the period AD 1000-1500. And their proxy-temperature graph indicates that that entire period was significantly warmer than the Current Warm Period has been to date, due to the huge cooling that was experienced during the Little Ice Age.



Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J. 2001. Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. Journal of Quaternary Science 16: 299-307. 



> it can be seen that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period peaked and hovered around -18.5°C for three centuries between ~AD 800 to 1100. Temperatures of the Current Warm Period also peaked at around the same temperature, but only for a few short decades in the early 1900s. Presently, temperatures based upon this method are about 1.5°C colder than the peak warmth of Medieval Times.




Kaplan, M.R., Wolfe, A.P. and Miller, G.H. 2002. Holocene environmental variability in southern Greenland inferred from lake sediments. Quaternary Research 58: 149-159. 



> Results indicate that neoglacial cooling began around 2000 years ago, but was interrupted by two reversals, one between 650 and 1050 AD (the Medieval Warm Period) and another between 1450 and 1670 (the Little Medieval Warm Period). Based upon biogenic silica data plotted by the authors in their Figures 4 and 5 (Figure 5 reproduced below), from which relative temperature can be inferred, it is clear that the current warm period has not attained the warmth of Medieval times.




Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J. 2001. Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. Journal of Quaternary Science 16: 299-307. 



> it can be seen that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1100) were about 1°C warmer than those of the Current Warm Period.




Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Reech, N., Gundestrup, N., Clausen, H.B. and Hammer, C.U. 1975. Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man. Nature 255: 24-28. 



> From the authors' Figure 2, we have identified the Medieval Warm Period as a time of significant warmth between approximately AD 730 and 1030. Also, since the authors' data ended in 1974, we used more recent (1979-2005) temperatures derived from satellite data to extrapolate the temperature difference between medieval and modern times, estimating that peak Medieval Warmth was about 0.6°C greater than it is presently.




Jennings, A.E. and Weiner, N.J. 1996. Environmental change in eastern Greenland during the last 1300 years: evidence from foraminifera and lithofacies in Nansen Fjord, 68°N. The Holocene 6: 179-191.



> Results of the analyses revealed the presence of a Medieval Warm Period that occurred between about AD 730 and 1110. The authors describe the climate during this time as "the warmest and most stable in the last millennium including the present day," in which sea-ice in the fjord was "never or rarely" present in the summer.




Thes are only a few studies indicating that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature.  These specifically apply to Greenland.  It is the overwhelming body of evidence like this that makes mann's claim of a local MWP so idiotic.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon-  Westwall is referencing the single tree (YAD061) that singlehandedly gives the Yamal proxy its hockey stick shape after being massaged by Mann's rather bizarre methodology. Yamal is also one of the proxies that has not been updated with additional cores even though they are available, quite likely because the new info does not tell the 'right story'.



You can bet that they don't hear much about that tree over at SS....or any of the other wacko sites where they get spoonfed.


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > > Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?
> ...



radiative photons (think light), once created to shed energy from an excited bit of matter, exist until they interact with another bit of matter.

reactive photons (force carriers for electromagnetic fields), only become real if there is a particle of matter able to accept it. 

interference patterns along a vector from one star to another only exist if you measure them with, you guessed it, a detector made of matter. and similar to water waves, the light wave exits the interference area with the same characteristics as before it entered. there is no extinguishing of photons or transfer of energy.


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon-  Westwall is referencing the single tree (YAD061) that singlehandedly gives the Yamal proxy its hockey stick shape after being massaged by Mann's rather bizarre methodology. Yamal is also one of the proxies that has not been updated with additional cores even though they are available, quite likely because the new info does not tell the 'right story'.
> ...




indeed! but every time they have to twist in the wind trying to explain the 'curiosities' of methodology, like in the recent Marcott paper, everyone gets further informed about just how weak the evidence is, even the warmers. it is easy to get taken in when an expert uses confidence and jargon, all out of proportion to the strength of the evidence. a lot of them will be pissed when the whole doomsday scenario gets scaled down to next-to-nothing.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 17, 2013)

IanC said:


> someone commented on how the Sun would not be able to absorb an IR photon because there are no ground state electrons available to interact. interesting idea. what are the possibilities for the photon? 1. absorption of the photon with the energy stored for later emission. 2. reflection. 3. the photon traverses the Sun and comes out the other side.
> 
> how could you tell the difference between a reflected, naturally emitted or simply transversed photon? any form would be measured as radiation from the Sun, therefore it has 'added' to the Sun's total energy, even if it is a totally insignificant portion.



Good morning to you. 
B.t.w. My driveway got snowed under again today, so I`m waiting for the snowplow yet again and while I do,... I`ll respond.
Interesting question.
I never had the chance to be on the other side of a fusion reactor while somebody on the other side turns on an IR source and measure how much IR is coming through the plasma in addition to the emission of the plasma.
The only thing I did do was when the first dual channel AA, a Jarell Ash 800 came out was tuning one monochromator to the absorption line and the other to the emission line with multi element hollow cathodes while aspirating K, Na or Ca solutions.
On the absorption bands you got next to no absorption from the source unless you add an ionization suppressing agent.
Then you can measure absorption but on the 2.nd channel which was tuned to one of the emission lines of that element you can indeed see an increase in emission.
I have no way of telling if these additional photons made it straight through the sample path and came directly from the hollow cathode source or if they were first absorbed at the emission band an re-emitted along with the rest of the photons that were emitted by the hot enough atoms in the sample path.
It`s hard to to, because for absorption you turn the burner head so it`s aligned with the light path and for emission you turn it 90 degrees to get more light....no matter which way I played around with it the results were the same, but I doubt it that the photons from the cathode lamp "heated up" speak excited  the electrons at the emission band frequency any more than they were already pumped up with the air-acetylene flame.
Was that short enough for you, by your standards...
Hey you are not that critical about the lengths of  of the texts you quote in this forum. I always read the entire thing. You should see how long a single chapter is in the ASTM (forensic analysis) regulations how to do a spectral analysis for on element so that it can be accepted in a court of law


----------



## polarbear (Apr 17, 2013)

I think the best way to settle this "back radiation" argument in this forum once and for all, is by doing the Roy Spencer "Yes Virginia though experiment" for real. I can go to the U and beg one of my old friends at the chem faculty to lend me a lab desiccator





Then I`ll suspend a transistor for a base line experiment without the heat sink and in the "back radiation " mode with the heat sink.





It`s no problem to run wires through the vacuum pump connector and I can run power through the transistor.
I got all kinds of power transistors and heat sinks that have enough fins that should "back radiate" at each other and heat the transistor more than without the heat sink according to Roy and AGW "scientists" in general.
I got a vacuum pump that can get it down to about 8 mm Hg and that should be good enough to kill the "but it was convection" argument...which is the usual reality denier response.
I know the outcome because I tried it out over 10 years ago while I was in a lab, but never bothered to record it on video.
Any suggestions?
I`ll do it in about a month after we all agreed on the parameters and will adhere to them + have a witness authenticating it on camera.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I never had the chance to be on the other side of a fusion reactor while somebody on the other side turns on an IR source and measure how much IR is coming through the plasma in addition to the emission of the plasma.



I have. These fusion reactors are called "stars".

If one star is behind another relative to earth, the light from it doesn't go through the other star. Not on any frequency band.

So, by direct observation, we know with 100% certainty that all of the radiation of the one star is absorbed by the other star, and does not pass through.

Hence we also know with 100% certainty that a cooler object can radiate heat to a warmer object.

If you disagree, please explain why a star isn't transparent in the IR band to a star behind it.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I got all kinds of power transistors and heat sinks that have enough fins that should "back radiate" at each other and heat the transistor more than without the heat sink according to Roy and AGW "scientists" in general.



But no AGW scientists ever made that claim. You're the only one who ever made such an insane claim. Essentially, you're planning to run an experiment to prove your own claim is wrong.

It's obvious the heat sink will lower the temp of the transistor, even in a vacuum. The heat sink provides more area for radiation. Therefore, the temperature of it doesn't have to be as high to radiate the same energy as a hotter bare transistor.

If you wanted an experiment to measure back radiation, it would be tricky. You'd have to have two very differently shaped heat sinks, but with exactly the same surface area. One with fins, and one without. Very difficult to pull off, because of the odd shapes involved. If one could set up such a thing, the one with the fins would run slightly hotter in a vacuum.


----------



## numan (Apr 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> As to the radiation, I may not have correctly phrased what I think.


How could you, since you are not thinking?



SSDD said:


> The second law says that heat won't move from a cool object to a warm object.  relatively speaking, a red star is a cooler object than a blue star so heat won't move from the red star to the blue star if the second law of thermodynamics can be believed.  My take on that is that radiation from the cooler source simply doesn't move in the direction of the warmer source just like a marble placed on an incline won't roll up.  Maybe the red star does radiate in the direction of the blue star but doesn't ever get there since the cooler object can not transfer heat or energy to the warmer object.  I find simply not radiating along those particular vectors easier to explain that the energy starting out in that direction and not making it to the blue star.
> 
> In any even, energy can't move from the red star to the blue star...how that happens exactly  doesn't require explanation....


TOTAL entropy · · ·*TOTAL* entropy !!!! · · you absurd ignoramus!!

Thank you, SSDD, for one of the most masterly examples of idiotic pseudo-science that I have seen coming from a global heating Denialist!!
.


----------



## numan (Apr 17, 2013)

polarbear said:


> While they were wondering what kind of psycho would do such a thing I was reminded of your friend "Numan" who said if he knew how he would like to create a bio-weapon that could sterilize most people who he considers beneath his "erudite" demi-God status.


And you dare to complain that people lie about you,  when you tell such lies about me and about other people. You pathetic hypocrite.



polarbear said:


> Let's pick the nearest red star, Betelgeuse which is "only" about 640 light years from us and the nearest star our sun which is far from being a "blue star". Yet even the sun's outer mantle is almost all hydrogen in a plasma state. That means there are no electrons in a ground state that could possibly absorb any photons from a cooler red star.


"In a plasma state" means the gas is ionized; "in a ground state" means the gas is *not* ionized!! Which is it, you incoherent nincompoop!!!?



polarbear said:


> I know that for a fact because I did a lot of atomic absorption spectroscopy....


Heaven defend us from conceited technicians who imagine that they understand physics!! I am reminded of Mickey Mouse as the sorcerer's apprentice!! What an intellectual shambles!!



mamooth said:


> You're assuming ground state absorption is the only way for photons to be absorbed....
> 
> However we know it happens because ... conservation of energy. The energy of the photons has to go somewhere. It can't just vanish.


Oh, thank you, Mamooth, for some words of sense amidst the reams of rubbish these global heating Denialists spew forth!!

Yes, plasma consists of free, electically charged ions -- which means that they easily absorb energy from electromagnetic waves -- much more easily than if they were bound in electically neutral atoms!! That is what happens in a radio antenna, where electrons, because of Fermi-Dirac quantum mechanical effects, are free to absorb radio waves which are much, much longer than the electron particle size!! The tiny electrons absorb the energy by moving back-and-forth along relatively long distances in the antenna!!

The same thing happens in the plasma of a star! If the radio wave were not absorbed and then scattered by some particle -- then it would absurdly and magically pass through the entire mass and bulk of the star, for all the world like a neutrino passing through 40 light-years of lead!!

The most charitable interpretation I can imagine is that our frozen arctoid-brain Denialist has some confused and garbled memory of the Compton Scattering Effect which he mis-remembers from an introductory freshman physics class. Basically, an electron absorbing a photon experiences elastic re-coil and scatters a photon of a longer wave-length. That obviously must be so, since by re-coiling, the electron has taken energy away from whatever light-wave is scattered.

Must I belabor the point that, since the electron has absorbed energy in the scattering transaction, the material of which it is a part is therefore *"hotter"*?

Perhaps it will help the mentally challenged if I quote the final sentence of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the "Compton effect."



> The increase in wavelength, or Compton shift, *does not depend on the wavelength of the incident photon.*


_[emphasis added]_
.


----------



## gslack (Apr 17, 2013)

LOL, numan the self proclaimed genius, and his ward the boy wonder mammooth, both seem to believe in two- way energy flow. And by extrapolation believe in perfect machines and unlimited energy gain from a finite source..

Why don't you guys put these theories in action and end the planets energy problems?


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > I never had the chance to be on the other side of a fusion reactor while somebody on the other side turns on an IR source and measure how much IR is coming through the plasma in addition to the emission of the plasma.
> ...







What happened to the neutrino's?


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

numan said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > While they were wondering what kind of psycho would do such a thing I was reminded of your friend "Numan" who said if he knew how he would like to create a bio-weapon that could sterilize most people who he considers beneath his "erudite" demi-God status.
> ...








What a farce, the sock heaping accolades on the fraud.  How typical of libtard anti-science deniers.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> What happened to the neutrino's?



They go through everything. If you'd like to congratulate yourself over that nitpick, feel free, but it doesn't change the big picture. Photons from the cooler star are absorbed by the hotter star. You can't handwave away conservation of energy just because it's politically inconvenient.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

IanC said:


> radiative photons (think light), once created to shed energy from an excited bit of matter, exist until they interact with another bit of matter.



An electron is energy... as I understand, the smallest discrete bit of energy possible of electromagnetic radiation.  Energy can't move from cool to warm or low energy to high energy.  It remains to be proven whether or not a photon exists till it interacts with another bit of matter.   For that matter, it remains to be proven wheither photons exist at all.  You make a lot of statements as if they were fact, when in truth, they are not.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Hence we also know with 100% certainty that a cooler object can radiate heat to a warmer object.



So you are saying that the second law of thermodynamics is false?

By the way, insofar as the radiation of one star not passing through another...we know no such thing...and we don't know that a cool object can radiate heat to a warmer object...it has never, nor will it ever be observed.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

numan said:


> Thank you, SSDD, for one of the most masterly examples of idiotic pseudo-science that I have seen coming from a global heating Denialist!!
> .



Who would have thought that the statement of the second law was pseudoscience...you are even further out there than most warmers.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, numan the self proclaimed genius, and his ward the boy wonder mammooth, both seem to believe in two- way energy flow. And by extrapolation believe in perfect machines and unlimited energy gain from a finite source..
> 
> Why don't you guys put these theories in action and end the planets energy problems?



We should be able to power the planet with the backradiation from the atmosphere alone since climate science claims that it is more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun.  Strange that you can't measure that enormous amount of backradiation at ambient temperature but have no problem measuring the lesser amount coming in from the sun.  My bet is that you can't measure it because it isn't there.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What happened to the neutrino's?
> ...



And you can't handwave away the second law of thermodynamics just because it interferes with your religious beliefs...and politically motivated agenda.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> And you can't handwave away the second law of thermodynamics just because it interferes with your religious beliefs...and politically motivated agenda.



No I'm not. I'm just pointing out how laughably stupid your are in your whackaloon revision of the second law.

Now you, you seem to think the very stars themselves constantly flip on and off, just so you won't have to admit screwing up the science. Must be nice to have sentient stars as your buddies.


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What happened to the neutrino's?
> ...









Nitpick?  I think it's a siginificant error on your part.  Don't you?


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And you can't handwave away the second law of thermodynamics just because it interferes with your religious beliefs...and politically motivated agenda.
> ...








Poor little liar, caught lying yet again.  Just go away and come back as a different sock.

This one is filthy.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> No I'm not. I'm just pointing out how laughably stupid your are in your whackaloon revision of the second law.



What revision?  



> 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*.



http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

Exactly what have I said that revises that law in any way?  Be specific.



mamooth said:


> Now you, you see to think the very stars themselves constantly flip on and off, just so you won't have to admit screwing up the science. Must be nice to have sentient stars as your buddies.




You don't think stars are subject to the second law?  Interesting.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Amazing..
Just like this "explanation"...:


> Originally Posted by *mamooth
> 
> 
> *Alas, poor PolarBear fails to comprehend that Photobucket compresses the  images you upload to it. The file is 3 meg on my computer, 100k on  Photobucket. That is to say, Photobucket creates an entirely new file  from the one you send it, and puts an entirely new header on it.


Meanwhile every photobucket picture on their picture gallery has a header like this:
Picture Gallery Photos, Picture Gallery Pictures, Picture Gallery Images





*FF D8 FF E0  00 10 4A 46   ÿØÿà JF
49 46 00 01  02 00 00 01   IF   
00 01 00 00  FF E0 00 08      ÿà 
4F 63 61 64  30 30 FF DB   Ocad00ÿÛ
00 84 00 08  06 06 07 08      
07 08 08 08  08 09 09 08 

*
*JPG* - On first line : "JFIF"
*JPG* - From camera with EXIF data : On first line "Exif", two blocks, then "II

And here is the picture that sack of shit posted:
*3C 21 44 4F  43 54 59 50   <!DOCTYP
45 20 48 54  4D 4C 3E 0A   E HTML> 
3C 68 74 6D  6C 20 63 6C   <html cl
61 73 73 3D  22 69 73 5F   ass="is_
6D 6F 7A 20  69 73 5F 77   moz is_w
69 6E 20 6E  6F 2D 6A 73   in no-js
22 20 78 6D  6C 6E 73 3D   " xmlns=*
22 68 74 74  70 3A 2F 2F   "http://

ripped from a web page that was written with the XML HTML editor.
Nor has it been compressed to 100 k:


> The file is 3 meg on my computer, 100k on  Photobucket


Its 786432 bytes
 It does`n even have the right aspect ratio for that most cell phone cameras use.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2013)

PolarBear, keep all of your stalking me on the one thread that you've already trashed, the "Human Footprint" thread. You don't get to trash this thread too. I will not engage it here, you are breaking forum rules by spamming it, and I will report you for spamming if you keep it up. I've already reported Westwall for negging me twice in 6 hours. If you children can't behave, you're going to get a timeout.

Now Westwall, why do you think not talking about neutrinos is a problem? Energy-wise, they're an insignificant part of solar output, and since they don't interact with matter, they have zilch to do with the second law, thermodynamics or global warming. It appeared to be just a "gotcha" you tried to pull to distract people from how bizarre your version of the second law is.

You see, if your version of the second law requires that all thermodynamics and stellar physics over the past 50 years be declared null and void, then it's a good bet that your version of the second law is maybe just not quite right.

But heck, maybe it's true. Maybe the best and brightest minds of humanity are all wrong, and only a few bitter right-wing-fringe cranks know the real truth. Hey, it could happen. Really.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.


Bullshit. There is no proof whatsoever to back up that ridiculous assertion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2013)

Muhammed said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
> ...



Really? Here are what real scientists are presenting.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## gslack (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> PolarBear, keep all of your stalking me on the one thread that you've already trashed, the "Human Footprint" thread. You don't get to trash this thread too. I will not engage it here, you are breaking forum rules by spamming it, and I will report you for spamming if you keep it up. I've already reported Westwall for negging me twice in 6 hours. If you children can't behave, you're going to get a timeout.
> 
> Now Westwall, why do you think not talking about neutrinos is a problem? Energy-wise, they're an insignificant part of solar output, and since they don't interact with matter, they have zilch to do with the second law, thermodynamics or global warming. It appeared to be just a "gotcha" you tried to pull to distract people from how bizarre your version of the second law is.
> 
> ...



Then don't bring it up here any longer.. Freaking crybaby.. What a little whiny punk..


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 17, 2013)

GLobal cooling is the threat.

But if it ain't man made global cooling, then they don't care.


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> PolarBear, keep all of your stalking me on the one thread that you've already trashed, the "Human Footprint" thread. You don't get to trash this thread too. I will not engage it here, you are breaking forum rules by spamming it, and I will report you for spamming if you keep it up. I've already reported Westwall for negging me twice in 6 hours. If you children can't behave, you're going to get a timeout.
> 
> Now Westwall, why do you think not talking about neutrinos is a problem? Energy-wise, they're an insignificant part of solar output, and since they don't interact with matter, they have zilch to do with the second law, thermodynamics or global warming. It appeared to be just a "gotcha" you tried to pull to distract people from how bizarre your version of the second law is.
> 
> ...







Go away stinky sock.   Re-invent yourself as a famous rock star or something amusing.  You're an epic failure in this role....epic.


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...









That has zero empirical evidence to support your assertion.  Try again fraud boy.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 17, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.


Westwall - 

Please do not spam the thread with childish abuse. Either address the topic with relevant points, or leave the topic for others.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 17, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> GLobal cooling is the threat.
> 
> But if it ain't man made global cooling, then they don't care.



I look forward to seeing you present a case to back up your claim.


----------



## westwall (Apr 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...










  Yet more sock yapping I see.  So tell me mr. "Finnish journalist" on American time..  Since when does correlation equal causation?


----------



## westwall (Apr 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > GLobal cooling is the threat.
> ...








We look forward to you leaving....


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

I find it amazing that all of these self proclaimed geniuses, numan, and socks, and trolling blunder and socks, and now this new sock, not one of them understand the concepts they are supporting here.

Let me see if I can simplify this for the mentally impaired geniuses... If you believe in the current theory of AGW, then you are also believing in perfect machines... Why don't you geniuses go and use these new concepts you are embracing to do something useful?

Why with a new CO2 infinite heat machine you could solve the energy problems overnight.. Go build one please... Yes you know how to harness this miraculous energy doubling effect known to exist in CO2, please make one.... What? You don't know how? 

I'll help you.. First get a big glass tank we can put some CO2 in. Then place a mirror so the sun will reflect the light back through the tank. When it does it will heat the CO2. Then set up a 2nd mirror to reflect the same light back to the other mirror. The continuous light going back and forth through the CO2 gas will make it get hotter and hotter, you could place a tank of water in it and make steamtoturn a turbine or anything really...

Okay I gave you a start, now go!!


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> I find it amazing that all of these self proclaimed geniuses, numan, and socks, and trolling blunder and socks, and now this new sock, not one of them understand the concepts they are supporting here.
> 
> Let me see if I can simplify this for the mentally impaired geniuses... If you believe in the current theory of AGW, then you are also believing in perfect machines... Why don't you geniuses go and use these new concepts you are embracing to do something useful?
> 
> ...




you should let people who can think do the commenting. are you really as clueless as the gibberish you write down?

while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?

the other significant point is that solar radiation is shortwave and highly ordered. the IR radiation both from the surface and the atmosphere is disordered and incapable of doing work because there is no appreciable temperature differential.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > someone commented on how the Sun would not be able to absorb an IR photon because there are no ground state electrons available to interact. interesting idea. what are the possibilities for the photon? 1. absorption of the photon with the energy stored for later emission. 2. reflection. 3. the photon traverses the Sun and comes out the other side.
> ...



I again commend you to for brevity and only making a few points. it is much more readable.

even if all the outbound radiation from the earth was directed at the Sun I doubt that it would be detectable within measurement errors. and I do not think that any outside radiation goes through the Sun, I only put it up as one of the three possibilities.

a few years ago a new type of filament enclosure was experimented with. it used a carbon fiber grid that stopped emission of IR. the bulb used less energy to heat up to and maintain the necessary temperature to emit the required amount of visible light because of the reduced amount of waste heat produced (the majority of energy used in common incandescents).


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > radiative photons (think light), once created to shed energy from an excited bit of matter, exist until they interact with another bit of matter.
> ...



you have taken a law built from statistical probabilities and given it God-like powers to forbid certain interactions, which it doesnt have, and no physical mechanisms to explain these mystical powers, and yet you casually dismiss photons and the massive amounts of experimental evidence that we have on them, and use to run just about all of our technology.

well, good luck with that.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, numan the self proclaimed genius, and his ward the boy wonder mammooth, both seem to believe in two- way energy flow. And by extrapolation believe in perfect machines and unlimited energy gain from a finite source..
> ...





SSDD- I realize that you cannot really back away from some of you more strident claims because you would lose too much face, but how do you just ignore the heatsink and insulating properties of the surface and the atmosphere which moderate the daytime heating and nighttime cooling? how do you ignore the other laws of thermodynamics? like conservation of energy, or heat flow being proportional to temperature differential? you really dont seem to have followed your statements out to their absurd conclusions.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



You keep posting that bit of religious dogma....I have read it, and read the information at its links...Where in all that do you believe there is proof that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming?  To date, there doesn't exist even the smallest bit of actual (as oppsed to the output of computer models) proof that our CO2 has any effect at all on the global climate and now that the earth has gone 15 years with no warming in spite of increased atmospheric CO2 which climate science is at a loss to explain, the possibility that man made CO2 is driving the climate is even more remote than the bullshit hypothesis claimed in the beginnning.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...



Rocks always posts that bit of "information" every time someone asks for proof that CO2 is causing the global temperature to rise.  I have read it all...and read the material that it links to..not, admittedly the matierial that the links link to, but I can find nothing in there that even approaches the level of empirical proof that CO2 is in any way a control knob for the cliamte.   

Every time he posts it, I ask him to point out the proof that he claims is in there...he never does.  Did you find it?  Where is it...or are you just posting it because you think rocks has a clue?



Saigon said:


> In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature.



I am sure that you don't know it, but professor (edit) Woods proved that bit of 19th century pseudoscience wrong shortly after it was presented to the royal society.  He did the experiment with a greenhouse made of rock salt panes rather than glass.  Rock salt is opaque to IR.  He found that the greenhouse heated up to exactly the same degree that the glass greenhouse did proving that it was the blocking of convection and conduction that caused the greenhouse to warm, not gasses in the atmosphere.

The notion that the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect was extrapolated from a failed greenhouse experiment..not any direct observation or experimentation.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start.



No it isn't...it isn't anything like a reasonable place to start.  First it assumes that the earth is a flat disk that doesn't rotate...then it assumes that the sun is 1/4 as bright as it actually is and we receive that weak twilight 24 hours a day.  What is reasonable about a model that doesn't even begin to look in the direction of reality...much less approach it?

Postma modeled a 3D earth (as opposed to the flat earth that warmers and luke warmers believe in) that rotated and received normal levels of sunlight and found that a greenhouse effect was not necessary to explain the temperature of the earth.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> you have taken a law built from statistical probabilities and given it God-like powers to forbid certain interactions, which it doesnt have, and no physical mechanisms to explain these mystical powers, and yet you casually dismiss photons and the massive amounts of experimental evidence that we have on them, and use to run just about all of our technology.



We can't describe the physical mechanism of gravity either but that doesn't change the fact.

I am only taking the law at its word....it is you guys who are making claims that the law says aren't possible.  If the second law doesn't mean what it says, why does it say it?  Why not change the wording to allow two way gross energy flows which, by the way, aren't taught in the physics classes leading to the hard science degree of physics?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD- I realize that you cannot really back away from some of you more strident claims because you would lose too much face, but how do you just ignore the heatsink and insulating properties of the surface and the atmosphere which moderate the daytime heating and nighttime cooling? how do you ignore the other laws of thermodynamics? like conservation of energy, or heat flow being proportional to temperature differential? you really dont seem to have followed your statements out to their absurd conclusions.



First, I haven't made any "strident" claims.  I have more or less only repated the second law of thermodynamics over and over in the face of the claims of the warmers and luke warmers.  If strident claims have been made, then it is the second law making them.  

The properties of the amtosphere can be described and predicted by the ideal gas laws.  The greenhouse effect is a fabricated construct invented to balance trenberth's idiotic energy budget.

Do you think the ideal gas laws ignore the other laws of thermodynamics?  By using them, you eliminate the stupidity of the greenhouse effect and get down to hard, observable, repeatable science rather than some half assed hypothesis which is still waiting for the first bit of empirical evidence after all these years and billions upon billions of dollars being spent.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...
> ...



I must admit I used to ask Old Rocks the exact location in his favourite links for the answers to specific questions but he never did respond. and I couldnt find them either.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start.
> ...





sounds like an excellent topic for a thread.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you have taken a law built from statistical probabilities and given it God-like powers to forbid certain interactions, which it doesnt have, and no physical mechanisms to explain these mystical powers, and yet you casually dismiss photons and the massive amounts of experimental evidence that we have on them, and use to run just about all of our technology.
> ...



we can describe gravity to a very fine degree even if we cannot find the mechanism by which the force is transfered. curvature of space seems _ad hoc_ to me.

were is the description of this mechanism that forbids emission of radiation, and under which circumstances does it take effect?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Dumb fuck. Not a correlation equals causation issue. The absorption spectrum of CO2 has been known since 1858. Stupes like you keeping repeating the rightwingnut mantra as if repeating lie often enough would make it a truth.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Oh my, SSDD pretending to actually know something. Once again, the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well measured. And, from paleontology, we see several extinction periods which involved rapid changes in the GHG levels on earth. Rapid changes either up or down create havoc with the environment the plants and animals are adapted to.

Paleoclimates

One of the most pressing concerns for humans on Earth today is climate change, and what will happen in the future.  Given that the climate is definitely warming, it is logical to ask two questions:  First, have such changes happened before in the history of the Earth?  And second, what is causing this change?  In the next two lectures we will examine past climates (paleoclimates) and the forces that caused them to change.  This information will set the stage for asking if the same forces that caused past changes are causing climate warming today, and for making predictions about what will happen in the future (upcoming lecture on climate models).

From abundant geological evidence, we know that only three hundred and fifty years ago the world was in the depths of a prolonged cold spell called the "Little Ice Age," which lingered for nearly 500 years. Twenty thousand years ago, in the middle of the last glacial period, large continental scale ice sheets covered much of North America, Northern Europe, and Northern Asia. Fifty million years ago, global temperatures were so high that there were no large ice sheets at all. 

The speed at which climate can change has also recently become clear: Transitions between fundamentally different climates can occur within only decades. In order to understand these variations, we need to reconstruct them over a wide range of temporal and geographical scales. The importance of this task is underlined by the growing awareness of how profoundly human activity is affecting climate. As with so many other complex systems, the key to predicting the future lies in understanding the past 

We need to ask several questions: What happened? Why did it happen? Has it happened before? Will is happen again? How do we know about it in the first place? Click the image to the right to explore the hypothesized changes in ice cover and vegetation.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



The irony of this post is thick.

I'm still waiting for that bird flu pandemic from 2 years ago to manifest, Roxi. 
The only time you're right is when you're wrong.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I find it amazing that all of these self proclaimed geniuses, numan, and socks, and trolling blunder and socks, and now this new sock, not one of them understand the concepts they are supporting here.
> ...









"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,"


----------



## mamooth (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> First, I haven't made any "strident" claims.  I have more or less only repated the second law of thermodynamics over and over



and you've gotten it wrong every time.

Again, the second law is a description of statistics, not a force of nature.

Imagine I roll a 6-sided die a quadrillion times. I can write a "law of probability" stating that "1" will come up 1 out 6 times. But that "law" isn't forcing the die to do anything. It's just describing the statistical outcome.

In exactly the same way, the second law describes the statistics of systems, but doesn't force individual outcomes. Individual photons are quite free to carry energy from cold to hot. The second law doesn't constrain them in any way. The second law just points out that if you look at the entire system, the total sum of energy will have to flow from hot to cold.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> were is the description of this mechanism that forbids emission of radiation, and under which circumstances does it take effect?



I never said anything about forbiding radiation.  The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object.  Short of the cool object simply not radiating in that direction, what other plausible explanation is there?  We know that if we wire a 12 v batter to a 6 v battery, electricity only runs one way along the wire...we know that water only flows one way in a hose...we know that marbles roll down hill, we know that rocks fall when dropped....what is so different about radiation not spontaneously moving from a warm body to a cool one?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb fuck. Not a correlation equals causation issue. The absorption spectrum of CO2 has been known since 1858. Stupes like you keeping repeating the rightwingnut mantra as if repeating lie often enough would make it a truth.



So what?  It emits also.  The fact that it absorbs and emits should tell a thinking person that CO2 would be a cooling mechanism as it offers radiation as a means of transporting heat out of the atmosphere as opposed to just convection and conduction.  The amosphere would be warmer without CO2 since convection and conduction would be the only means of transporting heat out to space.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh my, SSDD pretending to actually know something. Once again, the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well measured. And, from paleontology, we see several extinction periods which involved rapid changes in the GHG levels on earth.



We also see the emission spectra.  You think absorption of IR actually means something...It doesn't.  It absorbs and it emits.  It doesn't hang on to any of the energy at all and we are unble to observe, or measure so called downdwelling radiation at ambient temperature.

And no, we don't see several extinction periods which involve rapid changes in so called GHG levels.  That is pure speculation.  



Old Rocks said:


> One of the most pressing concerns for humans on Earth today is climate change, and what will happen in the future.



Except that it isn't happening.  Going on 20 years now even though CO2 continues to increas.  No warming in direct contradiction to the hypothesis...Get your self a new hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> and you've gotten it wrong every time.
> 
> Again, the second law is a description of statistics, not a force of nature.



That isn't what the second law says.  It is you who is making claims that it simply doesn't support.  I repeat:

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.

If the second law is what you claim, why is the statment as it is?  Why have a law that barely resembles the statement of the law?  Can you actually prove by direct observation that energy flows in two directions with the net being in the direction of warm?  No, of course you can't because it has never been observed.

That is one of the problems with post modern science.  To much reliance on computer models with the assumption that the programmers of the models actually understand the physics they are putting into the programms and not enough actual experiment and observation.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > First, I haven't made any "strident" claims.  I have more or less only repated the second law of thermodynamics over and over
> ...



Let us get some clarification.  Putting statistics aside:  Is it the mamooth contention that the 2d Law of Thermodynamics says that SOMETIMES energy naturally flows from the cooler object to the warmer object?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Let us get some clarification.  Putting statistics aside:  Is it the mamooth contention that the 2d Law of Thermodynamics says that SOMETIMES energy naturally flows from the cooler object to the warmer object?



The second law is a statement made in absolute terms.  There is no wiggle room there and anyone claiming any wiggle room whatsoever is claiming that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.  If there were wiggle room there, I believe the law would have been written as such...but then it wouldn't be a law, would it?

I can't think of any natural laws that have wiggle room built in.  Can you?


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I find it amazing that all of these self proclaimed geniuses, numan, and socks, and trolling blunder and socks, and now this new sock, not one of them understand the concepts they are supporting here.
> ...



So then we can expect to see Ian's heat miracle device in stores soon? IF you believe in AGW theory this is exactly what you are supporting. 

All of your "I'm so smart " BS, and you really haven't clue what it means. If you support the concept of backradiation as it's presented in AGW theory, then you certainly are supporting at least one type of perfect machine, why stop there?

You can pull trenberth out of your ass all day, doesn't change a thing. Quit trying to shout down discussion with false intellectual claims, we already know you're a BS artist prone to sock use...

"_The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations &#8212; then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation &#8212; well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation._"
&#8212;Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)


----------



## Saigon (Apr 18, 2013)

I have to say, I am amazed that some posters are will trying to explain SSDD's mistake about back radiation to him, at least a week after I thought it became clear that he knew himself that his position was untenable. 

On the one hand I admire the tenacity and patience some posters have - on the other hand I don't think debate offers much from the point neither side believe one point of view anymore!

I can't count how many posters from right across the spectrum of attitudes and politics have explained this point now, but it must be close to 10. Many of the explanations have been very, very good as well. I think the Science of Doom articles that both Ian and I posted were first-rate reading. 

Maybe it's time for some new threads in the Environment section!

And yes, SSDD, I know you will continue to insist that you were right.


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I have to say, I am amazed that some posters are will trying to explain SSDD's mistake about back radiation to him, at least a week after I thought it became clear that he knew himself that his position was untenable.
> 
> On the one hand I admire the tenacity and patience some posters have - on the other hand I don't think debate offers much from the point neither side believe one point of view anymore!
> 
> ...



And I am amazed by the sheer number Ian clones here..


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > First, I haven't made any "strident" claims.  I have more or less only repated the second law of thermodynamics over and over
> ...



WTF????? WTF kind of convoluted circle think is that???

The newly added "net" to the law still doesn't change anything. If the "net flow" is still to the cooler from the hotter, than the energy flowing back would be insignificant to any realized warming, especially once we take into consideration the loss of energy in the transfer....

Admiral, you are still ignorant...


----------



## westwall (Apr 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...










So has the fact that H2O vapor covers the exact same wavelength and absolutely dwarfs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere....which is real science fraud boy...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I have to say, I am amazed that some posters are will trying to explain SSDD's mistake about back radiation to him, at least a week after I thought it became clear that he knew himself that his position was untenable.



The only thing untenable is taking a position that runs contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. Backradiation does exatly that.  

If I might, I will repeat a quotation that has already been posted... made 86 years ago which is still as true today as on the day it was spoken.



> "The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations &#8212; then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation &#8212; well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
> &#8212;Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)





Saigon said:


> And yes, SSDD, I know you will continue to insist that you were right.



No.  I only insist that the second law of thermodynamics is right.

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*.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> WTF????? WTF kind of convoluted circle think is that???
> 
> The newly added "net" to the law still doesn't change anything. If the "net flow" is still to the cooler from the hotter, than the energy flowing back would be insignificant to any realized warming, especially once we take into consideration the loss of energy in the transfer....
> 
> Admiral, you are still ignorant...



There is no two way net flow.  There is one way gross flow.  I would be very interested to see any observed and measured evidence of a two way net flow.  It is the product of computer models running on a flawed set of physics.  Hell, computers will say whatever they are told to say....just like warmists.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Let us get some clarification.  Putting statistics aside:  Is it the mamooth contention that the 2d Law of Thermodynamics says that SOMETIMES energy naturally flows from the cooler object to the warmer object?
> ...



What does the law of gravity say about the "statistical probability" of dropping a hammer here on planet Earth and having it float up to my head instead of falling down to the ground?   Let's ask mamooth!


----------



## numan (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I repeat:
> 
> 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....*
> ...


I have had it up to here with SSDD's unutterably stupid pronouncements on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!

It is bad enough when someone is ignorant and stupid and wastes one's time; it is bad enough when someone crows with arrogant certitude about something he does not understand. But when someone is ignorant and an arrogant fool, it is doubly insupportable!!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics *IS NOT* an absolute law *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* 

It is a statistical law --- it is a law of large numbers !!!!!!!!!

It is quite in accord with the 2nd Law that all the air in the room rush to a corner of the room in a blazing ball, leaving you to gasp away your life in a vacuum like a fish out of water !!!!

It is quite in accord with the 2nd Law that you should pour yourself a glass of water and suddenly have half the water turn into a block of ice, while the other half starts boiling !!!!

It is very _unlikely_ that either of these things should happen -- unlikely beyond the ability of the average person to conceive, but there is a small probability that either will occur, and, given enough time, it is virtually certain that both will occur !!

This was proven rigorously in about 1890 by Henri Poincaré in the justly famous *Poincaré Recurrence Theorem*, which essentially says that in any closed dynamical system, any state of the system will recur infinitely often (within _epsilon_ of its original state, of course) -- given enough time.

It is an urban legend among the _cognoscenti_ that when Ludwig Boltzmann, the founder of modern thermodynamics, read Poincaré's proof, he went home and killed himself.

I am not saying that SSDD should imitate Boltzmann (after all, SSDD does not resemble the great man in _any_ respect), but he should go to the privacy of his own home and give himself a couple of good, vigorous slaps in the face for being such an ignorant, obstinant conceited fool !!!
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> The Second Law of Thermodynamics *IS NOT* an absolute law *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Care to prove that?



numan said:


> It is a statistical law --- it is a law of large numbers !!!!!!!!!



I don't see anything about statistics in the law.  I see a statement made in absolute terms.  Statistical statements re not made in absolute terms.  You must be mistaken. 



numan said:


> This was proven rigorously in about 1890 by Henri Poincaré in the justly famous *Poincaré Recurrence Theorem*, which essentially says that in any closed dynamical system, any state of the system will recur infinitely often (within _epsilon_ of its original state, of course) -- given enough time.



Guess you are unaware that the earth and atmosphere are an open system.



numan said:


> I am not saying that SSDD should imitate Boltzmann (after all, SSDD does not resemble the great man in _any_ respect), but he should go to the privacy of his own home and give himself a couple of good, vigorous slaps in the face for being such an ignorant, obstinant conceited fool !!!
> .



Nah...I am quite satisfied slapping you around and watching you remain unable to provide even the smallest bit of observed, measured evidence that there is a two way net flow of energy between warm and cool objects.  It is good to have faith, but misplaced faith is quite tragic.  I am sorry for you.


----------



## numan (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> An electron is energy... as I understand, the smallest discrete bit of energy possible of electromagnetic radiation.


Another bit of ga-ga incoherence from one whose _Dummheit_ the Gods themselves struggle in vain to correct!! It never ends! It just goes on and on and on!!

Surely no one who was not raised on a garbage dump in Calcutta could oink such total ignorance of basic physics! 

An electron is *not* a photon! A photon is *not* an electron! One is ponderable matter! The other is imponderable radiation! One is a half-spin fermion, obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics; the other is an integer-spin boson, obeying Bose-Einstein statistics!

I swear that I could not dream up such total mental chaos as vomits in every utterance that this foolish, foolish man comes up with!!
.


----------



## westwall (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat:
> ...









So, you're telling us that a perpetual motion machine IS possible.  Right?


----------



## numan (Apr 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> So, you're telling us that a perpetual motion machine IS possible.  Right?


And *YOU* are another total ignoramus who cannot even distinguish the First Law of Thermodynamics from the Second Law !!
.


----------



## numan (Apr 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > The Second Law of Thermodynamics *IS NOT* an absolute law *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> ...


Read the damn article on the Poincaré Recurrence Theorem, you mindless dork!!



SSDD said:


> Guess you are unaware that the earth and atmosphere are an open system.


That has nothing to do with the 2nd Law being a statistical law, not an absolute law, you fool.

I think it is clearer and clearer that what I wrote on the following thread :

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...ternet-psychology-experiment.html#post7111614 

is true.

You are not a human being -- you are just a Turing machine in some stupid experiment.
.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 18, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Putting statistics aside



You can't put statistics aside. That's the point. The 2nd Law is a law of statistical probability. If you put statistics aside, you get it wrong.



> Is it the mamooth contention that the 2d Law of Thermodynamics says that SOMETIMES energy naturally flows from the cooler object to the warmer object?



Nope. At least on the macro scale, total energy flow has to be from hot to cold, as the 2nd Law says.

Backradiation doesn't violate that in any way. With backradiation, total energy flow is still always from hot to cold. It flows more slowly from hot to cold, but that's still entirely in compliance with the 2nd Law.

The 2nd Law is a Statement of Probability, just like describing die rolls. Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in. It is not a magical mystical force that intelligently micromanages individual atoms. It's not anything. It's just a description of the universe. Descriptions don't cause anything, they just describe.

For any atomic-level event, both hot-to-cold and cold-to-hot are possibilities, However, the hot-to-cold type is more probable. Therefore, if you sum together the results of a gazillion atoms/photons, hot-to-cold must always predominate. On the macro scale, the 2nd law is always obeyed. On the level of single atoms and photons, the 2nd Law doesn't exist.

Oh, as an aside, one can hit molecules with lasers to make them ... colder. 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=4146

That apparently violates the 2nd Law as well, yet it clearly happens. Down at the quantum level, the 2nd Law just doesn't hold any more.


----------



## numan (Apr 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Putting statistics aside
> ...


You are quite correct.



> The 2nd Law is a Statement of Probability, just like describing die rolls. Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in. It is not a magical mystical force that intelligently micromanages individual atoms....
> 
> Therefore, if you sum together the results of a gazillion atoms/photons, hot-to-cold must always predominate. On the macro scale, the 2nd law is always obeyed. On the level of single atoms and photons, the 2nd Law doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


Very good, but...

"hot-to-cold must *ALMOST*  always predominate. On the macro scale, the 2nd Law is *ALMOST* always obeyed."

*· · · the Poincaré Recurrence Theorem*
.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> · · · the Poincaré Recurrence Theorem.



I feel fairly comfortable leaving that out, as the time between such recurrences would generally be longer than the age of the universe.


----------



## westwall (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're telling us that a perpetual motion machine IS possible.  Right?
> ...










Well, I came from the cell that you occupy of course....DUUUUUUUHHHHHH


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > An electron is energy... as I understand, the smallest discrete bit of energy possible of electromagnetic radiation.
> ...



I am sure that anyone who is capable of reading for comprehension would have caught the mistype.  Have I perhaps made any punctuation errors?  Care to do a spell check on me?

Your frustration and extreme agitation at not being able to support your beliefs with any actual observable measurable evidence is showing.  Perhpas next time you join a cult, you will check into what they believe a bit more carefully.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> Read the damn article on the Poincaré Recurrence Theorem, you mindless dork!!



And what "proof" do you believe is there?  Maybe you are in the same league as siagon where anyting that you believe constitutes proof.



SSDD said:


> That has nothing to do with the 2nd Law being a statistical law, not an absolute law, you fool.



So why point out claims about a closed system?  Your frustration at failing to prove your point is becoming more pronounced.  Calling names is a sure sign that you are losing a discussion.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Nope. At least on the macro scale, total energy flow has to be from hot to cold, as the 2nd Law says.



Reading problems?  The second law doesn't say a thing about two way net energy flows.  It says that heat and energy only move in one direction.



mamooth said:


> Backradiation doesn't violate that in any way.



Backradiation doesn't exist.



mamooth said:


> he 2nd Law is a Statement of Probability, just like describing die rolls.



Statistical statements are not written in absolute terms...the second law, on the other hand is.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> You are quite correct.



Actually, he couldn't be more wrong.  What sort of statement of statistical probablity is written in absolute terms?


----------



## petro (Apr 18, 2013)

Really tough to give a shit about so called global warming as I watch 8" of snow fall in the middle of fucking April. 
Is the climate changing? Possibly. The climate on the planet has changed many times though-out its 4 billion year history. Man made? Remains to be seen. However, I will not be lectured by the likes of Al Gore on my use of carbons as he burns more carbons heating his mansion than I could burn in 10 years. Average yearly utility cost for Gore hovers around 30K per year. That hypocrite can kiss my ass.

Neither should we strangle our economy by imposing fees for carbon emissions while the Chinese and other developing countries ignore their emissions and take up the slack.

Now enough about that, going to spray some CFC's out in the backyard to help the process along. It's fucking cold outside.


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat:
> ...



Okay I for one have had enough... Seriously  numan, you and your sock have butchered science enough now...

Your claim of the 2nd law being a statistical law comes from Boltzmann's explanation of it relating to  entropy as mass disorder. For example you take a deck of cards and shuffle them enough they will eventually return to the state they started...

From wikki...

_"The second law, he argued, was thus simply the result of the fact that in a world of mechanically colliding particles disordered states are the most probable. Because there are so many more possible disordered states than ordered ones, a system will almost always be found either in the state of maximum disorder  the macrostate with the greatest number of accessible microstates such as a gas in a box at equilibrium  or moving towards it. A dynamically ordered state, one with molecules moving "at the same speed and in the same direction," Boltzmann concluded, is thus "the most improbable case conceivable...an infinitely improbable configuration of energy."_[17]

This was his intention, when he spoke of it being one of statistics, nowhere does he say anything about the second law specifically being about averages or net flows. He uses ONE example regarding disorder and probabilities and you two idiots shout "Eureka" and think you have it all figured out.... 

One word... PUH LEASE!!!!

You 3 imbeciles do not understand enough of the big picture on this to be coherent. You see a miscellaneous quote from Botlzmann and think it's a statement of fact about the second law in general. When in reality it was a statement only made to explain one aspect the use in statistics and averages regarding chaos and order in a given closed system. It did not dispute entropy, or any previous claims about the second law...

Seriously now, I'm tired of seeing your bullshit posts and condescension. You just spent a whole thread proclaiming yourself king genius, and insulting everyone else here, save for your socks, and the truths is you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about...

Genius?  HA!, My 11th grade son just pointed out your BS to me... He took one look at the claims you and admiral socko have been repeating and knew exactly where you got it,and what it really covered....

Yeah he's a smart kid, going to be an engineer or at least that's his plan. He was the youngest kid in the talented and gifted program here at one time. IQ around 160 or so they tell me. He sees your BS for  the nonsense it is, keeps me from making a fool of myself on here, and is my consultant when you numans and sockos go insane claiming you can make 2x the energy from 1x the energy with a trace gas...

Now if you want to continue playing super-genius, start using the quotes fairly and as intended boys. We have a 17 yr old with a higher IQ and eager to show off his brain power by slapping fake admirals, and BS scientists...


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

Here a simple chart for the super-genius admirals...


----------



## numan (Apr 18, 2013)

'
Well, the pretend-human Turing machines are going berserk vomiting forth their mindless absurdities.

I suppose they are programmed to do that once their cover is blown.
.


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Well, the pretend-human Turing machines are going berserk vomiting forth their mindless absurdities.
> 
> I suppose they are are programmed to do that once their cover is blown.
> .



Mindless absurdities? 

You get a thesaurus?

No cover to blow shitheel, unless you meant your little clone? yeah shame about that... Sad really...

I see you don't understand the graphic...Sorry, tried to find one in crayon for you but no such luck..


----------



## Saigon (Apr 18, 2013)

Gslacks - 

Have you noticed that at least two of the posters you accuse of being mindless clones are posters who *do not accept AGW*?

The reason people are lining up to attack you is not because of your beliefs or politics - it is because your posting is childish and illiterate.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslacks -
> 
> Have you noticed that at least two of the posters you accuse of being mindless clones are posters who *do not accept AGW*?
> 
> The reason people are lining up to attack you is not because of your beliefs or politics - it is because your posting is childish and illiterate.



LOL, well let's see here.... We have you, and numan, and mamooth... A fake scientist, a fake nuke school graduate who happened to be an officer or not really not sure on that yet, and you a sock and weasel who can't use the quote feature...

I'm crushed really... You guys opinion of me means so, so much, it really does.... 

ROFL!!!!!!

Reality check toad... None of you 3 or lets be honest one of you, are capable of honesty in any form here, intellectual or otherwise. There isn't an ethical bone in the lot of you, or one of you, whatever the case may be..

You and various personas have deliberately misrepresented science, misrepresented others posts, and insulted and condescended upon any one who speaks against your cabal of BS...

So what are you this time? A rocket scientist? A physicist? President of the United states?What will you be next time? 

You are an internet wannabe expert, nothing more. You come in, make a bold claim, and when it is disputed you claim some higher station, education, or intellect and put on airs of superiority, "Airs" that you and socks cannot justify by any behavior shown here...

So I am not liked by you and your army of one or three? LOL, good. I am doing well then...


----------



## Saigon (Apr 19, 2013)

Gslack - 

I was not referring to myself, Nunan or Mammoth - I was referring to the * posters who do not accept AGW* and who have scolded you on your absolutely woeful posting recently. 

Read back through the last couple of pages of this thread if you haven't noticed the comments I am referring to.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I was not referring to myself, Nunan or Mammoth - I was referring to the * posters who do not accept AGW* and who have scolded you on your absolutely woeful posting recently.
> 
> Read back through the last couple of pages of this thread if you haven't noticed the comments I am referring to.



Aww, so which sock are you referring to then?

point them out please, I will address them directly....

I'll wait...

Several minutes later.....Waiting....


----------



## Saigon (Apr 19, 2013)

Gslack - 

I apologise to Ian for re-posting this (because I think it is really up to him whether or not he wants to press you on it), but given you apparently did not see the post - 



IanC said:


> you should let people who can think do the commenting. are you really as clueless as the gibberish you write down?
> 
> while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?
> 
> the other significant point is that solar radiation is shortwave and highly ordered. the IR radiation both from the surface and the atmosphere is disordered and incapable of doing work because there is no appreciable temperature differential.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I apologise to Ian for re-posting this (because I think it is really up to him whether or not he wants to press you on it), but given you apparently did not see the post -
> 
> ...



Ian's fine as long as you agree with his luke-warmer BS, disagree and he's little better than you 3 clowns... And that's not just my take on it, it's common knowledge...

Now you made the claim there were more than one guy who isn't an AGW sympathizer. Ian agrees with backradiation, and argues the same nonsense for it you do. The only difference is he disagrees with Trenberth's budget and the fear mongering... Try again..


----------



## Saigon (Apr 19, 2013)

Gslack - 

I am sure there is no connection at all between the fact that you can scarely read or write, and the negative responses your posts invariably elicit. 

Let's blame it on the socks.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I am sure there is no connection at all between the fact that you can scarely read or write, and the negative responses your posts invariably elicit.
> 
> Let's blame it on the socks.



No socko, I blame you and company for being ignorant... 

I have watched you deliberately misrepresent others claims and posts here repeatedly. And I see the same tactics by your clone army. Coincidence? Maybe, you could all be equally stupid, cowardly, and ethically corrupt. And even if it were the case, the point still remains you are all interchangeable in that respect. Does it matter if you are 3 different people when you post the same way, use the same methods, and generally are equally dishonest?

No it doesn't matter. So I call you clones. And I'm not alone...Watched you and admiral poop-deck back-pat and hold hands too many times now..

So go cry about my posting methods weasel. Neg-rep till your fingers ache. I give two-shits what you and the clone army think. 

You act stupid, i call you stupid. You misrepresent what people say, I call you on it. You have a kiss-ass session with a clone, I will say so...Don't like it? Tough shit...

Now continue the crying, and I will continue the abusive posts..


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

numan said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



BTW, numan sock...

Where did that quote come from? You said it was from "Poincaré recurrence theorem" but looking at it, it doesn't say that anywhere...

Poincaré recurrence theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Poincaré recurrence theorem

In mathematics, the Poincaré recurrence theorem states that certain systems will, after a sufficiently long time, return to a state very close to the initial state. The Poincaré recurrence time is the length of time elapsed until the recurrence. The result applies to physical systems in which energy is conserved. The theorem is commonly discussed in the context of ergodic theory, dynamical systems and statistical mechanics.
The theorem is named after Henri Poincaré, who published it in 1890._

Another source....

Poincar\'e recurrence theorem | planetmath.org

Funny I don't see that claim anywhere in it... Did you just pull that out of the admirals butt??

You must have...

What did you think? You could continue to pull random and unrelated theorems from other people in and no one would check? Of course you did... Well socko, you have sorely underestimated my OCD and propensity to be anal... Seems my earlier statement about what you were doing was indeed correct despite the claims of your clone army... Like mixing inaccurate wordings of "times arrow" and poincare do you?

You fraud... Shame....


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > were is the description of this mechanism that forbids emission of radiation, and under which circumstances does it take effect?
> ...



this of course is the crux of the matter.

it doesnt seem to sink in for you no matter how many times people point out that radiation is fundementally different than matter, you keep thinking that principles pertaining to matter apply to photons.

every bit of matter in the universe above 0K is playing 'hot potato' by emitting photons to get rid of its energy before photons from elsewhere build it up again. once emitted a photon continues on its path until it reaches another bit of matter. there is no 'cancelling out', and it continues in a straight line in the random direction that it was created on. warmer objects create _more_ photons and at slightly higher energy wavelengths (although the range of wavelengths is almost exactly the same for objects less than 1000K different) than cooler objects. the surplus of photons going in the direction of warm to cold is why the SLOT works (in the radiative conditions that we are discussing). the cooler object does not stop emitting photons in some specific direction, that would require knowing the temperature and position of everything in the universe over an infinite time period. Ockham's Razor would choose a simple method by which every object radiates according to its own characteristics rather than some system where the exact composition of the universe needs to be known at all times.

of course that would mean that you would have to let go of your belief that no radiation ever goes from cool to warm. and instead believe that it is the overal preponderance of photons flowing in the direction of warm to cold which supports the SLOT.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> Genius?  HA!, My 11th grade son just pointed out your BS to me... He took one look at the claims you and admiral socko have been repeating and knew exactly where you got it,and what it really covered....
> 
> Yeah he's a smart kid, going to be an engineer or at least that's his plan. He was the youngest kid in the talented and gifted program here at one time. IQ around 160 or so they tell me. He sees your BS for  the nonsense it is, keeps me from making a fool of myself on here, and is my consultant when you numans and sockos go insane claiming you can make 2x the energy from 1x the energy with a trace gas...
> 
> Now if you want to continue playing super-genius, start using the quotes fairly and as intended boys. We have a 17 yr old with a higher IQ and eager to show off his brain power by slapping fake admirals, and BS scientists...



I sure hope that son is from your wife's previous marriage because otherwise she's got some _'splainin to do!_. hahahahaha


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Well, the pretend-human Turing machines are going berserk vomiting forth their mindless absurdities.
> 
> I suppose they are are programmed to do that once their cover is blown.
> .



And the frustration grows.  I am only stating the second law of thermodyamics.  I am not altering it..I am not making claims that it doesn't predict...and I am not wrong.

You on the other hand aren't stating the second law...you are altering it, you are making claims that it doesn't predict...and you are wrong.

Hell, the various statements of the second law don't even support what you claim the second law is about...much less the predictions you make based on your rape of the second law.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> So I am not liked by you and your army of one or three? LOL, good. I am doing well then...



My thoughts exactly.  The day that sort ever begins to cozy up to me is the day I reevaluate my entire life to see where I have gone wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I was not referring to myself, Nunan or Mammoth - I was referring to the * posters who do not accept AGW* and who have scolded you on your absolutely woeful posting recently.
> 
> Read back through the last couple of pages of this thread if you haven't noticed the comments I am referring to.



Luke warmers do accept the AGW magic.  They just don't think it is as powerful as you full blown warmers.  Ian believes CO2 causes the climate to warm...he just thinks the sensitivity is much lower than your crew.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > The Second Law of Thermodynamics *IS NOT* an absolute law *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> ...



A few points....

you cannot prove that the SLoT is absolute. it was formulated before quantum theory, etc...

why are you quick to point out that the sun/earth/space path of energy flow is an open system when it suits you but you consider it a closed system when you need that to support your 'understanding'? 

there are so many things that seem to be incomprehensible to you. you dont seem to understand the difference between 4000K light from 150M kilometres away and 300K IR from a metre away. if you magnify sunlight you can heat something up to nearly 4000K. sunlight is 'ordered' because it is all going in one direction (relative to us), IR is idffuse and unordered in the atmosphere, and unable to be useful. electricity is even more ordered, which is why it is so useful.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Gslack -
> ...



I believe CO2 is capable of disturbing the equilibrium of heat source (Sun)/surface (heatsink)/atmosphere (insulation)/escape to space.


----------



## petro (Apr 19, 2013)

All the arguments regarding whether human activity is causing a change in climate is pointless. The reality is that American guilt will not stop developing nations from releasing emissions or from breeding like rats.  China will only reduce their output as they find they can no longer breath in their cities. As the population of the planet exceeds 10 billion within the next 100 years, we will no doubt use this planets resources up. However, it is arrogant to think that human activity will destroy the planet as life has proved to be quite adaptable to changes in ecosystems. It just takes different forms.
We can't save every species of life at the cost of our own species. Extinction is a part of the natural order. There have been at least 5 major extinction events through-out Earths history some involving major changes in the climate. We are the first that can do something to ensure our survival by colonizing the worlds withing our solar system and beyond.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 19, 2013)

> breeding like rats



It is interesting that you can talk about arrogance, while posting the most arrogant racism imaginable.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> I believe CO2 is capable of disturbing the equilibrium of heat source (Sun)/surface (heatsink)/atmosphere (insulation)/escape to space.



Fair enough, Ian. I agree, of course.


----------



## petro (Apr 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > breeding like rats
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that you can talk about arrogance, while posting the most arrogant racism imaginable.



Jesus Christ. Really? Since I made the statement within the same paragraph as mentioning China that makes it racist. I am speaking of humanity breeding like rats in undeveloped nations in general. I call it like I see it without being crippled by the poison of politically correct thinking, but that is an issue for a different thread. 
My concern is the survival of humanity in the long term regardless of race, and as the world becomes more of a global community, humans over the next 1000 years will become more of a single race much as we started before humans were separated by different ecosystems.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 19, 2013)

Petro - 



> *developing nations* from releasing emissions or from *breeding like rats*



How is that NOT racist?

How is that NOT arrogant?


----------



## petro (Apr 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Petro -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand behind my statements with NO apologies.
Enough said.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2013)

Gslack, would you care to discuss some science, for the first time ever? Yes, we know you're throwing a tantrum because everyone is laughing at you. And a fine, fine tantrum it is, with your cute widdle arms and legs flailing all over. But after you get up off the floor, and mommy wipes the snot off your face, you can give it a go.

Gslack, what happens to a photon from a red star that strikes a blue star?

Is it absorbed, or does it magically vanish, openly violating conservation of energy?

How does your answer square with your retard revisionist version of the Second Law which says that heat can't move from colder to hotter, even on the scale of single photons?

If you believe that the Second Law actually does intelligently micromanage individual atoms, can you explain the mechanism by which it scans the universe and intelligently micromanages individual atoms, controlling in which direction they radiate? After all, the rest of humanity seems to have missed that aspect of the Second Law. There's definitely a Nobel Prize in it for any of you denialists who can explain the mechanism at work there.

Have your big brother ... I mean, son ... take a crack at that, if you need some help.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The second law doesn't say a thing about two way net energy flows.  It says that heat and energy only move in one direction.



On the macro scale. You just don't seem to get that all the simplified colloquial versions of the Second Law you read are talking of the macro scale, not individual photons.



> Statistical statements are not written in absolute terms...



Sure they are.

For example, if I pick a quintillion atomic events, and the hot-to-cold prob of any single event is 75%, while the cold-to-hot probability is 25%, I can say with 100% certainty that the net result will be hot-to-cold heat flow.

Now, if one wanted to nitpick, one could correctly point out there is a one in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 or so probability of the opposite happening. However, since we could sit and watch until the universe grew cold and dim, and never hit such a longshot, we say that hot-to-cold will happen 100% of the time.

That's the Second Law, a summation of uncertain individual probabilities that leads to a certain result.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> A few points....
> 
> you cannot prove that the SLoT is absolute. it was formulated before quantum theory, etc...



I don't need to prove anything.  Anyone who is literate can see that it is an absolute statement.  It is those who claim that it is not who have something to prove if thier pet hypothesis is not supported by the absolute statement of the second law.



IanC said:


> why are you quick to point out that the sun/earth/space path of energy flow is an open system when it suits you but you consider it a closed system when you need that to support your 'understanding'?



Not at all.  The laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature...not laws of systems.  I only pointed out that to neuman because his reference was specific to closed systems and therefore irrelavent to this discussion.  



IanC said:


> there are so many things that seem to be incomprehensible to you. you dont seem to understand the difference between 4000K light from 150M kilometres away and 300K IR from a metre away. if you magnify sunlight you can heat something up to nearly 4000K. sunlight is 'ordered' because it is all going in one direction (relative to us), IR is idffuse and unordered in the atmosphere, and unable to be useful. electricity is even more ordered, which is why it is so useful.



Appeal to complexity doesn't change the fact that the second law says that heat won't move from cool to warm and energy won't go from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.  Make the universe as complicated as you wish, but the transfer of energy is a fundamental process which must obey certain laws....one of those being energy won't move spontaneously from low temperature objects to high temperature objects.  If your hypothesis isn't in accordance with that law...it is a failure right out of the gate.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> I believe CO2 is capable of disturbing the equilibrium of heat source (Sun)/surface (heatsink)/atmosphere (insulation)/escape to space.



Causing the climate to warm..yes or no?

I am sure that we would both agree that radiation is a much faster means of transporting energy than either convection or conduction or both combined...why then would you think that a means of conveying energy out of the system that is orders of magnitude faster than convection or conduction would be a heating mechanism rather than a cooling mechanism?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Gslack, what happens to a photon from a red star that strikes a blue star?



First you must prove that the photon from the red star even goes in the direction of the blue star...or perhaps first you should prove that photons even exist...actual proof of such a thing would be another nobel for you.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> On the macro scale. You just don't seem to get that all the simplified colloquial versions of the Second Law you read are talking of the macro scale, not individual photons.



I don't see any separation of micro and macro in the statement of the second law.  If there were such a separation, do you not think it would be mentioned?



mamooth said:


> Sure they are.



Of course they aren't since statistics isn't an exact science.  Why make a claim that your own argument proves false... that one chance in whatever of whatever not happening proves that it is not an absolue statement.  The fact that you guys can't support your hypothesis with the statement of the second law...AS IT IS STATED...should clue you in to the 100% probabliity that your hypothesis is wrong.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 19, 2013)

Zeroth: "You must play the game."
    First: "You can't win."
*Second*: "You can't break even."
    Third: "You can't quit the game."

Stolen from some Wiki page.  Science jokes are da bomb.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


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


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

Hey polar bear...the quote above was by gslack...not me. My grandkids are almost his kid's age.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Hey polar bear...the quote above was by gslack...not me. My grandkids are almost his kid's age.



My apologies.I deleted most of the text to keep it short and forgot to take out the (quote) and (/quote) HTML marks around some of the text.
It`s a pain in the neck and I`m doing my spring cleaning at the same time,...so I was in a bit of a hurry

I still think that a kid with a 160 IQ has way more brains than the 3 phony-balony "science" socks.
I still have a high vacuum desiccator with precision ground glass fittings, but the glass has a crack and it will implode at the vacuum I intend to carry out this "back-radiation" experiment. So I would have to do it at one of the labs in the U of Manitoba..It`ll be no problem. I still got lots of good old friends there


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Noticed how silent they are when I said let`s call this Roy Spencer "back radiation thought experiment" bluff and I do it for real at the U of Manitoba Physics department,



You're still bragging about being able to disprove your own whackaloon claim? After all, you are the only crank on the planet claiming that backradiation would melt the fins off a heat sink.

If you wish to set up an experiment to prove your own nonsense is wrong, well, have at it. We encourage that. I'm guessing, however, that the university will look at how you've become a raving imbecile and politely decline your request. But you're welcome to try. Get back to us on how it turns out.

The rest of your rant is just more of your senility/mental illness/creepy stalking on display. Move it to the thoroughly trashed "Human Footprint" thread, and I'll mock it thoroughly there.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Genius?  HA!, My 11th grade son just pointed out your BS to me... He took one look at the claims you and admiral socko have been repeating and knew exactly where you got it,and what it really covered....
> ...



ROFL, no need he looks just like me only 5 inches taller. Sorry to bust your bubble Ian but we all remember your dedication to Spencer and shady scientific explanations. ROFL.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Gslack, would you care to discuss some science, for the first time ever? Yes, we know you're throwing a tantrum because everyone is laughing at you. And a fine, fine tantrum it is, with your cute widdle arms and legs flailing all over. But after you get up off the floor, and mommy wipes the snot off your face, you can give it a go.
> 
> Gslack, what happens to a photon from a red star that strikes a blue star?
> 
> ...



It doesn't DO anything admiral.. It is negated by the higher energy, it neither alters the star it is heading to by any measurable means nor is it making it "hotter". It's negated. 

Once again tool, there is no intelligent micromanagement going on, that's your weak mind trying to place order where there is none..

Sorry you and the clone brigade can't grasp the reality of this admiral..

A rock on a hillside has potential energy correct? I mean one push and there it is kinetic energy. Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified? Well it's not destroyed because that violates the known laws. It's not converted because it was a special mind ray we made up just like your "nuke" story, and it wasn't designed for energy/matter transformation. It could have possibly been dissipated but we really wouldn't be able to measure the change anyway because the variance would be too minuscule. So it would most likely have been negated, because it doesn't actually violate any of the laws and it's the best explanation we can give...

Kind of like your explanation of this concept isn't it....

No one really knows why the 2nd law is still observed at the microscopic and sub levels. It's all theory and conjecture. They cannot explain it, so they use theoretical concepts to do so. They are not based on any real world observations, just in a simulation based on their theories.

You seem to believe that theory = fact if it came from the right people. The fact is even IF (a big if) the theories you claim are correct, they are on levels too minute to show observable change in the macroscopic world.

Now don't blow a head gasket junior, but it's one of those little things no one gets really. The energy isn't destroyed, and it isn't intelligently redirected, and it isn't turned into more energy either. It is simply negated or some explain it as "absorbed by the incoming higher energy, either way like to describe it is fine, because we really haven't been able to observe the phenomenon yet at the degree it would take to answer the question..

Now you won't find the answer until you can discipline your mind to accept the difference in macro, micro, and sub levels respectively, and realize that disorder is the nature of it all.

You think too small here admiral, you are missing the forest because the trees are in your way...


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Noticed how silent they are when I said let`s call this Roy Spencer "back radiation thought experiment" bluff and I do it for real at the U of Manitoba Physics department,
> ...



NICE OUTING SOCKO...

You weren't here when that thread was alive junior.... How the hell would you know?

Unless you were here then.. But you weren't or were you?

Got ya...


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law doesn't say a thing about two way net energy flows.  It says that heat and energy only move in one direction.
> ...



LOL, admiral has problems with "absolute" vesus "general" statements...

I'll help the little guy...

Absolute statement:

I always drink 3 cups of coffee in the morning. or . I am never late with a report.

General statement:

I usually drink 3 cups of coffee in the morning. or. I am usually on time with my reports.

The very nature of the word "statistical" denotes averages and not absolutes..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> The very nature of the word "statistical" denotes averages and not absolutes..



That's the thing that gets me about these guys.  I am pretty sure that if the folks who phrased the second law thought that it wasn't absolute, they would have phrased it as such and maybe not have called it a law..  Maybe the second rule of thumb of thermodynamics.

How can anyone who can actually read and comprehend the words, read the statement of the second law and see any sort of wiggle room there?  Any deviation from that absolute statement would violate the law and render it meaningless.

It takes a sort of mindset that escapes me to believe so deeply in a computer or mathematical model that you would believe that it invalidates one of the fundamental laws of nature.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

I'll try again....

Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work...

Now please try and discipline your mind. This is not a simple matter of grabbing a theory out of context and claiming "eureka I've done it". It's too complex and alien for that. In your haste to prove your claim, you forgot how equilibrium works and about black-body radiation...

now my head hurts and I am going back to insulting you geniuses...


----------



## numan (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> A rock on a hillside has potential energy correct? I mean one push and there it is kinetic energy. Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified? Well it's not destroyed because that violates the known laws. It's not converted because it was a special mind ray we made up just like your "nuke" story, and it wasn't designed for energy/matter transformation. It could have possibly been dissipated but we really wouldn't be able to measure the change anyway because the variance would be too minuscule. So it would most likely have been negated, because it doesn't actually violate any of the laws and it's the best explanation we can give...


Well, it will certainly take many times the lifetime of the universe before anyone could derive any intelligible content from _that_ paragraph !!

Some CIA technicians definitely need to repair and up-grade their economy-model gslack chatterbot. It has definitely failed the Turing test for human intelligence.

Whatever could this bucket of rusty micro-chips be distorting from its el-cheapo science programming? From what broken file of vocabulary items did it derive "de-materialization"?

The only way the rock could be "de-materialized" is if an equal mass of the appropriate anti-matter were brought in contact with it -- and then there would be one hell of an explosion!!

Perhaps this chatterbot verbal flailing is supposed to mean that all the electro-magnetic and other bond-forces are disrupted, and the constituent elementary particles float off into the aether?

The science programming of the gslack chatterbot is so defective that it does not contain the information that no bonds -- electro-magnetic, gravitational, or whatever -- are ever formed without *giving up energy*. The structures form by falling down an energy potential well.  You cannot send a rock from the Earth into outer space without supplying at least escape-velocity energy. The same is true for all the electro-magnetic and other bonds which hold molecules, atoms and nuclei together. *Energy was given up* when the bonds were formed and the particles fell down potential wells. There are no exceptions to this fact -- otherwise, the First Law of Thermodynamics would be violated.

I imagine that people of low intelligence and inadequate education are fooled by the apparent exceptions of the energy given off in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. The energy given off in these reactions can only derive from the constituent particles being re-shuffled and thereby falling further down their respective energy-wells. To return the lead and helium nuclei in fission back to uranium nuclei would require at least as much energy as was released in the fission reaction. To raise the protons and neutrons of helium back to the energy level of being two deuterium nuclei would require paying back the energy released in the fusion reaction.

The blindingly obvious proof of this fact is that the mass of a helium nucleus is less than the combined mass of two deuterium nuclei by precisely the amount of energy that was released in the fusion reaction.

Therefore, it is obvious, on all counts, that the gslack chatterbot is excreting gibberish and has failed the Turing test for human intelligence.
.


----------



## numan (Apr 19, 2013)

IanC said:


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


Very well said, Ian.

You are obviously someone who knows something about physics and who has some respect for truth -- unlike the Denialist chatterbots which are programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. Why in the world are you consorting with such mindless devices?

Remember: *If you sleep with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas.*
.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

numan said:


> Well, it will certainly take many times the lifetime of the universe before anyone could derive any intelligible content from _that_ paragraph !!



Many life times for some folks, I'm sure.  About 10 to 12 seconds for people who can read and comprehend the words.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2013)

numan said:


> Very well said, Ian.
> 
> You are obviously someone who knows something about physics and who has some respect for truth -- unlike the Denialist chatterbots which are programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. Why in the world are you consorting with such mindless devices?
> 
> ...



Look around...it is you and yours who are lying, distorting, insulting (and you are especially guilty of hurling insult) and obfuscating.  I am just repeating the second law of thermodynamics and you just don't seem to be able to get around that.  It is a fundamental law of nature...one way gross energy movement...that's it and it destroys your hypothesis completely.  Add the fact that you can't show the first bit of observed, measured evidence to support your claims and you have an even weaker case for your belief than fundamentalist, snake handling Christians.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> It is negated by the higher energy, it neither alters the star it is heading to by any measurable means nor is it making it "hotter". It's negated.



Could you describe the physical mechanism whereby this energy is "negated"? There's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can validate your groundbreaking research into the just-invented field of "magic vanishing photons theory." For example, how does the photon know that it's heading for a hotter atom, and thus has to vanish?



> Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified?



Okay, so you're postulating magical disintegration beams to prove ... heck, I can't figure out you're trying to prove. I just wonder why you think a story of a magic disintegration beam proves anything outside of your fantasy world where magic disintegration beams exist.



> No one really knows why the 2nd law is still observed at the microscopic and sub levels.



But it's not observed at the atomic level. We do know that. That would be the point. A single atom doesn't give a shit about the 2nd Law, which only applies to systems of many atoms. Single atoms do, however, give a shit about conservation of energy, which your wacky theory violates big time.



> Now don't blow a head gasket junior, but it's one of those little things no one gets really.



That would come as quite a surprise to all the scientists of planet earth, being they _do_ get it. The photon is simply freakin' absorbed by the hotter atom and heats it up more. We know that because we observe it happening.



> The energy isn't destroyed, and it isn't intelligently redirected, and it isn't turned into more energy either. It is simply negated or some explain it as "absorbed by the incoming higher energy, either way like to describe it is fine, because we really haven't been able to observe the phenomenon yet at the degree it would take to answer the question.



Okay, that's progress in the "magic vanishing photon theory". We now learn the energy moves into a mystery dimension that no one really knows about, because it's a mystery. And thus, Conservation of Energy is upheld. One wonders though, how much energy this mystery dimension can keep absorbing until it goes blooey and destroys all of creation. You really need to flesh out the theory more, and quickly, as the fate of the universe rides on it, not to mention your Nobel Prize.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> I'll try again....Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement?



Of course they do. Equilibrium and conservation of energy require it.



> No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another.



You use the word "equilibrium" a lot, but you have no concept of what it actually means.

Here's how your case works.

2 stars. Say the energy output of their fusion processes is "X". 

That means, to be in equilibrium, the radiation of the two stars out into the universe beyond has to be "X".

However, problem. Put the stars close together, and a significant portion of each star's radiation hits the other star and does _not_ go out to the universe.

Call that, say, 0.01X. So, only 0.99X is going out to the universe, while 1.00X is being produced. Not in equilibrium.

Hence, stars get a little hotter (being they are absorbing energy from the other star), until they radiate about 1% more. When they reach that state, 0.99X + 0.01X = 1.00X goes out to the universe again, and equilibrium is restored.



> That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...



I have no idea where you came up with such a bizarre claim. Your logic is not like our mere earth logic.



> TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work...



That was ... meaningless. It had nothing to do with the issue. Why on earth did you think it did?



> Now please try and discipline your mind. This is not a simple matter of grabbing a theory out of context and claiming "eureka I've done it". It's too complex and alien for that. In your haste to prove your claim, you forgot how equilibrium works and about black-body radiation...



You fail hard at understanding both equilibrium and black-body radiation.

You have a very poor grasp of common sense, especially of how to set up the geometry of a problem. Those are traits you share with most denialists. Most denialists simply suck at understanding how to solve a physics problem, since they've had zero training in the matter.

Training matters. Statistical thermodynamics is a Junior-level college topic for a Physics major, but essentially no denialist knows thermo beyond a high school level. Hence, they all fail hard at it. They lack the training to even understand how little they know of the topic.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

numan said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > A rock on a hillside has potential energy correct? I mean one push and there it is kinetic energy. Lets say the rock is disintegrated by one of your super mind rays that causes no explosion just de-materialization. Completely destroyed down to sub-atomic level. Now is that energy destroyed, converted, dissipated or nullified? Well it's not destroyed because that violates the known laws. It's not converted because it was a special mind ray we made up just like your "nuke" story, and it wasn't designed for energy/matter transformation. It could have possibly been dissipated but we really wouldn't be able to measure the change anyway because the variance would be too minuscule. So it would most likely have been negated, because it doesn't actually violate any of the laws and it's the best explanation we can give...
> ...



LOL, so your defense is to argue the make-believe mind ray....ROFL....

Whats with all the circle talk? What You are reciting is not applicable here.. again and trying to pretend some kind of higher intellect...

Stop posturing fool, no one's buying it.. Any comment on your previous false quote???

You quoted a false claim regarding poincare and tried to pass it off as genuine. Now you try and pass of unrelated material in the same manner..

IS there anything about you that's genuine???


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > It is negated by the higher energy, it neither alters the star it is heading to by any measurable means nor is it making it "hotter". It's negated.
> ...



AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!Wrong again junior...

You can't think on this level we just saw it again.Stop trying to pretend, you can't fake understanding...

You can't understand the real concepts here and completely misunderstand theory versus observed fact. Fact is as I said before we just don't know what happens to energy on the micro and sub levels, no one does, its all theory and speculation.

You have your camp who believes the answer is some kind of variability in the first and second laws, and the realist camp who know they do not know yet and just accept the fact that the 1st and 2nd laws hold. Why not they always hold any other time...

Again, like it or not, buying the story of the first camp (your side)means that you can create perfect machines, and a perpetual motion machine is a viable pursuit... I call that retarded and ignorant, but you seem to be okay with it...

Please go and google more things you don't understand junior. I find your ignorance amusing..LOL


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

Calssic numan sock-think.. Don't like the outcome of an experiment, just keep changing it till you get the answer you want. Nice... Explains a lot...


----------



## numan (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, so your defense is to argue the make-believe mind ray....ROFL....
> 
> Whats with all the circle talk? What You are reciting is not applicable here.. again and trying to pretend some kind of higher intellect...
> 
> ...


Isn't it obvious that the ersatz verbiage above is the output of a computer chatterbot?

It's no better than similar _non-sequiturs_ I remember from primitive Turing machine prototypes from the early 1960's !!
.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

numan said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, so your defense is to argue the make-believe mind ray....ROFL....
> ...



"ersatz verbiage"

LOL, you don't see the irony in your choice of words there???

Pot meet kettle....


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!Wrong again junior...



No, that will not win you the Nobel Prize for your new "Magical Vanishing Photons" theory. It will just get people to think, correctly, that you're a chickenshit who cuts and runs when his idiot claims get laughed at.

I have never before seen any single person create a theory as dumb as the "magical vanishing photons" theory. I didn't think it was possible for someone to be stupid enough to make such a claim that was so at odds with observed reality. And yet here, we have four denialists spouting it -- SSDD, PolarBear, Gslack and Westwall. Each one spouts a slightly different version, but that just means each of them is retarded in his own special way, like special little retarded snowflakes.

This is one crazy cult you guys have formed. Normal humans would think that if their theory requires them to formulate an entirely new branch of magical vanishing photon physics, then it might possibly not be correct. But no, not you guys. You've all reinforced the crazy of each other and sent it to heights undreamed of, like a good cult should.



> and a perpetual motion machine is a viable pursuit



No matter how often you and Westwall babble about how you're making a perpetual motion machine, you still can't do it. Just like PolarBear is not going to able to make a heatsink with fins melt from backradiation. Those things are not possible, and repeating the claim and wishing real hard will not make them possible.

Let's go over some of your greatest hits again.

According to you, if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it.

A 4-year-old understands intuitively that your theory is laughable. It really is that dumb. Yet against all reason, you cling to it. Why? Because you'd be ejected from the cult here if you dared display cognitive abilities on par with a 4-year-old. And nothing is more important to you than the cult.


----------



## gslack (Apr 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!Wrong again junior...
> ...



Okay junior you just showed your immaturity... Nice work, keep it up..  Lying about our claims and editing our posts will not help you here...

But what it WILL do is get you noticed by everyone for being a juvenile troll.. Perhaps eventually a mod will see your behavior and take exception to it...

Not gonna play with you if you are going to lie about what I said... Matter of fact,if you were smart you wouldn't try this crap with me. The backlash will go badly for you.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 19, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > An electron is energy... as I understand, the smallest discrete bit of energy possible of electromagnetic radiation.
> ...



Get a load of this. First the "erudite numan" hands out physics grades praising people that have photons from red stars bombarding blue stars like little magic bullets and now he`s copy/pasting wikipedia phrases in here, but has absolutely no clue what`s behind the buzzwords.
You know shit about physics and photons:
Snell`s law:







Light speed in a vacuum = 3*10^5 km/ s , in glass  it is 2* 10^5 km/s
The frequency, the wavelength  and the energy of the mass-less photons stay the same even though light travels only at 2/3  of *c * through glass  
*So what happened ?*
If f= velocity / wavelength and the velocity is only 2/3 rd. in the glass did the wavelength get shorter so that the equation remains valid ?
That can`t be else the photons just gained a shitload of energy just as soon as they encountered the glass.
*You are the physics expert, so you tell me...!*
If photons had a mass then  m *50 000 000 000 km^2 /  s ^2  energy would have gone missing, like  as in  "absorbed"..???..."heating up the glass"..??
  Photons don`t have a mass  and don`t transfer "thermal energy" to the glass, no energy was "absorbed" because photons  don`t behave like the silly little bullets that you all use in your stupid "back radiation" examples.
They obey wave mechanic  and for you to get  a  specific energy flux, be that light or any other electromagnetic wave you have to increase the square meters by the square of the distance to get  the same photon energy flux  in  watts per m^2 , .....
...or  wait  in seconds by the square of the distance  longer  to  get the same  same  number of watt seconds  energy, as you would get from a  closer light source .
It`s called the "*Poynting factor*"  something I`m sure you never even heard of. 
Else you would not be applauding the Siamese cat every time it craps
 thermodynamic  fuming cat shit turds  in here instead of  her  "nuclear reactor" litter box .
Photons have little to do with general thermodynamics, all they have in common with thermodynamics is a thermal energy equivalent *and they don`t turn into equivalent "heat"* unless all other avenues are denied.
 You idiots figure, every time a photon is "absorbed" it has to heat something up.
Then I`m also sure you have no idea that you can absorb almost all the sunlight with welder`s  glasses a*nd that glass does not heat up at all.*
You can also block light completely with 2 polarizing filters *and nothing gets heated up or reflected.*





You and your socks *have no idea about physics let alone photons, * absorption or emission spectroscopy .
The only thing you loudmouth libtards can do *is being loudmouths, *that spend 24/7 on ego trips in internet forums such as this one or reading "skeptical science.org" crap and posting it here.
None of you have what it would take to make a living in applied science and seeing when and how much  you  and your moron brigade posts day after day all day long it`s obvious that  nobody else has any use for you.
First you kept praising IanC, + the Siamese psycho + the phony "journalist" from Finland a.ka. "Saigon" when they were trying to figure out how by how much a few photons from a "red star" like Bethelgeuse could heat up a hotter star like the sun which is 640 light years from that red star and exposes only hydrogen plasma to the red star and now you pretend to know about Fermi-Dirac statistics and  Bose-Einstein statistics.
I mistakenly thought that IanC would be smart enough to think about how many *watt seconds *of energy the sun has been radiating out at a rate of 383 yottawatts watts during the same time it takes to get "heated" with a *single pico watt second's* worth of photons from a 640 light year distant red star.
*And now all this bullshit,... coming from the same idiot that said only a week ago *that solar wind is blowing away the earth's water and that limestone can be *"oxidized"* with oxides in the earth's crust to generate enough CO2 so that our atmosphere will burst like the membrane of an egg.
Infuckingcredible how full of bullshit you are. Even worse that the fake "I used to run nuclear reactors" and the phony Googled DD214. 

Stick to playing  fiddle or dress up like Papa Pinguin (like you said you did) and go "study" again in China where you have seen the same "hard wired computers" as the on/off button that the phony "Nuclear watch officer" called "hard wired logic".
 So what exactly did you "study" there?
Government enforced abortion methods, like the ones you were suggesting in your  "Numan footprint" thread?
Had your mama known how you turned out *she would have aborted you*!


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Not at all.  The laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature...not laws of systems.  I only pointed out that to neuman because his reference was specific to closed systems and therefore irrelavent to this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




the laws of thermodynamics are statistical descriptions of the consequences of physical mechanisms. you cannot point out which physical mechanisms control the prohibition of radiation while the textbook descriptions of radiation disagree with your 'variation'.

I am not appealing to complexity. the sun is the source of energy for both the surface and the atmosphere. there is a difference between the source of energy and the description of how a bolus of energy flows through the system. the surface and atmosphere are not sources of energy, they are containers of energy that are heavily affected by heatsinks and are in a state of near equilibrium in our charged up system.

on a different note, even a star is a system in equilibrium. the core is producing energy at a temp of millions of degrees but the surface is only thousands of degrees. it is a conundrum to me to describe a red giant which is powered by an even hotter core but is so large in diameter that the surface is radiating at a cooler temp than smaller stars. 

back to earthly things. once the sun has heated up the surface, and the atmosphere, charged the heatsinks, put evapotranspiration into effect, thermals, etc, etc and everything is in equilibrium, mankind came along and added CO2 which slightly changed one part of the calculation, which obviously must change all the other pieces of the equilibrium. while I think that the disturbance is almost completely compensated by the other parts of the equilibrium others think it is not, and build computer programs based on CO2 being a dominant climate factor. they could be right but I dont think so.

we are arguing about the radiative process near the surface. temperature differentials between the surface and the immediate air above it are typically small. the temp of the air compared to the air a few meters above it are smaller still. the radiation going up only slightly overmatches the radiation coming down. it comprises of a swap of nearly identical radiation with a slight preponderance outward, unless of course you think radiation stops if there is no temperature differential.

you made a comment that radiation is more effective than conduction or convection. that is absolutely preposterous. why do we use thermos containers and double pane windows? if you mean that all the energy that leaves the earth is by radiation, that is true but convection, conduction and latent heat from phase change are the heavy lifters from the surface to the upper atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> I'll try again....
> 
> Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...
> 
> ...





why do your comments never seem to have a point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will  be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.  The laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature...not laws of systems.  I only pointed out that to neuman because his reference was specific to closed systems and therefore irrelavent to this discussion.
> ...



The bolded and underlined part, BULLSHIT!!!!

You trying to claim the statistical mechanics interpretation as thee interpretation, covering all aspects... That's a bald-faced lie Ian.. You should know better..

Either you don't know the distinction, or you don't understand there is one, either way it's misleading and inaccurate to make that claim... The 2nd law is an absolute law in the macroscopic. In the micro and sub levels it is used as a statistical law because that's the only way they can use it, due to the fact they can't actually see, the processes only their effects. They use it because they just can't explain what goes on not because it allows two-way energy flow...

Now please go and make that miracle machine that shows this process in action... I'd like to have infinite energy  from a finite source....


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I'll try again....
> ...



Ian again you have totry and change the parameters until you get the results you want....

You just don't get it do you.. My experiment was simple and eliminated any other methods of heat transfer, yours adds all sorts of variables and you think it proves you are correct.. It doesn't it only shows you can turn milk into butter if you churn it enough.. Damn dude it's not that hard.. You are supposed to be so smart.. WTH??

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man.. 

You cannot justify back-radiation, but hey no biggie neither can they... Get over it, you were had..


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

numan said:


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



I really only care about the truth,  or at least the closest we can come to it. nothing we say here on the message board actually amounts to much.

who are you talking about when you say "Denialist chatterbots which are programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate"? as I see it, it is people like Michael Mann who lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. the majority of scientists (even climate scientists) are honest and honourable, why then do they not come down on charlatans like Mann? where are the honest scientists who should be denouncing the distortions and misdirections of Marcott2013? 

would you be OK with the police lying, cheating and manipulating evidence to frame a guilty criminal? how about an innocent citizen who only looks guilty by circumstantial evidence?

there is lots of equivicable evidence out there. warmists like Old Rocks and Saigon actually think melting ice is _direct proof_ against CO2!


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


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



what was your point? you never said what your point was. the sphere would obviously be hotter between the two stars, right? it is always taking in radiation, whereas if it was only next to one star it would have a 'night time' to lose energy. again, what is your point?


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> Either you don't know the distinction, or you don't understand there is one, either way it's misleading and inaccurate to make that claim... The 2nd law is an absolute law in the macroscopic. In the micro and sub levels it is used as a statistical law because that's the only way they can use it, due to the fact they can't actually see, the processes only their effects. They use it because they just can't explain what goes on not because it allows two-way energy flow...
> 
> Now please go and make that miracle machine that shows this process in action... I'd like to have infinite energy  from a finite source....





the second law is not absolute, just statistically probable to the point of absurdity. can you prove otherwise?

in the microscopic world, the possible range of range of radiation wavelengths is large. a molecule, atom, ion or electron may at anytime receive a photon of higher energy than is the statistical norm for the temperature, leading to a fluxuation at that locale. if everything only received average or less than average packets of energy then the temperature would have to be decreasing.

can you point out anyone who has claimed a perpetual motion machine? until you can why dont you let that strawman take a rest.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


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



My point was clear but you had to read the entire post, not pick out a fragment and go with it. Your pointing out something out of context, and then asking me what my point was. In its context it was clear, but taken out of the whole it wasn't...

Here it is again. Read it if you want to understand the point, if you can't be bothered to read it fully, then the clarification is your fault not mine...

_"Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work..."_

now notice the first part explained the experiment and laid the parameters.  It was simple. Notice the next part added the sphere and went on.. The point was trying to explain the difference between two equal heat sources in equilibrium with one another and the effect of black-body radiation, versus the same two heat sources interacting with another body at equal distance from each of them, and how the added sphere changes the parameters regarding black-body and equilibrium of the 3 bodies.

The two stars alone are in equilibrium negating any added heat from one another. The environmental parameters made conduction and convection non-factors, making radiation the only transfer method. That being the case and the fact that two bodies in equilibrium do not add any heat but rather remain in equal balance, negates any claims that they can effect noticeable change to each respective temperature.

Adding the sphere to the system at equal distance to the two stars, showed how the system changed. The "equilibrium" would now be different, effected by the third body,the distance between that 3rd body and its twin heat sources as well as distance. Rotation insured that the sphere would be in as near constant sunlight as allowable, negating any day/night complexities to confound the concept needlessly. 

The last full paragraph I wrote you responded to, actually explained the entire thing... I underlined it above.. Now that its clarified further, reading what came before it by the numan sock brigade should make the entire clear...

Just TRY and read what you are attacking first..


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Either you don't know the distinction, or you don't understand there is one, either way it's misleading and inaccurate to make that claim... The 2nd law is an absolute law in the macroscopic. In the micro and sub levels it is used as a statistical law because that's the only way they can use it, due to the fact they can't actually see, the processes only their effects. They use it because they just can't explain what goes on not because it allows two-way energy flow...
> ...



Don't have to Ian, physicist already have, the world proves it all the time. 

Again you are taking the statistical mechanics interpretation used expressly FOR that field, and trying to equate it to situations and parameters where it was not intended. 

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"Derivation from statistical mechanics

Further information: H-theorem
Due to Loschmidt's paradox, derivations the Second Law have to make an assumption regarding the past, namely that the system is uncorrelated at some time in the past; this allows for simple probabilistic treatment. This assumption is usually thought as a boundary condition, and thus the second Law is ultimately a consequence of the initial conditions somewhere in the past, probably at the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), though other scenarios have also been suggested.[24][25][26]

*Given these assumptions, in statistical mechanics, the Second Law is not a postulate, rather it is a consequence of the fundamental postulate, *also known as the equal prior probability postulate, so long as one is clear that simple probability arguments are applied only to the future, while for the past there are auxiliary sources of information which tell us that it was low entropy[citation needed]. The first part of the second law, which states that the entropy of a thermally isolated system can only increase is a trivial consequence of the equal prior probability postulate, if we restrict the notion of the entropy to systems in thermal equilibrium. _

Here's the difference in the two...


> _Clausius statement
> The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[9] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:
> Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[10]
> Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.
> ...



now all those explanations of the second law and none of them not one specifies it as a "statistical" law.. Why? Because they deal with what they can see and experience directly in the real world. The "statistical" interpretation deals with what they cannot see or directly experience in the real world.

Again one is actual and based on real experience, the other is speculation based on mathematical concepts that attempt to explain what they cannot. 

You are confusing the two or unaware there is a distinction. Either way, when your theories and mathematical equations conflict with what you can see and experience, it's time to check your math or concepts..

Quantum theory doesn't explain everything, even those working in the field admit this freely. It does answer a lot, but not enough to throw out the natural laws. String theory, and others are attempts to cover these issues in the hopes of one universal theory encompassing quantum and macro. None of these are the full answer yet either.

That's the difference between learning the math, and learning to think...They are not mutually exclusive..


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


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



I still dont understand your point. are you saying that the two stars will be an infintesimal amount cooler because of the radiation from the sphere which goes out into space rather than back at the stars?


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Okay Ian, I tried, you would rather be obtuse and respond like a child fine. Your call...

When you can speak in the big boy voice I will treat with respect again..

Same old Ian playing sincere and when challenged turns into a douchebag.  Okay time wasted, lesson learned..


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> Okay Ian, I tried, you would rather be obtuse and respond like a child fine. Your call...
> 
> When you can speak in the big boy voice I will treat with respect again..
> 
> Same old Ian playing sincere and when challenged turns into a douchebag.  Okay time wasted, lesson learned..



I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.



I totally agree. 

It's genuinely difficult to respond to comments where most of the post is:



> We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..



There is just nothing there worth responding to. 

As I said earlier, Gslack, this is not about what you think or believe, it's about posting comments that actually make sense.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


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




the whole argument against 'back radiation' falls apart simply because you cannot separate the 'back radiation' from the 'forward radiation'. they are both happening continuously and are both part of the same energy transfer, which is net outflow to space. the SLoT also does not forbid changes in equilibrium temperatures at intermediate stages along the way from input to output. you 'back radiation' deniers jump from being too literal, to too general, and confuse one aspect with another. the Sun heats the surface. the atmosphere only affects the radiation loss to space. 'back radiation' only warms the surface if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. anybody up for a Chinook?


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.
> ...



I dont know the origin of this quote but I think it may be applicable when trying to deal with gslack- 



> "Some research shows that friends and spouses have an average IQ difference of 12 points, that for IQ differences less than 20 points a reciprocal intellectual relationship is the rule, for IQ differences between 20-30 points the intellectual relationship tends to be one way, and that IQ differences greater than 30 points tend to create real barriers to communication."


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

Isn't it obvious that the ersatz verbiage above is the output of a computer chatterbot?

It's no better than similar _non-sequiturs_ I remember from primitive Turing machine prototypes from the early 1960's !!
.[/QUOTE]

The irony literally drips....instead of backing up your claims with something like actual observed, measurable evidence, you drizzle the board with your own "erstaz verbiage".


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> the laws of thermodynamics are statistical descriptions of the consequences of physical mechanisms. you cannot point out which physical mechanisms control the prohibition of radiation while the textbook descriptions of radiation disagree with your 'variation'.



So you keep repeating...but the statement of the second law of thermodynamics remains a statement made in absolute terms.  Show me, in the statment where two way energy flow might happen.



IanC said:


> I am not appealing to complexity.



Of course you are.  The statement of the second law doesn't support your claims about it so you dive into an imaginary world of mathematical models and computer output trying to make the second law say something that it simply doesn't.  If you can't work within the statement of the second law, then you have no actual argument...what you have is fabrication.




IanC said:


> back to earthly things. once the sun has heated up the surface, and the atmosphere, charged the heatsinks, put evapotranspiration into effect, thermals, etc, etc and everything is in equilibrium, mankind came along and added CO2 which slightly changed one part of the calculation,



The earth system has never and will never be in equilibrium...another patently false claim on your part.  You make these statements as if they were fact when they aren't even close.  Maybe you believe them, or maybe you just never think very deeply into what you are going to say, but saying it doesn't make it true and making claims like the earth system has ever been in equilibrium really puts you solidly into the realm of the true cranks.

Our CO2 hasn't changed the temperature of the planet beyond that which it's addition can be calculated via the ideal gas laws...in other words, virtually none and nonewhatsoever in its fictitious role as a so called greenhouse gas.




IanC said:


> which obviously must change all the other pieces of the equilibrium.



Since there never was any equilibrium, your statement is meaningless.  You may as well be typing random symbols.



IanC said:


> we are arguing about the radiative process near the surface.



As soon as radiation leaves the surface of the earth..it is in a higher state of entropy than it was...it can't go back.




IanC said:


> temperature differentials between the surface and the immediate air above it are typically small.



It doesn't matter how small the differential is.  If there is a differential, there is one way gross energy flow.  Fundamental law of nature.  Not avoidable.  Not surmountable.  Period.



IanC said:


> the temp of the air compared to the air a few meters above it are smaller still. the radiation going up only slightly overmatches the radiation coming down.



There is no radiation coming down.  One way gross energy flow.



IanC said:


> you made a comment that radiation is more effective than conduction or convection. that is absolutely preposterous. why do we use thermos containers and double pane windows? if you mean that all the energy that leaves the earth is by radiation, that is true but convection, conduction and latent heat from phase change are the heavy lifters from the surface to the upper atmosphere.



I believe you must know that I was talking about heat movement from the surface to the upper atmosphere.  Why deliberately misconstrue my statement?  Do I have to explain and disect every thought in the most minute excruciating detail....perhaps write in crayon?  Are you going to argue that radiation doesn't move enrgy into the upper atmosphere much faster than convection and conduction?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> why do your comments never seem to have a point?



Why do you never seem to be able to grasp the point?



IanC said:


> *a common example of how two heat sources add to each *other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will  be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because *they are losing less heat *when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly.



You write the fantasy...then destroy the fantasy with the truth which you don't seem to be able to see and then in the next post revert to the fantasy.

The first bolded statement is the fantasy....the second bolded statement is the truth.  LOSING LESS HEAT IS NOT ADDING TO EACH OTHER"S HEAT.  It is such a simple, and unavoidable bit of information...how is it that you can't see it.  Loosing less heat is in no way, and by any definition..warming or adding heat.  It is cooling no matter how you slice it dice it or julienne it.  It is what the second law predicts.  There is no warming....

*THERE IS ONLY COOLING ... **MOVING TOWARDS MORE ENTROPY .... **FOR EVER AND EVER .....* *AMEN.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> the second law is not absolute, just statistically probable to the point of absurdity. can you prove otherwise?



Then take just a moment Ian and try to explain to me, in rational terms why, if the second law is not absolute....in the first place, why it remains a law...and in the second place why it is written in terms that can't be construed in any other terms than absolute.



IanC said:


> can you point out anyone who has claimed a perpetual motion machine? until you can why dont you let that strawman take a rest.



If you have two way energy flow then you have energy moving from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy...that is the basis for perpetual motion...any energy that was at a state of higher entropy that moves back to its lower entropy source creates more energy in the lower entropy souce thus increasing its output with the EXCESS ENERGY....ie PERPETUAL MOTION..

Energy flow is a one way street...more entropy to less entropy...none is excused...none is exempt....it can't go back...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> the whole argument against 'back radiation' falls apart simply because you cannot separate the 'back radiation' from the 'forward radiation'. they are both happening continuously and are both part of the same energy transfer, which is net outflow to space.



There is no backradiation.  Once the radiation leaves the surface of the earth it enters a state of higher entropy...going back..even the smallest fraction of a joule would mean spontaneously returning to a state of lower entropy...can't happen...won't happen...doesn't happen...no ecepctions.....no deviations....ever.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> why do your comments never seem to have a point?
> 
> a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will  be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.



Your comment does not have a point either.
Between the lumps of a pile of coal the combustion rate is higher than on the outside. Inside there is more fuel at the combustion temperature and the air is drawn through narrower channels which acts like a blow torch where fuel and oxidant is well mixed. 






You might as well argue that a candle flame does not have enough "back radiation" and a blow torch does.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.
> ...



Thanks Iansock... Now away with your stench!


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Ian, I know when you are faced with a flaw in your belief system.. You go from mr. intelligent to utter buffoon... It's not about you understanding it, it's about you being too much of a chickenshit to man up and own your mistakes or question your beliefs..

All of your big talk, all of your droning on and on about science, and the pretense of knowledge,and in the end you are a cowardly idiot..

Some time you are going to have to decide if your going to play genius or play dumbass on here. The back and forth nonsense just won't cut it anymore. One minute your citing quantum mechanics concepts, they next you're asking people to explain a simple logic problem over and again and still refusing to get it.. You play this game too often troll.

So which is it? Are you smart enough to think on this or just regurgitating what you find online? Ya know what I think... If you can't figure out a written logical question, or follow more than a paragraph or two in a thought experiment, you're an imbecile with a pre-calculus text book and a lot of google time...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


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



*And in the process he con-f(uck)-uses the combustion rate and fuel oxidant  mixture with "back-radiation"*





I was (mistakenly) hoping he would offer  his knowledge of quantum mechanics to comment on this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7119346
Snell`s law:






> Light speed in a vacuum = 3*10^5 km/ s , in glass  it is 2* 10^5 km/s
> The frequency, the wavelength  and the energy of the mass-less photons stay the same even though light travels only at 2/3  of *c * through glass
> *So what happened ?*
> If f= velocity / wavelength and the velocity is only 2/3 rd. in the  glass did the wavelength get shorter so that the equation remains valid ?
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


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



You should know who said it you responded to him tard... LOL, YOU DID IAN!!!!

ROFL couldn't answer for your fuck up with the second law so you had to divert and confound didn't you... Awww so sad... Then you couldn't follow a simple logic experiment and so you suddenly can't understand english... So then you go get Mr.socko and try the weak game... Pathetic...

Next time save me the trouble and just say you don't understand this from the start. You can't google it, you don't get it....


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


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


Notice that all they have to "offer" are dumb comments when it`s pointed out that heat sink fins don`t "back-radiate" and get hotter.
On some satellites there is serious power going through power transistors.
There are no cooling fans because in a vacuum they are useless. And every ounce of excess weight is avoided.
Heat sinks would be removed for that reason alone, but they are not removed,...for a good reason !
Every satellite component is pre-flight tested in vacuum chambers and satellite enclosures are not at atmospheric pressure.
They are so tightly packed with electronic components that should fry each other with their own "back-radiation".
And now he cites a coal fire as an example of "back-radiation"..:


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> why do your comments never seem to have a point?
> 
> a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will  be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.



Since you brought that up let me point out something that everybody who heated steel or welds can observe every time they do:






As you can see the cooler steel cools down the coal even where it is not in direct contact.
So where is that "back-radiation" from a colder object to a hotter one that you insist on ? 
The exact opposite is happening not just here...it`s also happening if you use an arc welder for welding or heating with graphite rods.
The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.
Go find a blacksmith and see for yourself !


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

So, the cultists here are still adamant about rejecting the past century of physics in favor of their new groundbreaking magic vanishing photon theories. No problem. I can even help them out with some new ideas.

Perhaps they can somehow use this "Electric Universe" theory of alternate physics to justify their own vision of a world of intelligent molecules.

The Electric Sky book

Perhaps they can fit Rossi's "Energy Catalyzer" cold fusion device into it somehow.

TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat - NyTeknik

Or, perhaps they can even work Time Cube cosmology into it.

Time Cube

Get crackin', cultists! If you can fit all 3 into your worldview, that's like a GrandUnifiedTheory, which would be a Nobel Prize for sure!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> Okay junior you just showed your immaturity... Nice work, keep it up..  Lying about our claims and editing our posts will not help you here...



Awwwww, is the crank crying because I flung his shit back in his face? Why yes, he is.

It's pretty simple. If you'll stop lying about us supposedly claiming perpetual motion machines exist, and I'll stop flinging your lies back in your face.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> The two stars alone are in equilibrium negating any added heat from one another.



That's idiot gibberish. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. "Equilibrium" does not somehow magically lead to "negating any added heat from one another". That's dishonest handwaving, attributing an awesome magical power to "equilibrium", but never explaining just how "equilibrium" accomplishes such magic.

Just how does "equilibrium" pull off the trick of magically making energy vanish?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Notice that all they have to "offer" are dumb comments when it`s pointed out that heat sink fins don`t "back-radiate" and get hotter.



PolarBear, of course, is the only one loony enough to think fins will backradiate each other to the melting point.

This illustrates one of the huge failings of common sense that all of the cultists here display, the way they don't understand spatial relationships in the real world. They can't think in 3 dimensions. Heck, they can't even think in 2 dimensions.

Poor PolarBear here is stuck in 1 dimension. He declares the heat radiating from a fin is constrained such that 100% must hit another fin, and can see no other possibility. Because of that astoundingly stupid lack of spatial awareness on his part, he thus concludes the heat has nowhere to go and must build up forever.

Non-retards, however, understand that the world is 3-dimensional. The fins radiate in all directions in 3 dimensions, not just at other fins. Maybe 90% of the radiation heads somewhere besides another fin, thus cooling the heatsink. Since fins provide more surface area for radiation and back-radiate very little at other fins, they provide more cooling, even in a vacuum.

But hey, that's just what electronics designers for the past 50 years have known. PolarBear needs to tell them they're wrong too, along with all the world's physicists.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

That didn`t take long for the first retard to dump garbage in here again. Now the retard "Nuclear watch officer" is talking about "vanishing photons" because it is too retarded to figure out what happens with photons when they are slowed down in glass, partially blocked photon flux by tinted glass or altogether blocked with 2 polarizing filter at a 90 degree orientation.
So why did you not comment on IanC`s "back radiating coal fire  ?





http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ospheric-physics-post7120270.html#post7120270


> a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two  briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will  be  more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are  losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the  cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize  there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation  angle.


Like I said the world has no use for retards like you, who spend their entire day trolling in a forum.
Hey "numan" ...you like using that German term "Die Dummheit der Götter" which you use totally out of context because you don`t know fuck about German literature.
Here is what one of these "dumb Gods" just came up with...:
Der Opoc-Motor von Eco Motors wird in China produziert - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-482128-breitwandaufmacher-uioi.jpg


The 70 year old ex VW engineer  Peter Hofbauer came to Michigan and started a business called "Eco Motors" with his 2 stroke Opoc (*O*pposed *P*iston, *O*pposed *C*ylinder,)  invention.
As soon as he patented it Obama`s friend Bill Gates got into the act and moved the entire production facility to minimum wage China.


> *Microsoft-Gründer Bill Gates. *Insgesamt hat Eco Motors *66 Millionen Euro Investitionskapital *eingesammelt. Der chinesische Automobilzulieferer Zhongding Power wird für 200  Millionen Dollar nahe Shanghai ein Werk bauen, in dem ab 2014 jährlich  bis zu 150.000 Opoc-Antriebe produziert werden können.








*Zhongding Power  is building a $ 200 million production plant near Shanghai that will produce 150 000 Opoc engines per year starting 2014*
What you call "Dummheit der Götter" is called *Intelligent Design*, something that neither you and your loudmouth sock puppets can wrap their tiny "hard wired" 
little brains around
*And yes, it does have CO2 coming out of the exhaust pipes, it`s a 2 stroke Diesel engine*!
Since you know that much about thermodynamics why don`t you go to China with "numan" and tell Herr Hofbauer how to do it right.
I`m sure he would not leave without his  Abbott and  Costello team of "physics experts"...so start packing and fuck off.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Th didn`t take long for the first retard to dump garbage



While that was a lovely senile retard rant, it noticeably neglected to address the issue.

And that issue was your laughable lack of common sense, the way you assumed heat fins could only radiate directly at each other, instead of in all directions over 3 dimensions. That same total lack of common sense and logic is apparent in everything you write, and is a common characteristic of the cultists.



> So why did you not comment on IanC`s "back radiating coal ?



Because he trounced you so thoroughly with that simple comment, there was no need to add to it. You were so flummoxed by it, you had to run from the simple case and invent whole new complicated scenarios that had little to do with two hot coals sitting next to each other. 

But hey, here's your crazy story. Let's look at it closer.



> As you can see the cooler steel cools down the coal even where it is not in direct contact.
> So where is that "back-radiation" from a colder object to a hotter one that you insist on ?



As the steel is cool compared to the coals, it would not be radiating at levels anywhere close to the level the coals are radiating at. Thus, the coals would be radiating lots of heat away on the steel side, and only getting a tiny bit of backradiation back, so they would cool down on that side. On the coal side, they get lots of backradiation back from other coals, so they stay hot.

So, congratulations on a fine photo that demonstrated backradiation well.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So, the cultists here are still adamant about rejecting the past century of physics in favor of their new groundbreaking magic vanishing photon theories. No problem. I can even help them out with some new ideas.



I see you talking.  What I don't see is you producing a single solitary piece of observed, measured evidence of backradiation at ambient temperature.  Surely you must know that you can't produce any because none exist.  Now a thinking kitty would be asking itself...why isn't there any.  I mean, we can measure all sorts of radiation at ambient temperature...we can certainly measure the radiation up from the earth at ambient temperture...why can't we measure it coming back down if it is coming back down?



mamooth said:


> Perhaps they can somehow use this "Electric Universe" theory of alternate physics to justify their own vision of a world of intelligent molecules.



It is your team who is fabricating a universe where energy exchange is a two way street.  We are just stating the laws of thermodynamics as they are written.  It is you guys who are saying something else.

Your pretended condesention is a defense mechanism compensating for your inability to prove your point with anything existing in the real world.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Because he trounced you so thoroughly with that simple comment, there was no need to add to it. You were so flummoxed by it, you had to run from the simple case and invent whole new complicated scenarios that had little to do with two hot coals sitting next to each other.



He (Ian) trounced himself but missed it.  In one sentence he claimed that the coals were adding heat to each other..in the next sentence he got it right when he stated that they were simply losing heat at a slower rate.  His first statement was fiction..a fabrication...not physical...not possible outside of a computer model...his second statement is physical and predicted by the laws of thermodynamics.  Cooling slower is not warming...

In his subsequent posts, he reverted to the fiction after actually stating the fact.  Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> What I don't see is you producing a single solitary piece of observed, measured evidence of backradiation at ambient temperature.



Given you've ignored all such evidence presented to you, what's the point of presenting it yet another time? You'd just keep pretending it doesn't exist.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The earth system has never and will never be in equilibrium...another patently false claim on your part.  You make these statements as if they were fact when they aren't even close.  Maybe you believe them, or maybe you just never think very deeply into what you are going to say, but saying it doesn't make it true and making claims like the earth system has ever been in equilibrium really puts you solidly into the realm of the true cranks.
> 
> Our CO2 hasn't changed the temperature of the planet beyond that which it's addition can be calculated via the ideal gas laws...in other words, virtually none and nonewhatsoever in its fictitious role as a so called greenhouse gas.




of course the earth is in a state very close to equilibrium. to an amazing degree actually considering how many different systems are involved.

I noticed you havent started the thread on skydragon slayer theory yet to 'prove' that CO2 has no effect.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't see is you producing a single solitary piece of observed, measured evidence of backradiation at ambient temperature.
> ...



Neither you, nor any of your pals have produced the first piece of observed measured evidence of backradaiton.  At least Ian admits that there is none....you, siagon, and neuman don't know enogh to even know what constitutes backradiation...

your claim that a cooled FLIR unit was recording backradiation made it clear enough that you don't have a clue.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> of course the earth is in a state very close to equilibrium. to an amazing degree actually considering how many different systems are involved.



Nope.  Not in equilibrium...never been...never will be.  I see that you have altered your statement from "in equlibrium" to "near equilibrium"  And the idea that a trace gas in the atmosphere might change the energy balance even more is just silly.



IanC said:


> I noticed you havent started the thread on skydragon slayer theory yet to 'prove' that CO2 has no effect.



I never planned to.  You know where the paper is...if not here is a link.

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

By the way...what has yet to be proven is that CO2 has any effect at all.  The weight of proof lies on the shoulders of warmers and luke warmers..and you know perfectly well that there is no, and never will be any proof.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > why do your comments never seem to have a point?
> ...



in this case I think the whole statement should be quoted-


> a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.



in a way I think we may be making progress. we have a heat source that glows brighter on the _inside face_ because IR from the other heat source is replacing radiated IR, which allows the combined temperature to rise. heat loss is much smaller when radiating into a warm area than into a cold one. the available energy from combustion is able to raise the temperature of the face to a higher degree, although it is still lower than the temperature at the point of combustion.

you can have the same effect without a second heat source. eg the sun(4000K) heats the surface to 300K which is higher than the 250K it would be if no atmosphere was present. all numbers are approx. of course the surface is not a 'special' place except for the humans who live there. I would be more interested in finding out more about the spot where upwards radiation matches downward radiation but that may be distorted by the water cycle systems.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

There is no backradiation....period.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


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




there is radiation, which is a combination of the range of wavelengths available for the temperature, dispersed in a random direction, by all constituents in the system you are observing. a miasma of radiation. got that? radiation is going in _all_ directions, all of the time. we are mostly interested in the up and down vectors of gross flow but that does not mean that radiation is not flowing in every direction.


----------



## numan (Apr 20, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Hey "numan" ...you like using that German term "Die Dummheit der Götter" which you use totally out of context because you don`t know fuck about German literature.
> Here is what one of these "dumb Gods" just came up with...:


That does it!! I can look with amusement at the childishness of this base, vulgar, frozen-brained _technician_ when he insults me with his lies and distortions, but when he insults one of the greatest poets of the German language by misquoting him and completely twisting his words, it is no longer merely a pleasure to reprove this ignoramus, it becomes a _duty__!!_ 

The line of the immortal Friedrich von Schiller -- the man whose Ode to Joy provided the text which Beethoven used in the last movement of his Ninth Symphony and which has become the inspiring anthem of the European Community -- the line from Schiller's great poem on The Maid of Orléans, the line which I reverently used as the title of one of my postings, the line which this low cur has insulted, was :

*"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"*

*"With stupidity the Gods themselves struggle in vain"*

And how true that apothegm is could not be better exemplified by the stupidity of this frozen-brained polar bear both here and throughout this thread which has been ruined by the ravings of global heating Denialists.

This illiterate oaf has twisted the words to mean "the stupidity of the Gods"!! What a bumptious, arrogant twit!

But who can be surprised? I remember my (mercifully limited!!) experience of engineers -- the soiled underwear of the Academic World -- in university. These dregs of the World of Thought were mainly noted for tossing rolls of toilet paper through tree branches, and similar japes and tricks solely intended to make a mess which the overworked janitorial staff then had to clean up. 

The frozen-brained arctoid who disgraces these pages is clearly cut from the same cloth.
.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > why do your comments never seem to have a point?
> ...



thank you for quoting the whole statement.

I am surprised that you are confounding conduction with radiation. conduction is more efficient by a couple of orders of magnitude compared to radiation.

while thermal uplift does cause an increased draft and more available oxygen, it is more of a byproduct of the increased heat than the cause. a positive feedback to be sure.

like I said there are confounding issues but that does not negate the radiation factor.


edit- metals are extremely good at conduction. asbestos would be more conducive to building up the heat rather than dissapating it.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

polarbear said:


> The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.



we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.

you used your telescope and complained that magnifying cool radiation from the outside (or at least the cool windowpane) did not heat the focal point. in fact it cooled it as I had predicted. you refused to point it at an object warmer than ambient temperature which would have warmed the focal point (and cooled the object).


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> there is radiation, which is a combination of the range of wavelengths available for the temperature, dispersed in a random direction, by all constituents in the system you are observing. a miasma of radiation. got that? radiation is going in _all_ directions, all of the time. we are mostly interested in the up and down vectors of gross flow but that does not mean that radiation is not flowing in every direction.



And we can measure it, at ambient temperature in every direction but back.  Simple as that.  It doesn't happen......ever.  Moving back would be moving in the direction of less entropy...can't happen.  Get yourself a new hypothesis because you can't even break even...much less win.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.



I don't recall having any discussion about that.  I brought it up to siagon who promptly ignored the observable evidence that backradiation isn't happening.  I don't think anyone else even mentioned it till polar bear's reference.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > there is radiation, which is a combination of the range of wavelengths available for the temperature, dispersed in a random direction, by all constituents in the system you are observing. a miasma of radiation. got that? radiation is going in _all_ directions, all of the time. we are mostly interested in the up and down vectors of gross flow but that does not mean that radiation is not flowing in every direction.
> ...



Every direction all the time. If you want to play word games like Johnson and call it harmonic reflection or whatever, I don't care. The end conclusion is exactly the same simply with an added (superfluous) layer of complexity.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.
> ...


Come on IanC, don`t twist that story around. If I find the time I`ll dig up your replies when I posted this video.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=21"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]
1.) I did not complain
2.)*you were the one that complained* [2]
3.) you did not predict anything
4.) I did not refuse to point the telescope at something warm.[3]
 [2] *You claimed *that the thermistor cooled down because my "solar fridge"  was only inches away from a cold window...and said that`s why it got cold.
To which I replied that I got R30 thermal windows and you could see that they are because they don`t fog up at sub zero outside temperatures. So if anything that telescope was pointed smack dab point blank at an object which was > 30 C warmer than the outside.[3]
+ I allowed that thermistor to stabilize at room temperature, which was +25 C. Then I slid it through the eye piece opening into the focal point.
The telescope is a [4] black Aluminum tube 34 inches long and 6" diameter.
The tube + the air inside the tube was at +25 C, just like my window.

As soon as the thermistor was in the focal point it cooled off rapidly....despite the fact that it was fully enclosed in a warm metal tube which was full of warm air inside my warm kitchen.
That 34 by 6 inch tube had every opportunity to "back radiate" to the thermistor to keep it at the same temperature or as Roy Spencer would have it warm up even more than when it was out in the open and the nearest warm objects were the 4 walls it was in.
[4] That black Aluminum tube is not exactly an ideal black body, but a much better one than what "climate scientists" assigned as average albedo to planet earth...it`s at least as good as a blacktop road.
*And by the way IanC, I`m pretty sure that there were ~ 380 ppm CO2 in my house at that time too.
*So now go look on your favorite diagram up how much IR is bouncing around inside a +25 C room and read again what Roy Spencer says should happen to a warm piece of metal being "bombarded by back-radiation photons" coming  from a warm window.
You keep pointing out (correctly) that photons inside a warm room go in all possible directions. They had every opportunity to be absorbed by that pitch black metal tube....which certainly does not forbid photons to radiate off the inside surface of the telescope tube...and warm the air + the thermistor inside.
Don`t forget there was an equally warm 6 inch mirror in the telescope zapping that thermistor with a +25 C  photon spectrum...while it cooled off 



And before the lying Siamese cat who promised to f-off from this forum chimes in again...the jury is in and pronounced you a fraud.
However, I`ll give you 1 more chance. That phony "cell phone picture" which you say had it`s digital fingerprint altered by photobucket...which is a lie, because yours  is the only one they did that to...
Snap that picture again and this time put 4 pennies on that document. Alternate them heads and tails...then upload that picture and link to it.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

polarbear said:


> And before the lying Siamese cat who promised to f-off from this forum chimes in again..



I told you to post your crybaby obsessive stalker crap in the Human Footprint thread that you've already trashed. You don't get to trash more than one thread. I'll answer it there.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.
> ...



Quiet socko, the kid voice isn't working for us...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > And before the lying Siamese cat who promised to f-off from this forum chimes in again..
> ...


So why don`t *you* f-off to the "numan footprint thread" and stay there.
That`s where liars who got exposed as such belong..
Your definition of "stalking" is as twisted as you are. You pop up within a few minutes wherever and whenever  I post and when I remind you of your f-ing lies you call it "stalking".
My guess is that`s why you can`t produce your *real DD214* because you were not honorably discharged... 
after they gave you a course in "locker repair"...?(like it shows on that DD214)
Did a few wallets go missing and the MP was "stalking" you ?
I`ll rub your shit face into your excrement every time you come here to change the subject.
Especially so after you claimed I was "cowardly running away" when I ignored you.
Fucking psycho !
Shut the fuck up and show us a DD214 with 4 pennies on it...in the"numan footprint" thread...that`ll do just fine.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> Every direction all the time. If you want to play word games like Johnson and call it harmonic reflection or whatever, I don't care. The end conclusion is exactly the same simply with an added (superfluous) layer of complexity.



Prove it.  Simple as that.  Prove it by providing an observed measured example of backradiation at ambient temperature.  Otherwise...you are just talking.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Oh now it's just too late tard... You had the chance to be taken seriously and given some respect you blew it by being a dumbass rather than respond honestly.. Screwed yourself fake mathematician..

A person doesn't have a real understanding of quantum mechanics (statistical or otherwise) until they have a solid understanding of physics and can in the very least follow a simple logic problem.  They wouldn't bump a student up to quantum theory and bypass all the preceding material, the person (you) wouldn't have a basis to function from, and his  statements would read much like yours do. Blind, lacking context, from and function and not relating to any natural parameters. In short, Such a person would pose a lot of terms that are either out of place, used in inaccurate ways, or completely lacking in the matters proposed.

Just like your posts... One minute you cite obscure quantum or statistical mechanics concepts, and the next you can't follow a simple logic word problem or thought experiment? Does that sound like the behavior of an educated mind, or that of an undisciplined, on-the-fly google taught, fake... I call you another in the long line of posturing idiots with delusions of brilliance, but lacking substance and real education..

I have tested your self-proclaimed brilliance on numerous occasions, and you have failed every single time..  What kind of quantum theory "expert" knows the 2nd laws statistical mechanics reference but not the natural physical law behind it? What educated mathematician knows Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but has no concept when, where and how it applies? NONE! 

You're another internet physicist wannabe... From here on out you get no more chances from me. It's pointless, you're an imbecile who has no interest in truth or understanding. All you care about is how it appears... 

So, in keeping with this fact... Go take a shit in your hat asshole, it can keep your head warm through "back-radiation.. It will be the most intelligent thing ever done with one of your hats..


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


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



AAAAAHHHH! WRONG TOOL!!!

It goes all directions all the time to what end??? What does it actually do to the higher energy source? Doesn't warm it, doesn't effect real change in that part of the system, so what does it mean? It means its NEGATED shithead...It means exactly what your fake educational claims mean, NADA...

Now hush and stick to licking your socks...


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.
> ...



Quit lying Ian... You can't have prolonged conversations. Your ADD/ADHD won't allow it, we have seen this...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

Okay IanC.
Now it`s your turn.
You keep saying how much you know about physics and photons.
Then I gave you a long list how REAL photons behave and all you said that the list was too long...when I showed you how objects can be cooled off to near 0 K with high energy photons.
Then I shortened the list for you and you chose to ignore it because you were stuck explaining Snell`s law and how photons retain their energy while passing through glass at 2/3 rd of c. Or how 2 polarizing filters at 90 deg to each other block out light without getting warm. Instead of facing up to it you started  discussing "back radiation" between hot coals with SSDD. Which was thee most ridiculous example of "back-radiation" I have seen to date and told you why it was ridiculous.
Of course that got buried right away by the "Siamese cat"...which shows up like clockwork and claims  I`m stalking ugly cats...every time after I discuss something with somebody else.
If all that was too "long" (speak too complicated) for you then do this simple experiment yourself.
The next best thing to a black body is an object coated with black soot .
Take 2 identical water glasses and hold one over an acetylene flame with the oxygen valve off. Coat one glass with black soot and then fill up both glasses with hot water and stick a thermometer in both.
Observe how much more rapidly the "black body" cools off than the "non black" body.
That`s how we explained thermodynamics to freshman physics students at the U.
Would a "black body" not radiate more energy/time  than the "non- black body" then all the existing laws of thermodynamics would have been violated.
Because then a warm black body could indeed warm even more drawing on the energy of a cooler object..
Comprendre ?


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

numan said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Hey "numan" ...you like using that German term "Die Dummheit der Götter" which you use totally out of context because you don`t know fuck about German literature.
> ...



Oh good the other phony...

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.... 

Are you a German? No? Why all the pretense then? Oh that's right this is numan sock, super genius with a thesaurus... Forgot.. Carry on with your verbosity, oh maestro of bullshit and purveyor of loquaciousness...

I got a theaurus too... Check me out...LOL

Reading neumans posts are like being assaulted by the inventor of scrabble...


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

I am IanC. I am not a physicist, but I play one on USMB everyday...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> I am IanC. I am not a physicist, but I play one on USMB everyday...


I love it...you should have put a "hey hey" chant after I`m IanC then it would rhyme. Seeing that you are back on debunking duty I`ll call it a day and check out what transpired tomorrow when you need a break from bashing retarded gopher heads:






I love pun, *see these even have hockey sticks *


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

LOL, the MOLES!!!! Hit em!!!!!


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

Ian's previous scientific work...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Then I gave you a long list



You mean you babbled incoherently, posted some random pictures and never came near making a point.

People don't fail to respond to you because you're brilliant. People fail to respond because no one can understand just what you're babbling about or what the point is supposed to be. It's all just senile gibberish. You're not dazzling anyone with your intellect. You're baffling them with bullshit.



> The next best thing to a black body is an object coated with black soot.



Um ... not really. Albedo would be irrelevant to your experiment below.



> Take 2 identical water glasses and hold one over an acetylene flame with the oxygen valve off. Coat one glass with black soot and then fill up both glasses with hot water and stick a thermometer in both.



They'll cool off at identical rates, as the soot would have no significant insulating effect, and no effect at all on radiation. If the soot did have some insulating effect, the sooty glass would cool off more slowly.



> Observe how much more rapidly the "black body" cools off than the "non black" body.



Where do you come up with such barking nonsense? Color will have no effect on heat radiation level. Only temperature matters. A white object and a black object of the same temperature will radiate the same amount.

But let's get this straight. According to you, if I wear dark clothing, it will keep me cooler, because the dark radiates more heat, right? This seems to be yet another entirely new physical phenomenon you've discovered that the entire world has missed up to now.



> That`s how we explained thermodynamics to freshman physics students at the U.



Then you did it completely wrong. 



> Would a "black body" not radiate more energy/time  than the "non- black body" then all the existing laws of thermodynamics would have been violated.



You really have _zero_ concept of a what a black body means, or how it works.



> Because then a warm black body could indeed warm even more drawing on the energy of a cooler object..
> Comprendre ?



Um, no. That last sentence made no sense. The conclusion in no way followed from the premise. It was just more of your inexplicable babble.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Then I gave you a long list
> ...



There fixed it... It's better this way, more honest... You're welcome admiral...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

Gslack, you're psychostalking me across multiple threads. It's creepy and not flattering. And since it will not convince me to fuck you in the ass, I don't know why you keep trying.


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Gslack, you're psychostalking me across multiple threads. It's creepy and not flattering. And since it will not convince me to fuck you in the ass, I don't know why you keep trying.



LOL, lighten up admiral. I post where I want, when I want and to whom I want. The fact you are trying to make me like you is irrelevant, just like your paranoid delusions of people stalking you.. When I ignore you post to me or comment about me to others, so whose stalking whom? ROFL

Here ya go, this will cheer you up. A dancing banana with poop sign.. ALways makes me smile..LOL


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

For someone who said yesterday he wasn't going to talk to me any more, you sure want to talk to me a lot. I know, I attract the weirdos.

Let's do what you hate most, and talk science. That always makes you run. Let's start by going back over your greatest moments of stupidity.

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> For someone who said yesterday he wasn't going to talk to me any more, you sure want to talk to me a lot. I know, I attract the weirdos.
> 
> Let's do what you hate most, and talk science. That always makes you run. Let's start by going back over your greatest moments of stupidity.
> 
> Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?



Sorry admiral you had your shot to show your aptitude you blew it... I don't discuss science with socks, trolls, or children desperate for attention. it's pointless.. All you get from me is scorn...

Now please continue your foot-stomping...

More POOP!!!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> Sorry admiral



Nice attempted evasion, you walking lump of chickenshit, but I'm still steering the topic back towards your idiot science. I await to see what new meltdown it elicits from you. If you just want to cry "uncle!", you can do that as well.

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry admiral
> ...



AAAAHHHHHH WRONG!!!!!!

Again admiral you can't post honestly and with integrity or substance, you don't get legitimate discussion from me..  You had your chance, you chose to be a lying tool and general douchebag.. Even now you can't state my claims honestly, so why bother?

You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity.

So.. Here ya go...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity



If any person on this board had ever discovered me lying, you wouldn't look like such a butthurt crybaby, snivelling because I keep humiliating you over the science. Like this:

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?

(Fail to answer this time, and we'll just all assume you answered "Yes" to everything.)


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity
> ...



LOL... I know you are but what am I?

I'm rubber, you're glue...

See I can play the juvenile game too... Watch...

Do you still pick your nose?

Do you still believe you are the wrong gender?

Do you still have strange fantasies about me?

Do you like to pretend you are an admiral?

Do you fear rejection?

(Fail to answer this time, and we'll just all assume you answered "Yes" to everything.)


----------



## mamooth (Apr 20, 2013)

You understand this is a science thread, and not your stalky insults thread?

If you don't want to discuss science, then why are you on this thread? After all, forum rules say content has to go along with the insults. I may slip occasionally, as do we all, but you're the only who entirely avoids content and sticks purely to insults.

Or look at it this way. Any thread you appear on turns to shit. Do you think that's everyone else's fault?


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> You understand this is a science thread, and not your stalky insults thread?
> 
> If you don't want to discuss science, then why are you on this thread? After all, forum rules say content has to go along with the insults. I may slip occasionally, as do we all, but you're the only who entirely avoids content and sticks purely to insults.
> 
> Or look at it this way. Any thread you appear on turns to shit. Do you think that's everyone else's fault?



A yes to everything then got it...

Just giving back what you gave out admiral. If you don't like it don't do it...

Look what I found for you!


----------



## Saigon (Apr 20, 2013)

I wonder if there is anyone on these environment threads who hasn't just put Gslack on Ignore Mode?


----------



## gslack (Apr 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I wonder if there is anyone on these environment threads who hasn't just put Gslack on Ignore Mode?



Not you or the 3 other you... Not PB, not west, not anybody really... Why not be the first? Start a trend and ignore me... Go on socko, think of how much easier your lives would be. No one embarrassing you, catching you at your socketry, outing your false identities as fakes, your life would be wonderful!

So man up socko ignore me... Stop talkin shit, stop weaseling, ignore me... Can't because you couldn't pull your fake army of 3 or 4 attacks...

ROFL, ignore me? Do it...

I saw your mom earlier. She told me to give you this when I saw you....



This ones from me...


----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity
> ...








Ummmm, you've been caught lying on several occasions there............. admiral.


----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I wonder if there is anyone on these environment threads who hasn't just put Gslack on Ignore Mode?







Gslack is amusing unlike you.  I get amused watching you have your hat handed to you, but you, you are simply boring.  Most uneducated propagandists are I have found.  They lack imagination due to lack of intellect.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 21, 2013)

Westwall - 

If you have actually conceded defeat on science and will now stick to just posting witless taunts at the people who defeated you, perhaps just anounce that so everyone can put you on ignore as well. 

Or are you one day going to go back to explain how the New Zealand glaciers are growing, despite the fact that every source known to man says they are not?


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> If you have actually conceded defeat on science and will now stick to just posting witless taunts at the people who defeated you, perhaps just anounce that so everyone can put you on ignore as well.
> 
> Or are you one day going to go back to explain how the New Zealand glaciers are growing, despite the fact that every source known to man says they are not?



And the obligatory sock comment to give a false impression of support... Nice..

That's the kicker socko.. you can't control yourself. You will keep the proxy game going and manufacture as much fake support you think it will take, and then when you finally feel safe, you're gonna get caught socking... It will happen socko...

But in the meantime...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Yep, just like I thought nothing but Gilligan Island's Admiral garbage.
No response from IanC about photons traversing glass or 2 polarizing filters at 90 deg,...or the thermistor inside a black tube in a warm room that cooled off instead of getting warmer.
Now it`s about 2 heat lamps aimed at a spot which gets hotter, while the contention was that the cooler heat lamp is supposed to be able to heat the hotter heat lamp to even hotter temperatures...which also means that the heat sink fins of a power transistor should fry a power transistor in a vacuum chamber...which according to the "Admiral" has less to do with "back-radiation" than more heat lamps focused on on single spot.
No matter how often you tell them how easy it is to show that the "blacker" a body has the higher the rate of energy loss at the same temperature than the not so black body,...like the CO2 above the "blacker" body, the earth`s surface. You don`t need an acetylene torch to soot a glass. I can be done with a candle. And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it....which according to Spencer should warm the water in the dark glass.
These morons keep coming back for a "rematch" no matter how many times they`ve been defeated being hopelessly outgunned




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9zpD7mWOw0&feature=youtu.be"]Outgunned - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Oddball (Apr 21, 2013)




----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> If you have actually conceded defeat on science and will now stick to just posting witless taunts at the people who defeated you, perhaps just anounce that so everyone can put you on ignore as well.
> 
> Or are you one day going to go back to explain how the New Zealand glaciers are growing, despite the fact that every source known to man says they are not?







I have to say, I find your level of delusion interesting.  Your OWN SIDE is telling you that we sceptics were correct, but you fanatics plug your ears and go "lalalalala".

When the realisation finally hits you...as it most certainly will, I hope you have access to some mental health facility near your moms basement.

I really do.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I wonder if there is anyone on these environment threads who hasn't just put Gslack on Ignore Mode?



I love watching glsack smack you around.  

You can't buy better entertainment!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> I am IanC. I am not a physicist, but I play one on USMB everyday...



I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express one evening...should have registered for a Nobel.  These days, the award has been so degraded that it doesn't take much more than that.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

numan had it wrong. 

it's not so much you have to worry getting fleas from lying down with dogs as it is that when you get down in the mud to wrestle pigs, the pigs enjoy it.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.
> ...



the message board didnt start when you arrived. Im sure you could find it if you look hard enough


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


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





do you really believe that the strawmen you conjure up were actually spoken by the people you attribute them to?

the solar oven works because sunlight is reflected in such a way as all the surfaces receive  incident shortwave while only longwave IR goes in the other direction.

at night only longwave IR from a cold atmosphere comes in but the longwave IR from the object at the focal point is free to leave of course.

the light from the sun is more energetic than the IR from the object in the solar oven, which in turn is more energetic than the radiation coming down from a cold atmosphere.

therefore the object heats up when the solar oven is pointed at the sun, and the object cools down when pointed at the night time sky. all due to the imbalance of radiation. in the first case the sun cools down and the object heats up, in the second case the object cools down and the atmosphere warms up. what could be more simple? how could you misunderstand that?

I am unsure how you think the effect of CO2 can be determined by such a set up.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Every direction all the time. If you want to play word games like Johnson and call it harmonic reflection or whatever, I don't care. The end conclusion is exactly the same simply with an added (superfluous) layer of complexity.
> ...



we have been over this, time and again. does all radiation stop in an area that is all at the same temperature? if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question.


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> numan had it wrong.
> 
> it's not so much you have to worry getting fleas from lying down with dogs as it is that when you get down in the mud to wrestle pigs, the pigs enjoy it.



Aww that's big of you... numans a pig or mudd? Or are you the pig?

Sorry Ian your ADD/ADHD must be caused by a contagion, I think I have it too.. Seems to come on every time I hear or  see someone throwing another under the bus...

Way to show your true nature Ian, don't correct them when they are wrong, just wait until you are asked to defend one their claims then throw em under that bus...


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Fine example of BS there IAn... Here's what just transpired in a nutshell...

PB: The heat flows out from hot to cold..

IanC: So you are saying that energy from the cold makes a conscious decision to not flow out?

See? It's retarded.. That's not verbatim but it is what you pull Ian...You just pulled it again... Rather than answer the question or propose a legitimate counter, you make a wild claim and pretend it's theirs..

No point in the fake scientist crap if these are your methods Ian, it tells the truth on you...And the fact the exact same tactic is used by 3 others in this, we can make some safe assumptions about you and them.

That is why I am going do this, and laugh at you..



Want serious discourse? Then be genuine and honest, and worthy of it. Otherwise, you get the dancing poop sign...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> at night only longwave IR from a cold atmosphere comes in but the longwave IR from the object at the focal point is free to leave of course.
> 
> the light from the sun is more energetic than the IR from the object in the solar oven, which in turn is more energetic than the radiation coming down from a cold atmosphere.



You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient.  Backradiation simply is not happening.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

IanC said:


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



 I repeat...we have no problem observing and measuring radiation in any direction...except back.  You can't meausre it because it doesn't exist.  You would think that you guys would get that.



IanC said:


> I  if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question



How does the rock know which way to fall?  How does the marble on the incline know which way to roll?  How does the water know which way to flow....Answer...they don't need to know.  The laws of nature don't give them any other chocie.  Radiation does not go back to be reabsorbed by its source...and a cool object doesn't radiate to a warmer object for the same reason...the laws of nature give it no other choice.


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



SSD, I have tried what you are trying now with Ian several times. It will come to a point where he will be cornered and unable to logically argue his side any longer, and then he will do Ian usual and feign incomprehension and blame you and your "stupidity, verbiage, lack of understanding, whatever" and make false claims about your posts and ask you to defend them..

It's his MO, the bad part is his socks have the same character flaws. Pressure them they react the same way. Don't get too wrapped up into this he will just waste your time when he can't handle it...


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > at night only longwave IR from a cold atmosphere comes in but the longwave IR from the object at the focal point is free to leave of course.
> ...



you are absolutely correct! and for exactly the same reasons I gave earlier. the back radiation from the sky is less than the forward radiation from the object in the solar oven, therefore the object will lose heat to the atmosphere. it is only semantics as to whether you want to call radiation from the object forward radiation or back radiation. both are happening continuously, and affect the temperature gain or loss of the objects involved.

edit- when I said you were correct, I meant that the atmosphere in daytime can be cooler than surface temperature, not that there is no 'back radiation'. would you care do define 'back radiation'?


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



all objects radiate continuously according to their temperature, in a random direction which is not affected by outside influences.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> How does the rock know which way to fall?  How does the marble on the incline know which way to roll?  How does the water know which way to flow....Answer...they don't need to know.  The laws of nature don't give them any other chocie.  Radiation does not go back to be reabsorbed by its source...and a cool object doesn't radiate to a warmer object for the same reason...the laws of nature give it no other choice.




it is easy to predict and describe the flow of water downhill due to gravity. is there some analogue to gravity that I have never heard of that affects radiation? please link up some information on it. I would be very interested.


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)




----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 21, 2013)

When radiation does that radiating thing, does it ever naturally (i.e., without outside causation of some kind) "go" from the cooler object to the hotter object?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Now it`s about 2 heat lamps aimed at a spot which gets hotter, while the contention was that the cooler heat lamp is supposed to be able to heat the hotter heat lamp to even hotter temperatures...



It's not a contention, it's an observation of how the real world works. If I point a 40 watt desk lamp at a 60 watt desk lamp, the 60 watt desk lamp gets hotter.



> which also means that the heat sink fins of a power transistor should fry a power transistor in a vacuum chamber...



Only if you subscribe to the retarded notion that all of the heat from a heat sink fin must radiate straight to the other fin. Of course, only a complete moron could claim something that outrageously stupid. Thus, you do claim that.



> And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it...



Bullshit. Bullshit. Bull-freaking-shit.

Again, you don't have a clue about what a black body is, or how it works.

Any other 'tards here want to back up PolarBear's nutty claim about how a dark object radiates more at the same temperature? 

If only the world knew that they could make heat sinks more effective by painting them flat black. Once more, PolarBear has made an amazing new discovery in physics that the rest of humanity had somehow missed.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> When radiation does that radiating thing, does it ever naturally (i.e., without outside causation of some kind) "go" from the cooler object to the hotter object?








as you can see from the Planck graphs for two objects that differ by 20C, they both are capable of the same wavelengths of radiation and the only difference is that the warmer one produces _more_ radiation and at a slightly higher average energy. if you were only interested in the next photon from each, then there is a significant chance that the cooler object may radiate a higher energy photon at the warmer object than the warmer object sends back at the cooler one. but after a few million exchanges (and unmatched extra photons from the warmer object) the SLoT has been proved statistically yet again for macro systems, even if occasional atoms sometimes lose more energy than they gain in a swap on the warmer side. if the warmer side was not receiving 'back radiation' from the cooler object it would cool very quickly.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Now it`s about 2 heat lamps aimed at a spot which gets hotter, while the contention was that the cooler heat lamp is supposed to be able to heat the hotter heat lamp to even hotter temperatures...
> ...


Yeah? How much you wanna bet?
Are you too dumb to try it out yourself?
*And you* are one of the few "*of humanity had somehow missed" ,why that is so!!!*
Carbon: candle soot emissivity       0.95
Glass    emissivity                         0.92

It`s not an "amazing discovery" either.
The fact that black objects radiate more heat per time has been used all over the place.
That`s why power transistor heat sinks are black.





That`s why high performance radiators are black:











Even a dummy like you should know that:
Why are car radiators painted black


> *Why are car radiators painted black?*
> 
> Car radiators are painted black because it emits the most heat through  radiation (highest emissivity). This improves the heat transfer out of  the radiator when air isn't moving through the radiator.


Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> A black body is also a perfect emitter. The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity.







*Quit your fucking name calling and do it in your "numan footprint" / "I used to be a nuclear engineer" thread where you belong !!!


*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> you are absolutely correct! and for exactly the same reasons I gave earlier. the back radiation from the sky is less than the forward radiation from the object in the solar oven, therefore the object will lose heat to the atmosphere. it is only semantics as to whether you want to call radiation from the object forward radiation or back radiation. both are happening continuously, and affect the temperature gain or loss of the objects involved.



I am absolutely correct when I say that there is no backradiation.  Don't you think it could be measured at ambient temperature if it were happening?



IanC said:


> would you care do define 'back radiation'?



The climate science and the IPCC defined it...in their own bible.



			
				IPCC said:
			
		

> Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> all objects radiate continuously according to their temperature, in a random direction which is not affected by outside influences.



So you keep saying...except that you can't prove it...and there is no law that says that objects must radiate in all directions.  Just because a mathematical or computer model says that it is so, and because you believe it doesn't make it so.  There is a profound difference between the actual world and the world depicted in computer models.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> it is easy to predict and describe the flow of water downhill due to gravity. is there some analogue to gravity that I have never heard of that affects radiation? please link up some information on it. I would be very interested.



Why be obtuse?  You asked how radiation knows which way to go.  I pointed out that rocks don't have to know which way to fall.  Then I clearly stated that rocks fall for the same reason cool objects don't radiate to warm objects...the laws of nature leave no other choice.  

If you had a real argument and the laws of nature were on your side, you wouldn't have to twist statements that I know you are bright enough to understand into something that they aren't.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> When radiation does that radiating thing, does it ever naturally (i.e., without outside causation of some kind) "go" from the cooler object to the hotter object?



Not one single observed, measured example of it happening at ambient temperature ever in the history of the universe.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> It's not a contention, it's an observation of how the real world works. If I point a 40 watt desk lamp at a 60 watt desk lamp, the 60 watt desk lamp gets hotter.



Not the filament and that is the emitter.  If it got hotter, it would get brighter and if it got brighter you could measure the difference.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> as you can see from the Planck graphs for two objects that differ by 20C, they both are capable of the same wavelengths of radiation and the only difference is that the warmer one produces _more_ radiation and at a slightly higher average energy.



And that is key.  Any difference at all, no matter how small means that the energy flow is in one direction...high to low.  Any in the other direction would be a move from more entropy to less and that absolutely can not happen.  It would be the basis for a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Yeah? How much you wanna bet?
> Are you too dumb to try it out yourself?
> *And you* are one of the few "*of humanity had somehow missed" ,why that is so!!!*
> Carbon: candle soot emissivity       0.95
> Glass    emissivity                         0.92



Did it myself this afternoon over about an hour and a half.  I was surprised at how much more quickly the water in the blackened glass cooled down.  I used a candle as I don't have a torch.

Some pages back, on this, or another thread a poster claimed that he could boil water with a 4 watt continuous heat source.  I told him what sort of heater I had and asked if it would be acceptable (reptitherm lizzard heater pad) and a 33 quart crawfish steamer.

I have an 8 watt, not a 4 watt and it reached a temp of about 121.2 in the open air.  The poster claimed that it would boil water eventually running only 10 hours a day.  I have been running it continuously now for 2 weeks and the water hasn't even reached the temperature of the pad in the air.

I strongly suspect that it never will what with the area of the water being so much larger than the area of the heater...my bet is that I can run this thing till the cows come home and will never see a temperature much above the 89.8 that it seems to be hovering at.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > When radiation does that radiating thing, does it ever naturally (i.e., without outside causation of some kind) "go" from the cooler object to the hotter object?
> ...



*See what`s happening here..
If one of them gets nailed :*


mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Now  it`s about 2 heat lamps aimed at a spot which gets hotter, while the  contention was that the cooler heat lamp is supposed to be able to heat  the hotter heat lamp to even hotter temperatures... Of course, only a complete moron could claim something that outrageously stupid. Thus, you do claim that.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

polarbear said:


> That goes to show how wrong computer models can be when they average solar radiation for a daily time period for all latitudes and over an entire year, the earth`s albedo, cloud cover and convection.



Don't forget, they are the flat earth society literally modelling the earth as a flat disk, not rotating, being bathed by dim twilight 24/7.  How could anyone expect to get a result that is anyting like reality when the models are based on pure fantasy?


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

Yeah really pathetic how they do that.. Which is why I treat them the way I do.. Pointless to treat them any better, they always resort to this tactic if they get caught..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> Yeah really pathetic how they do that.. Which is why I treat them the way I do.. Pointless to treat them any better, they always resort to this tactic if they get caught..



If they knew half as much as they think they do, they would know how badly they are being humiliated and would flee the board out of pure embarassment.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you are absolutely correct! and for exactly the same reasons I gave earlier. the back radiation from the sky is less than the forward radiation from the object in the solar oven, therefore the object will lose heat to the atmosphere. it is only semantics as to whether you want to call radiation from the object forward radiation or back radiation. both are happening continuously, and affect the temperature gain or loss of the objects involved.
> ...



I am somewhat disappointed that you quoted me incompletely, considering you left out a part that dealt with what we are discussing. oh well, manners are not required on message boards.

your quote from the IPCC is quite true. the radiation from the surface is a major factor in warming the atmosphere. the warmed atmosphere is also radiating to shed its energy, in all directions, from all parts of the atmosphere. without replacement radiation from the atmosphere the surface would cool very quickly. I think those energy budgets put the averages at about 400w up, 330w down, for a net outflow of 70w. if the surface lost 400w without compensating back radiation the temperature would quickly drop, with an accompanying decrease in radiation until a new equilibrium was achieved, much colder than now. the sun would still be adding the same amount of energy but the without the moderating influence of heat sinks and their back radiation, the equilibrium temperature would be different, and more extreme between night and day.


----------



## IanC (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > it is easy to predict and describe the flow of water downhill due to gravity. is there some analogue to gravity that I have never heard of that affects radiation? please link up some information on it. I would be very interested.
> ...



science clearly knows the physical laws that govern falling bodies. science also clearly knows how objects emit radiation. only SSDD knows of some strange new law that forbids radiation at certain times and in certain directions, with no underlying physical processes to  describe how it is done. good luck with that.


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah really pathetic how they do that.. Which is why I treat them the way I do.. Pointless to treat them any better, they always resort to this tactic if they get caught..
> ...



They won't flee, they are too wrapped up into their online lives.. For them this is life. Thats why they react so strongly when they are caught in error. I am wrong from time to time, I say oops and apologize and go on,no biggie. It's how life works, no ones perfect, and I have learned this lesson by interacting in society. They on the other hand do not interact any place but online. So no life lessons are learned because the online life can be altered to suit the needs on the fly. It gives them a false impression of how life works. 

Online they can be as infallible as their google reflexes will allow. So they are nearly infallible most of the time. The topic makes no matter they can google up enough info to appear the master of it.

Of course they don't ACTUALLY understand most of it, and it will usually be out of context or inaccurately used in wrong places and times, but they can't be bothered by truth, it's irrelevant to them here. Online, truth is a relative term to them.

Like Ian's on again off again higher intellect.. Ever wonder how someone half as educated as he tries to imply here, can pull obscure quantum theory quotes out of his butt all day, but can't even understand a simple written logic question? Simple he is a googler not an engineer...

Mammoths navy career and higher education, yet he doesn't know all the little things a navy man would never forget. An officer no less who doesn't even know the terms and vernacular of any ex-navy... Again, a googler not an offcier..

Saigons claim of a reporter in Finland.. ROFL where to start.... Seriously must have been bored that day... He came and argued that the US west coast was the entire pacific ocean..Why? Because mammooth screwed up and made another false absolute claim and stuck his foot in his mouth.. So he had to try and fix it... he's not real, a real person would have avoided the obvious screw up. But not the sock he had to save himself...

None of them are worth the effort to attempt legitimate discussion with. I find it best to scorn them right off. Saves energy..


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2013)

I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...






Sorry Ian you were right.. Obviously the new IanC Infinity Oven above proves it...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> science clearly knows the physical laws that govern falling bodies. science also clearly knows how objects emit radiation. only SSDD knows of some strange new law that forbids radiation at certain times and in certain directions, with no underlying physical processes to  describe how it is done. good luck with that.




Why be dishonest when it isn't necessary.  Science may clearly know the laws that govern falling bodies, but science can't describe the mechanism.  Science also knows the laws that govern radiation and the second law states clearly, precisely, and unambiguiously that backradiation does not happen.  If science believes that backradiation happens, then explain why the law is written in absoulte terms.

You believe in a myth that you can't observe, can't measure, and can't even begin to prove.  Where does that put you Ian?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> I am somewhat disappointed that you quoted me incompletely, considering you left out a part that dealt with what we are discussing. oh well, manners are not required on message boards.



How much different from you twisting my statements into something that they weren't?  .  At least I didn't alter your words.



IanC said:


> I think those energy budgets put the averages at about 400w up, 330w down, for a net outflow of 70w. if the surface lost 400w without compensating back radiation the temperature would quickly drop, with an accompanying decrease in radiation until a new equilibrium was achieved, much colder than now. the sun would still be adding the same amount of energy but the without the moderating influence of heat sinks and their back radiation, the equilibrium temperature would be different, and more extreme between night and day.



We both know that those budgets are bullshit..at least we both should know it starting with that bogus number of 400.  You are aware of the actual number for incoming radiation aren't you?  And we both should know that those budgets assume that all radiation absorbed by the earth is instantly emitted...none whatsoever stored in the oceans...rocks...soil...concrete...etc.  Your budgets are based on fantasy and their output is fantasy.

Without a greenhouse effect, the temperatures would be exactly what they are at present since there is no greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse effect is an ad hoc construct that the idiots who made up that energy budget needed to get it to balance and nothing more.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amazing, isn't it.  When faced with the end result of thier crazy hypothesis if it were true, they still hang on.


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...
> ...



As I said before, it's a religion now. Relies on more faith than Catholicism...All hail the goreacle!


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > it is easy to predict and describe the flow of water downhill due to gravity. is there some analogue to gravity that I have never heard of that affects radiation? please link up some information on it. I would be very interested.
> ...



gravity acts as if it was a curvature of space caused by concentrations of matter. it acts on all matter and all energy in the universe at all times. we may not understand understand it totally but we can descriibe its affects and predict its future effects with amazing precision.

where is the analogous theory that describes how certain types of radiation are forbidden, depending on local conditions? what is the referee that decides?

physics says that all matter radiates if it is above zero degrees Kelvin. it does not say 'depending on the temperature of its surroundings'. the temperature of an object depends on how much energy it already has, and changes according to how much new energy it receives while trying to shed its existing energy.

the earth's surface would lose energy and heat very quickly if it was directly exposed to space because it would be getting approx zero energy back. instead the surface is radiating into an atmosphere at a similar temperature and thus gets a large fraction of it output returned. if the earth's surface somehow became as cold as space then the atmosphere would quickly lose it heat and energy because it would be radiating away energy but not getting any energy back to replace it.

you say there have been no experimental data but I say there has been hundreds of years of experimental data. we know that elements and compounds emit and absorb exactly the same wavelengths. we know that transfer of energy is proportional to (T1-T2)^4th power. (in Kelvins, of course). if you knew anything about the history of thermodynamics you would also know that quantum theory basically came into existence because of the ultraviolet catastrophe that was solved by Planck adding a granularity factor, that you could not just keep dividing things in to smaller pieces. remember, the thermodynamic laws were constructed before we even knew what an atom looked like! you are quoting people who had no idea of the structure of an atom, or the workings of photons, as experts in microscopic interactions.

I could go on but I am just wasting my breathe.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a contention, it's an observation of how the real world works. If I point a 40 watt desk lamp at a 60 watt desk lamp, the 60 watt desk lamp gets hotter.
> ...



I would like to point out that the filaments are very thin, and the area available  to absorb photons from the opposing filament is probably on the order of 1mm2. radiation is emitted in all directions. the amount of light energy being swapped by the two lamps is much less than 1% of the total, confounded by glass lens and molecules in the air, and other things I havent thought of. do you really think we would be able to detect differences on that scale by ordinary means?


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > as you can see from the Planck graphs for two objects that differ by 20C, they both are capable of the same wavelengths of radiation and the only difference is that the warmer one produces _more_ radiation and at a slightly higher average energy.
> ...



many times in the past I have pointed out that Planck curves are an easy graphical description of the SLoT for the area of radiation transfer. net energy goes in one direction but that does not mean that every interaction is in one direction. the cooler object DOES NOT STOP RADIATING! photons, once emitted, do not cease to exist until they interact with another bit of matter. if they are aimed at a warmer object they still complete their journey.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > That goes to show how wrong computer models can be when they average solar radiation for a daily time period for all latitudes and over an entire year, the earth`s albedo, cloud cover and convection.
> ...



I totally agree that general energy budgets need to be upgraded.

for instance, depending on the temperature of the surface, the fraction of energy directly escaping out of the 'window' can be increased or decreased.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am somewhat disappointed that you quoted me incompletely, considering you left out a part that dealt with what we are discussing. oh well, manners are not required on message boards.
> ...



Is that sarcasm? Rocks don't warm up in the sun?


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

Standard Ian BS.... YAWN!

A lot of high talk and no substance...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> Wow, that was stupid. You'd have to be a IQ-80-range moron not to see the flaws in that kind of 'tard logic. And to think, some drooler actually spent a long time putting that together, said to himself "damn, that's good!", and posted it. The mind boggles, the dedication that they put into being a 'tard, and the fact that so many other 'tards fell for it.
> 
> Non-tards, of course, instantly see that the radiative heat flow in that situation is completely insignificant compared to the conductive heat flow. The heat will simply conduct away, not radiate back and forth forever.
> 
> ...


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I owe Ian and apology.. I really do.. he was right, backradiation is possible, here is the prototype of his work...
> ...



I appreciate the humour in that joke. if it was anybody else besides glack I would have repped them.

how effective would a microwave oven be if it didnt have shielding to contain the microwaves? remember the first ones? they had hot and cold spots. how effective would a conventional oven be without the insulation? you could still grill or broil but you couldnt bake. 



how much radiation is coming off the cooking food? what is the ratio of inside oven surface to food surface? 

you guys never seem to bring up interesting aspects or ask illuminating questions.

for instance. the surface is solid or liquid therefore the radiating particles are much closer together and the density of radiation would seem to be greater than the atmosphere with its separated particles. things that make you go "hmmmmm". at least initially


edit- oops, my mistake. I thought it was a microwave. my phone doesnt have a very big screen.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that was stupid. You'd have to be a IQ-80-range moron not to see the flaws in that kind of 'tard logic. And to think, some drooler actually spent a long time putting that together, said to himself "damn, that's good!", and posted it. The mind boggles, the dedication that they put into being a 'tard, and the fact that so many other 'tards fell for it.
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Some pages back, on this, or another thread a poster claimed that he could boil water with a 4 watt continuous heat source.



Of course you can, if the container is insulated well enough.

What, you mean you used an uninsulated container? What did you think that was supposed to prove? Of course it didn't boil. The heat conducted away. Like I keep saying, you guys have zero common sense.

To do it right, slip a small heater into a sealed thermos. That would eventually boil. And crack your thermos, so be careful.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

Mamooth- you seem like a pretty dedicated warmer. can I ask you a question?

do you think the radiation from the atmosphere is the direct cause of warming. or is it an indirect cause of warming?

I am trying to dispel a strawman here.


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that was stupid. You'd have to be a IQ-80-range moron not to see the flaws in that kind of 'tard logic. And to think, some drooler actually spent a long time putting that together, said to himself "damn, that's good!", and posted it. The mind boggles, the dedication that they put into being a 'tard, and the fact that so many other 'tards fell for it.
> ...


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Yeah....Okay..... Good then.....mmmmhmmm.... So you two obviously don't get out much do ya...Yeah shows a lil bit....yep.....

Could there really two of you? ROFL...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> gravity acts as if it was a curvature of space caused by concentrations of matter. it acts on all matter and all energy in the universe at all times. we may not understand understand it totally but we can descriibe its affects and predict its future effects with amazing precision.



And we can predict, by the statement of the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that it has never been observed anywhere....that backradiation doesn't exist.  Complicate the issue as much as you like with all the senarios and unanswerable questions you like, but the fact remains and will continue to remain that the second law says that backradiaiton is not possible.  You will never ever ever ever overcome that basic and undefeatable argument.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> I would like to point out that the filaments are very thin, and the area available  to absorb photons from the opposing filament is probably on the order of 1mm2. radiation is emitted in all directions. the amount of light energy being swapped by the two lamps is much less than 1% of the total, confounded by glass lens and molecules in the air, and other things I havent thought of. do you really think we would be able to detect differences on that scale by ordinary means?



One wouldn't even need a partiucularly sensitive light meter to detect a 1% or less increase in a bulb's output.  The fact is that it doesn't get brighter because the filament absorbs no radiation from the cooler light.  

No matter what you say or claim Ian, you will be left with the HARD, GLARING, UNAVOIDABLE fact that you can't provide a singe example of the amazing magical backradiation that you so fervently believe in.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> many times in the past I have pointed out that Planck curves are an easy graphical description of the SLoT for the area of radiation transfer. net energy goes in one direction but that does not mean that every interaction is in one direction. the cooler object DOES NOT STOP RADIATING! photons, once emitted, do not cease to exist until they interact with another bit of matter. if they are aimed at a warmer object they still complete their journey.



And just as many times you have ignored the second law of radiation which states explicitly that energy does not move from cooler objects to warmer objects...no energy can spontaneously go from a state of more entropy to a state of less entropy.  The fact is insurmaountable and the fact that you keep arguing it speaks volumes on how far out there you are.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> I totally agree that general energy budgets need to be upgraded.



They are not general energy budgets and it is deeply dishonest to portray them as such.  They are pure fantasy with no relation or resemblence to reality whatsoever.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Some pages back, on this, or another thread a poster claimed that he could boil water with a 4 watt continuous heat source.
> ...



I used what the poster approved....he claimed that I would be cooking crawfish in there in no time.

The whole warmer and luke warmer crew were there and made no mention of any error in his challenge.....which was:




> Put six frogs into a pot of water. Let it reach thermal equilibrium. Switch on just 2 watts of constant power for 10 hours a day.
> 
> 1) If the outflow of heat energy (cooling rate) from this heat process is GREATER than the integrated inflow from your cheesy heater --- the temp will rise (over time -- probably days) to a NEW thermal equilibrium with a pleasantly warmer environment for your frogs.
> 
> ...




I didn't use frogs or kittens...and the temperature has never even gotten close to the temperature I was told would be reached.  Of course, I said at the time that the water would never get anywhere near the claimed temp but none of you warmers said a thing.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> No matter what you say or claim Ian, you will be left with the HARD, GLARING, UNAVOIDABLE fact that you can't provide a singe example of the amazing magical backradiation that you so fervently believe in.



You've set up your theory so that it's completely unfalsifiable. That would be one reason why it's such obvious pseudoscience.

Actual theories can be falsified. For example, if the heat flow balance of the earth suddenly reversed so that more heat went out than in, that would falsify AGW theory.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



I thought you said it came to an equilibrium temperature and stayed there????? was that not one of the choices? do you have any doubt that if you added insulation to the sides that the equilibrium temperature would rise? or if you sealed the container so that evaporation could no longer carry off energy, would that not also affect the equilibrium temp?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> You've set up your theory so that it's completely unfalsifiable. That would be one reason why it's such obvious pseudoscience.



The second law of thermodynamics isn't a theory...it is a fundamental law of nature.   Feel free to try and prove it wrong.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The whole warmer and luke warmer crew were there and made no mention of any error in his challenge.....



That would be because we weren't stupid enough to think he was talking of a simple uninsulated pot. We understood he was speaking of an idealized extremely well-insulated frog pot. Because it was freakin' obvious.

So just what did you think your experiment proved, other than your love of evasion by nitpicking?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> I thought you said it came to an equilibrium temperature and stayed there????? was that not one of the choices? do you have any doubt that if you added insulation to the sides that the equilibrium temperature would rise? or if you sealed the container so that evaporation could no longer carry off energy, would that not also affect the equilibrium temp?



Never reached equilibrium.  The heating pad in air was considerably warmer.  The water has never gotten within 10 degrees of the heating pad in air.  It has increased slightly as the water level has decreased due to evaporation...but I have been adding some water making sure that it is at the same temperature as in he crab pot.

If I insulated the pot sufficiently I am sure that it would reach the same temperature that the pad reached in the air.  The point was that the claim failed and all you were there on the thread when it was made and made no mention that you thought the claim was wrong.  Now that it has failed...you all rush to defend yourselves in one way or another.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics isn't a theory...it is a fundamental law of nature.   Feel free to try and prove it wrong.



Quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics already did that. Around a hundred years ago.

When your science catches up to 1920 or so, give us a ring, eh? The second law does not hold at the photon level.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The whole warmer and luke warmer crew were there and made no mention of any error in his challenge.....
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics already did that. Around a hundred years ago.



So lets see the observed, measured proof.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> do you think the radiation from the atmosphere is the direct cause of warming. or is it an indirect cause of warming?



That all depends how one looks at "direct" and "indirect", which aspect of the issue one focuses on.

I mean, if the sun heated up more, that would be clearly be a "direct" cause.

If warming caused more CO2 released which caused more warming, that would clearly be an "indirect" cause.

Backradiaton, kind of inbetween. It's sending energy back down in an indirect matter. But it's a direct result of more CO2, and the warming wouldn't happen without it. I'm leaning more towards "direct" though, being it works fairly quickly.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I specifically asked him if a 33 quart crab steamer would do and the answer was yes.  Have you ever seen an insulated 33 quart crab steamer...or any insulated crab steamer for that matter?



I don't care. Really I don't. 

I just know that if you put a little heater in a sealed thermos, the water will eventually boil, and hence your strange "equilibrium" claim will be disproven. That's my point, how you're deflecting from that issue. Conservation of energy is not deniable. The outlet/battery will not know to magically stop supplying power to the heating element when the water heats up a certain amount.  If the energy can't leak out by conduction, it has to go somewhere, so it will heat the water to a boil.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No matter what you say or claim Ian, you will be left with the HARD, GLARING, UNAVOIDABLE fact that you can't provide a singe example of the amazing magical backradiation that you so fervently believe in.
> ...








When AGW "theory" claimed that global warming would mean less snow in winter...and then when the winters became harder and snow records were broken the AGW revisionists claimed "oh no, AGW theory accounts for more snow"_* that*_ is when AGW "theory" became a pseudo-science.

How do you falsify a "theory" that claims BOTH sides of any test?


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law of thermodynamics isn't a theory...it is a fundamental law of nature.   Feel free to try and prove it wrong.
> ...









  Please show us the mathematical proofs that show the 2nd Law to be in error.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I specifically asked him if a 33 quart crab steamer would do and the answer was yes.  Have you ever seen an insulated 33 quart crab steamer...or any insulated crab steamer for that matter?
> ...








So do it.  This should be entertaining to say the least, for if what you claim is true that would be the END of the electrical energy crisis as we know it.  You _*DO*_ realisde that ....don't you?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So lets see the observed, measured proof.



Telescopes did that.

When one binary star eclipses another relative to earth, the light from the star behind is completely absorbed by the star in front. Every bit of it. Cool photons, hot photons, every single last photon. The star in front is completely opaque to the star behind, even if the star in front is much hotter.

Hence, energy flows cold to hot, as the cold star photons are absorbed by the warm star.

And no, don't even try to pull your "but ... but ... the star behind just knows not to emit photons" insanity. Because it's batshit crazy.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> So do it. This should be entertaining to say the least, for if what you claim is true that would be the END of the electrical energy crisis as we know it.  You DO realize that ....don't you?



Please, do tell why. This should be good.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see the observed, measured proof.
> ...









Ummm, no..that's not true.  You might want to look at the astronmical and cosmological papers again.  You are quite simple wrong.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So do it. This should be entertaining to say the least, for if what you claim is true that would be the END of the electrical energy crisis as we know it.  You DO realize that ....don't you?
> ...








You can use a small amount of energy to boil water.  An amount so low that when you use the boiling water to power your generators you MAKE more energy than you put into the system.....do you understand yet....admiral?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

> Ummm, no..that's not true.  You might want to look at the astronmical and cosmological papers again.  You are quite simple wrong.



Really? How? "Look at the papers" is kind of vague.


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law of thermodynamics isn't a theory...it is a fundamental law of nature.   Feel free to try and prove it wrong.
> ...



THere's only so much stupid I can take before I call a rat....

IanC why aren't you slapping mammooth for his ignorance already? So much for BS huh... All about truth yeah right... 

Look Admiral,  You are thee absolute most ignorant little fake I have seen in a long time...

You just claimed Quantum mechanics proved the 2nd law wrong around a hundred years ago... Really? Then why is it a law and Quantum THEORY is a THEORY and not a LAW... 

Freaking moron ROFL...

If IanC doesn't say shit too you over that batch of stupidity he might as well make a new sock and call it mammothjr. 

Come on Ian spank your boy, show us that truth you talk about...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> You can use a small amount of energy to boil water.



Oh hell no. It takes an assload of energy to boil water.

Energy to raise 1 gram of water from 0C to 100C: 100 calories (by definition)

Energy to boil 1 gram of 100C water: around 540 calories.

Heating water to nearly a boil is easy. Boiling it is the difficult part.



> An amount so low that when you use the boiling water to power your generators you MAKE more energy than you put into the system.....



Again, hell no. No wonder you and gslack are always rambling about perpetual motion machines. You simply have no idea of how an actual thermodynamic cycle, like a steam cycle, works in the real world.



> do you understand yet....admiral?



Now, we could bust out the steam tables, figure out how much energy we can actually extract from that steam we've boiled, and see how much energy we can get theoretically back in the turbine. It will be a lot smaller than the energy we used to boil the steam.

But then, you don't even know what Steam tables are, or how to use them. I do, of course, given I was freakin' trained in it. Thanks for giving me an excuse to mention that.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> You just claimed Quantum mechanics proved the 2nd law wrong around a hundred years ago... Really?



Yep. Photon theory killed the second law at the quantum level. And statistical mechanics showed why the 2nd Law holds on the macro level, but not the atomic level.



> Then why is it a law and Quantum THEORY is a THEORY and not a LAW...



Wow. That's so staggeringly stupid, I am literally at a loss. I mean, how does one even begin to talk science and logic with a shortbus rider?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see the observed, measured proof.
> ...



Sorry, but you are terribly mistaken.  



mamooth said:


> When one binary star eclipses another relative to earth, the light from the star behind is completely absorbed by the star in front. Every bit of it. Cool photons, hot photons, every single last photon. The star in front is completely opaque to the star behind, even if the star in front is much hotter.



I belive that you believe that, but the fact is that you have absolutely no idea what actually happens.  Like Ian, you make a lot of statements as if you are speaking fact, when the truth is, you are just supposing.  The second law says that energy won't move from a cool object to a warm object.  Prove otherwise.  Show an observed, measured example.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Yep. Photon theory killed the second law at the quantum level. And statistical mechanics showed why the 2nd Law holds on the macro level, but not the atomic level.



Theory doesn't tump law and no such proof has ever been observed.  It is all models and fairy dust...and the sad thing is, that you and people like you who want so badly for AGW to be true, that you will believe in magic over acutal observation to the point that you will actually state out loud in public that theory trumps law.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

I see you dodged the question again mamooth....

What would falsify AGW for you?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I see you dodged the question again mamooth....



Given that I had directly answered the question before you asked it, why are you telling such a stupid lie?



> What would falsify AGW for you?



"For example, if the heat flow balance of the earth suddenly reversed so that more heat went out than in, that would falsify AGW theory."


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I see you dodged the question again mamooth....
> ...



So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?

And we don't know what the heat flow within the system is...trenberth's energy budget certainly doesn't put forward anyting that resembles reality.  So considering that you don't have a clue as to how much energy is flowing through the earth's system, or how it moves through the system...again, what would falsify the AGW hypothesis for you?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I belive that you believe that, but the fact is that you have absolutely no idea what actually happens..



Yes, we _do_ know what happens. Your borderline insanity does not control reality.

Stars do not magically shut down emitting in one direction just because you really, really want them to.

Photons from one star do not travel through other stars. And they do not just magically vanish into your speshul fairyland dimension. They are absorbed by the other star.

Individual photons happily travel from cold to hot, blissfully unaware of how your cult dogma that says such a thing is impossible. Deal with it. Your whole theory is crank nonsense.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you said it came to an equilibrium temperature and stayed there????? was that not one of the choices? do you have any doubt that if you added insulation to the sides that the equilibrium temperature would rise? or if you sealed the container so that evaporation could no longer carry off energy, would that not also affect the equilibrium temp?
> ...



ahhhh. I should have known better than to step into a discussion that I didnt have all the information.

I assumed an submersion aquarium heater which operates at more than 100C. instead you are describing a radiation-only scenario using a low operating temperature heating pad. the pot will approach the temp of the heating pad if the pot is perfect;y insulated. the earth would approach the temperature of the sun if perfectly insulated but still receiving sunlight. basically from any distance as well. but the earth is not perfectly insulated and neither is the pot.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?



You mean the 30 years of accurate temperature predictions? The correct predictions of the heat balance, the polar amplification, the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, the squeezing down of the outward IR radiation in the CO2 bands?

That's why AGW science has such credibility, because it's been making falsifiable predictions for decades, and seeing those predictions come true over and over.

In contrast, your crank science specializes in avoiding predictions of any sort. That's why your side has no credibility.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> ahhhh. I should have known better than to step into a discussion that I didnt have all the information.
> 
> I assumed an submersion aquarium heater which operates at more than 100C. instead you are describing a radiation-only scenario using a low operating temperature heating pad. the pot will approach the temp of the heating pad if the pot is perfect;y insulated. the earth would approach the temperature of the sun if perfectly insulated but still receiving sunlight. basically from any distance as well. but the earth is not perfectly insulated and neither is the pot.



No, the claim was that a 33 quart pot of water could be boiled using a 4 watt constant on heat source for 10 hours a day.  I have been using an 8 watt constant on source for 24 hours a day and the water isn't even close to the temperature of the heater in the air.

Just pointing out that the person who made the claim didn't have a grasp of thermodynamics and none of you, who were all present in the conversation, had anything at all to say about the parameters of the experiment or the claim being made.  

I predicted that the water would never reach the temperature of the pad in air and it hasn't and never will.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> You mean the 30 years of accurate temperature predictions? The correct predictions of the heat balance, the polar amplification, the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, the squeezing down of the outward IR radiation in the CO2 bands?



There have been no years of accurate temperature predictions...the fact that the predictions remain off even after 30 years of constant tweaking of the models should clue you in but you are so far in denial that you can't see the truth when it is right in your face.



mamooth said:


> That's why AGW science has such credibility, because it's been making falsifiable predictions for decades, and seeing those predictions come true over and over.



Falsifiable predictions?  Are you kidding??  More snow less snow....more rain less rain....more tropical storms  fewer tropical storms...more tornadoes fewer tornadoes...colder winters warmer winters...and on and on and on.  No matter what the climate does, climate science claims it has predicted it and I guess they did because their claim is that everyting is due to manmade climate change even though there doesn't exist the first scrap of hard evidence that man is causing the global climate to change.



mamooth said:


> In contrast, your crank science specializes in avoiding predictions of any sort. That's why your side has no credibility.



My science?  I have been quoting the second law of thermodynamics and you have been denying it.  I am afraid that you are the denier here...willing to belive that one of the fundamental laws of nature is in error so that you can continue to hold your cult beliefs.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 22, 2013)

1.) Your phony "nuclear engineer" " DD214
where you said it was photobucket that changed the fingerprint to HTML was shot full of holes






*Then this:*



mamooth said:


> > And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Bullshit. Bull-freaking-shit.
> ...



Carbon: candle soot emissivity       0.95
Glass    emissivity                         0.92


Why are car radiators painted black


> *Why are car radiators painted black?*
> 
> Car radiators are painted black because it emits the most heat through   radiation (highest emissivity). This improves the heat transfer out of   the radiator when air isn't moving through the radiator.


*Strike 2**!*









*And now this:*


mamooth said:


> Energy to boil 1 gram of 100C water: around 540 calories.
> But then, you don't even know what *Steam tables *are, or how to use them. *I do, of course, given I was freakin' trained in it.*



So you  Googled for a steam table ?
Did it tell you *why it takes 540 cals *to boil 1 gram of water ?.
Funny that your choice of words matched the same as the top Google search result for "how much energy does it take to boil water".
*You did not even get it from a a steam table*, because every steam table lists it in Joules or watt seconds and includes the pressure.
And even an elementary grade school kid knows how to conevert it...why would you bother then to convert it to calories and grams?
To show off your "I was freakin trained in it " ?
Or was it the US messageboard that did that conversion?
...like Photobucket converted your  cell phone cam digital fingerprint to a web-page grabbed picture?
*No engineer would use grams and calories,* and sure as shit not a "nuclear engineer" who "used to run nuclear reactors",,,and the steam turbines that go with these. 
And sure as shit not at standard pressure. 
Have you got any idea under what pressure the steam is at the turbine intake side?
*It sure as shit is not 14.7 psi which is the value you used.
An engineer that goes through the paces to use dieticians "calories" would have also specified that the 540 cals were for standard pressure.
*

*Dieticians label fast food and pet food in Calories.* 

*Engineers don`t use Calories *they use either *Btu`s, because most fuel sources are cataloged that way. And for the rest of it we use Joules.   
You googled for it and used the first thing you saw:
 *
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Energy-to-boil-water_4836.html



> Hi all,
> 
> Maybe someone can help me with this:
> 
> ...


* Strike 3..you`re out !* 




*
Only a total retard like you would still assume that others don`t realize by now how full of b.s you are.*

Fuck  off to your "numan footprint" and  " I used to run nuclear reactors" thread and cuddle  up to the "erudite numan" who has solar wind blowing away water and  "oxidizes" limestone to CO2...then your stupidity  won`t stand out as  much.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?
> ...



oh-oh. now your crank science is surfacing.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


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


*Right on time IanC as usual...*

*bury your sock puppet`s stupidity as fast as you can*








*I`ll just copy and paste it then what you are trying to bury with 2 or 3 pages in the next 10 minutes:

*


polarbear said:


> 1.) Your phony "nuclear engineer" " DD214
> where you said it was photobucket that changed the fingerprint to HTML was shot full of holes
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2013)

screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder



PB nailed it.. Why didn't you say something to your boy over the ignorant quantum theory disproved the 2nd law claim?

Truth my ass... 

A fine example of why I treat your posts the way I do. It's pointless to treat you any better, you're incapable of being honest or sincere. 

Now I must humiliate junior before I leave...


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

Here's a pic I found of Ian, mammooth and saigon...






I think Ian is the one in the middle.. It's either him or hes a sock and numans the guy... Doesn't really matter does it...


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?
> ...



AAAAAAHHHHHHH!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder



Try screw me!...you are a phony just like the "Nuclear Admiral"
You don`t know shit about black bodies and these "back radiation photons" you keep yapping about..
how many posts do you have so far?...let`s see:
Join Date: Sep 2009
*Posts: 4,900
*usless B.S. backradiation postings.
As soon as somebody who does know physics debunks your b.s. and explains the real science then it`s either "long winded" or the rest of the GW kooks chime in, bury it or provoke somebody else with taunts to change the subject.
You had every opportunity to defend your ridiculous "photons" when I showed you that real photons are not itsy bitsy particles but behave like waves. I even gave you a chance to review and correct your stupid AGW regurgitated  nonsense photons when I told you here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7119346


> Light speed in a vacuum = 3*10^5 km/ s , in glass  it is 2* 10^5 km/s
> The frequency, the wavelength  and the energy of the mass-less photons stay the same even though light travels only at 2/3  of *c * through glass
> *So what happened ?*
> If f= velocity / wavelength and the velocity is only 2/3 rd. in the  glass did the wavelength get shorter so that the equation remains valid ?
> ...


And you came back with the most ridiculous example of "back radiation" that according to you takes place between 2 burning pieces of coal.
*After that your 3 buddies chimed in and buried your stupidity with over 10 pages of their own in a matter of minutes. 
And you do exactly the same thing when one of them got nailed.*
I`ll give you something "longwinded"...speak too complicated for you to comprehend.. somebody sent me the link for the English translation pdf file in my pn.)..
It`s somebody you call ignorant, has been reading it and had no problem understanding it.
I`ll get to the crux with an excerpt :


> Falsication Of
> The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
> Within The Frame Of Physics
> Version 2.0 (July 24, 2007)
> ...


And here is the link that one of the "ignorant denialists" mailed me, found it in my PNs today:


> *Re: Got something you may want to read
> 
> *Found a couple papers by German scientists denouncing greenhouse effect,  back-radiation and AGW in general.. Seems they got buried when they  were published...Big shock there..
> 
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v2.pdf


Thanks again to the sender...but I`m sure this will get buried just like the rest within minutes after it was posted.
Because you can`t argue physics with Neanderthalers
*So screw you too IanC
*You don`t have any more education than "Saigon".
*Instead of going to school you screwed the pooch or maybe a cat




*


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> and I guess they did because their claim is that everyting is due to manmade climate change



If you're just to spout your cult's idiot dishonest propaganda crap, what's the point in talking to you? We already know you're a cultist. Hence your peculiar "THE VERY STARS STOP RADIATING WHEN I WANT THEM TO!" dementia.

I gave you a long list of successful AGW theory predictions. You ignored them and instead chose to babble crazy lies about things AGW theory never said. You used a deflection to cut and run, like you _always_ do, because you can't ever back up your fuktard science.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

IamBorg said:


> I'm new here,



Oh, you're a sock.

Just kidding. I'm not desperate enough to call everyone who disagrees with me a sock. I leave that kind of sissy squealing to you-know-who.



> just wanted to ask if You truly believe that energy can flow both ways?



Of course it can. Again, see the star example. Do you think a cooler star doesn't radiate towards a warmer star?



> And what you said earlier about quantum theory disproving the 2nd law, you actually believe that as well?



Given that the whole scientific community of planet earth believes it, why do you find it so shocking? The 2nd law doesn't hold on the atomic level, only on the macro level. It was formulated before people knew what atoms were.

It's just like how Newton's Laws of Motion don't hold near light speed. They seemed to tell the whole story when they were first discovered, but later info showed they didn't tell the whole story, and didn't hold in all cases.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

polarbear said:


> 1.) Your phony "nuclear engineer" " DD214 where you said it was photobucket that changed the fingerprint to HTML was shot full of holes



You said you'd look at my new image, the one you demanded with the pennies. You haven't. You appeared to have lied yet another time. It's a habit you have.

You got caught lying about me for a full week running, when you claimed I downloaded the image from the internet. Now  that the new image with the pennies disproves that big lie of yours conclusively, you're pretending you never demanded the new image.

A man with gonads would 'fess up to his error and apologize. 'Nuff said.



> Funny that your choice of words matched the same as the top Google  search result for "how much energy does it take to boil water".



Sherlock is on the case again! 

Funny how I say there are 12 inches in a foot, and Google says THE SAME THING! Very suspicious! Yes, PolarBear has conclusively proven that Google searches about certain constants bring up those constants!



> You did not even get it from a a steam table



Correct again, Sherlock! Of course, I never said I got it from a steam table, so one wonders what the jabbering is all about.

See Sherlick, there's this thing in English called "future tense". As in "I _could_ dig up the steam tables". Indicating a future event. You've gone unhinged because you can't parse basic English.



> No engineer would use grams and calories



A good engineer would, if it was the clearest way to explain the problem. The issue was heating water, and since calories are based on heating water, calories are the quickest and clearest way to explain it.

Now suckass engineers, on the other hand, needlessly complicate every problem with irrelevant jabber. You are one seriously suckass engineer.



> Have you got any idea under what pressure the steam is at the turbine intake side?



600 psi. You didn't know that?



> It sure as shit is not 14.7 psi which is the value you used.



Given I never stated such a thing, you appear to be listening to the voices in your head again. Have they told you any lotto numbers?


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IamBorg said:
> 
> 
> > I'm new here,
> ...



ROFL... Enjoy delusions admiral?

Seems science disagrees with you...

Does Quantum Mechanics Flout the Laws of Thermodynamics? | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network



> *But this, luckily for the second law (though not for would-be inventors of perpetual motion machines), is not the case. Landauers insight is still fine, and erasing information adds entropy to the environment. What saves the second law is that, in quantum physics, entropy can actually be negative. Adding negative entropy is the same as taking entropy away. The key phenomenon behind it is the spookiest of all quantum phenomena, entanglement.*



Hmm that's how many times you stuck your foot in your mouth admiral?

look admiral you and your socks butchering science has gone on long enough..

You try and regurgitate what Ian says, but you fail every time. The worst part of it all is neither of you understand what you are talking about. it's a blind leading the blind fiasco with you two.. 

Want to prove me wrong? Fine, explain "The arrow of Time" to me in your own words.. Not a searched definition because I will know the difference. Explain it to me...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

polarbear said:


> You had every opportunity to defend your ridiculous "photons" when I showed you that real photons are not itsy bitsy particles but behave like waves.



Oh, so _that_ was the purpose of all your senseless jabber. You were trying to overturn the wave-particle duality physics model. Well, isn't that special. Good luck with that. Yes, our PolarBear really does think he's the new Einstein.



> Photons don`t have a mass  and don`t transfer "thermal energy" to the  glass, no energy was "absorbed" because photons  don`t behave like the  silly little bullets that you all use in your stupid "back radiation"  examples.



Yes, wave-particle duality is all wrong, because PolarBear says so! He's clearly headed for another Nobel Physics Prize!

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to read up on the topic, here's a nice discussion.

optics - How does a photon travel through glass? - Physics Stack Exchange

Hey, you guys should all head over to those physics forums and let all those pointy-headed liberal eggheads know how wrong they are!



> And you came back with the most ridiculous example of "back radiation" that according to you takes place between 2 burning pieces of coal.



Actually, that was kickass engineering. As simple as possible, and directly to the point. No wonder it caused you to have such a meltdown.



> I`ll get to the crux with an excerpt :



No, you'll jabber nonsense. 

Instead of being the suckass engineer that you usually are, babbling some confusing mass of crap, why not be a good engineer and keep it simple, stupid?


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > You had every opportunity to defend your ridiculous "photons" when I showed you that real photons are not itsy bitsy particles but behave like waves.
> ...



ROFL your link confirms his claims moron... LOL


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Times up admiral!

FAIL!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> Seems science disagrees with you...



Don't pretend you had the slightest idea of what that article said. You'd just embarrass yourself. You didn't understand it. You're only capable of regurgitating what you lick out of someone else's rectum. Independent thought is beyond you.

Here's a hint. The article didn't say the second law prohibits photon radiation. It was talking about a very specific case that had nothing to do with that.



> Want to prove me wrong?



Been there, done that at least a hundred times. Why do it again? No matter what I say, you'll just lie. It's what you do. It's all you do. 

You, however, do need to apologize, after getting caught red-handed lying about me for a week solid. Being I'm a generous and forgiving soul, I'll even just settle for your simple admission you made a mistake, and we can leave it at that. You will, however, be expected to also stop the stalking.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> ROFL your link confirms his claims moron... LOL



Really? The link claimed wave-particle duality is a myth?

Please, point that part out to us. I seem to have missed it.


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Seems science disagrees with you...
> ...



ROFL I know it disputes your claim well enough... 

What's wrong admiral, got caught being a BS artist again huh...

Nice work you just disputed science again!


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL your link confirms his claims moron... LOL
> ...



Nope that wasn't his claim... nice try...

Afraid to post honestly,so you resort to the childish lies about what was said... Way to go!


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

Admiral the wannabe warrior with a googled dd214, and ever growing claims of his "navy nuke" career, is also an internet physicist... 

Amazing! Dude are you even capable of honesty? LOL


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

Gslack, when you start responding to your own posts, that's a sign you might not be well. Just sayin'. You might want to take a break. PolarBear too.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I see you dodged the question again mamooth....
> ...









Amazing.  Simply amazing.  If more heat went out than came in the Earth would be a giant ice cube.  Your level of ignorance is astonishing.... simply astonishing.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?
> ...








What about the 50 years before, that invalidate all of your claims?  How about THOSE measurements?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Amazing.  Simply amazing.  If more heat went out than came in the Earth would be a giant ice cube.  Your level of ignorance is astonishing.... simply astonishing.



More heat comes in than goes out now, and the earth is not molten. So there seems to be a teentsy problem with your logic.

See it you can figure out what it is. Without my help. Go on, you can do it. Just try.


----------



## gslack (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Gslack, when you start responding to your own posts, that's a sign you might not be well. Just sayin'. You might want to take a break. PolarBear too.



That's funny seeing as how I quoted your posts for two posts, then just made a post to you without a quote... You know a quick reply like you just did... 

Comprehension just isn't your bag is it...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> What about the 50 years before, that invalidate all of your claims?  How about THOSE measurements?



Um, you mean the years before high CO2 levels when temps tracked solar output?

Could you explain how that invalidates the claims of AGW science?


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing.  Simply amazing.  If more heat went out than came in the Earth would be a giant ice cube.  Your level of ignorance is astonishing.... simply astonishing.
> ...








Were that true the Earth would be an oven.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What about the 50 years before, that invalidate all of your claims?  How about THOSE measurements?
> ...









Actually the temperatures correlate exactly (even today) for 1,500 years with SOLAR activity.  Funny how that isn't true of CO2 content and temps.  Thirty years of failed predictions now.  Psychics are better than you at predicting things.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Actually the temperatures correlate exactly (even today) for 1,500 years with SOLAR activity.



Bullshit. Temps started tracking the opposite way of solar irradiance around 1980.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Were that true the Earth would be an oven.



Groan. Okay, you can't do it without my help.

More money comes into my bank account than leaves each month. Yet I am not a millionaire. According to your astonishingly stupid logic, that can't be possible. I _must_ become a millionaire instantly if my balance is even slightly positive.

So, a fine demonstration of the lack of common sense found in most denialists.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Figure that one out.
If the "Nuclear Admiral" switches the subject because it got too hot for her paws and you bring it up again then you are either "quoting yourself", "stalking" or "snapping at heels".
If you ignore that bitch, then you are either "running away scared", are "defeated" *or like me "MIA".*
I just seen this when I got back from town...
I`ll just copy and paste it in here...no problem it only takes a few mouse clicks:



polarbear said:


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


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Figure that one out.
> If the "Nuclear Admiral" switches the



Reported for spamming. Enough is enough. He's posting this same stalky crap across multiple threads.


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the temperatures correlate exactly (even today) for 1,500 years with SOLAR activity.
> ...









It's not the TOTAL solar irradiance that is critical.  It is the TYPE of solar radiation that is being emitted.  UV penetrates several meters into the oceans and heats them.   IR is only capable of penetrating microns deep, thus it is impossible for IR to heat the oceans.

It is the UV radiation that warmed the planet...that is now diminished and guess what....  the temps are dropping.


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Were that true the Earth would be an oven.
> ...









Nice analogy.   If you wait long enough, yes you WILL be a millionaire.  Below is a simple description of the rule of 72....You can use it to figure out how long it will take you to become a millionair at various rates of return.

Of course if you are very conservative it takes a lot longer.





Using the Rule of 72 to Estimate Investment Returns - Find Out How Long it Takes to Double Your Money


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Figure that one out.
> ...







It's not stalking if it refutes an assertion that you have made.  And this one does it very well.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> It's not the TOTAL solar irradiance that is critical.  It is the TYPE of solar radiation that is being emitted.  UV penetrates several meters into the oceans and heats them.   IR is only capable of penetrating microns deep, thus it is impossible for IR to heat the oceans.



Considering that the thermal capacity of the oceans is orders of magnitude greater than that of the atmosphere, it is the oceans that heat the atmosphere.....only an idiot would think otherwise......the sort of idiot that might think that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong for instance.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Figure that one out.
> ...



I actually suggested yesterday that Westwall check the board policy on stalking, as I've noticed he is starting to follow posters around the board posting gibberish and abuse everywhere. 

Reporting is probably the best option - along with neg repping.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 23, 2013)

> the temps are dropping.



Are they really?

You must have forgotten to prove that.


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...







By all means neg away.  You might notice that mine hurt more.  As for your stalking allegation, nice try but I am responding to your posts in a totally appropriate manner.  But feel free to whine to the moderators, I am sure they will pat you on the head like any 5 year old.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 24, 2013)

> I am responding to your posts in a totally appropriate manner



No, you are just posting mindless spam, gibberish and half-witted abuse. 

If we checked, I suspect we would find 90% of your posts made during the past week did not even reference the topic. 

You have clearly just given up posting on-topic, which is entirely up to you, but spamming and stalking might not be tolerated on the board for ever.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > the temps are dropping.
> 
> 
> Are they really?
> ...


Say`s the "snow expert"...that said that if it snows in a cold climate zone it`s "proof" of global warming.
Spring is here?finally | Sports | Portage Daily Graphic


> *Spring is herefinally*
> 
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



So how does it feel?... to get a taste of your own medicine, asshole
Here is what the "Nuclear Admiral"said when I ignored that DD214 gibberish
I was "running away scared",.."admitted defeat",...etc etc...and lastly I was "MIA"....and tried to funnel every post that debunked these lies to a dead thread, the"numan footprint" while you were parading as a "Journalist in Finland" with the "nuclear engineer" calling everybody "retards" in all the other threads...and I was supposed to follow  "instructions" and post the proof how he faked that in  the sweep it under the rug thread? 
At one point that *freak followed me around in all the other threads* and claimed I "chickened out" after I ignored him for a couple of hours.
Matters none to me if a retard insists to play chicken with a freight train.
So I obliged:




Hell no, I just begun...same goes for the "Journalist from Finland" and the "erudite numan".
Like they say, in hell the English do the cooking, the Italians run the economy and the police are German.
Welcome to Hell


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC:
We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC:
> We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
> Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?



I'll bite. are you talking about the reflected sunlight coming off the moon or the radiation emitted from the surface?

last year you seemingly agreed with gslacks' owner that photons magically 'expended' themselves against each other, in open space, with no matter present, and that the energy simply vanished. is that still your opinion?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Don`t worry. I`m not trying to play you for a sucker and offer you a barbed hook.

*So don`t try that with me !*
Like I "seemingly agreed with SSDD".
*You know damn well what my position on back radiation is* and why it it the same as that:
Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 2.0 (July 24, 2007)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007)
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.go



> Three facts should be emphasized here:
> In classical radiation theory radiation is not described by a vector field assigning to every space point a corresponding vector. Rather, with each point of space many rays are associated (Figure 3). This is in sharp contrast to the modern description of the radiation field as an electromagnetic field with the *Poynting vector field* as the relevant
> quantity [99].
> 
> ...


So if you want to reconsider your position, that`s Okay by me and I won`t stick it into your face later...
But I will if you keep insisting on stuff like that to "explain" back radiation:







And giggle along with the Nuclear Admiral:


> Only if you subscribe to the retarded notion that all of the heat from a heat sink fin must radiate straight to the other fin. Of course, only a complete moron could claim something that outrageously stupid. Thus, you do claim that.
> 
> Quote:
> *And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it...*
> ...


To which I replied:
Why are car radiators painted black
   Quote:
*Why are car radiators painted black?*

Car radiators are painted black because it emits the most heat through   radiation (highest emissivity). This improves the heat transfer out of   the radiator when air isn't moving through the radiator. 


Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Quote:
 A black body is also a perfect emitter. The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity.


*And you said nothing, but were happy when  that freak buried it with with a flurry of  more "Nuclear Engineering" posts taunting SSDD, Westwall, Gslack etc.
*


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

not SSDD. the other guy, I forget his name offhand. the one who had the crackpot theory that mixed the characteristics of electric fields with plain radiation.

you spent your time and energy attacking me while saying _nothing_ about his bilge.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> not SSDD. the other guy, I forget his name offhand. the one who had the crackpot theory that mixed the characteristics of electric fields with plain radiation.
> 
> you spent your time and energy attacking me while saying _nothing_ about his bilge.




or do you know something I dont know? is SSDD that other guy, back with a new nickname and a modified theory?


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



why do you continue to expect me to answer your questions when you ignore my questions to you? why do you lump me in with others when it is obvious that I am a 'free agent' that supports what I consider to be the truth, regardless of which 'side' it appears to bolster? when you first posted that picture I asked you to comment on whether conduction through the metal was the reason the ember appeared cooler. you failed to respond. SSDD thinks radiation is more efficient than conduction, I called him on it, you ignored it. 

I dont care who states an idea. if it is reasonably valid I like it. you, on the other hand, seem to care more about who said it and the context of which side it supports. I think that is dishonest but you have to live with yourself, I dont.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> or do you know something I dont know? is SSDD that other guy, back with a new nickname and a modified theory?



When I first got to this board I was accused of being someone else...the mods apparently cleared me and said that they could find nothing that suggested that I had ever been here before.

And I don't have any theory...all I have is the laws of thermodynamics which are clear statements made in absolute terms...anyone who disagrees with them is the one with a theory...a theory that is doomed to failure by the way.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

polarbear said:


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




really? you have tried a lot of trick questions in the past. you dont even have the decency to admit it when I have sidestepped them. you just ignore it and go on to the next deflection or distraction.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > or do you know something I dont know? is SSDD that other guy, back with a new nickname and a modified theory?
> ...



I asked you if you were XXXX at that time. I would never report you to the mods because I only care about the ideas. did someone actually report you?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> I asked you if you were XXXX at that time. I would never report you to the mods because I only care about the ideas. did someone actually report you?



Yes.  As I remember, there was a half a day or so where I couldn't post while I was cleared.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


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




Like hell I did...
Matter of fact I thanked you on occasions and even "+repped" you for your Marcott proxy posts.
And when you were pondering if red-star photons could penetrate a white star hydrogen plasma, I answered 
"Good question" and shared my observations with you what happens to photons that are directed trough a sample beam in an atomic absorption spectrophotometer when everything in the sample region is in emission mode and electrons are no longer associated with a particular nucleus...as is the case in a plasma, where the same electrons that are needed to absorb EM in the IR region are no longer in the "ground state" being able to absorb light at long wave lengths.
So don`t say I "ignored" you.
*Could well be you did not find my reply to you, because every time I post the Siamese cat buries it seconds later with 5 pages of taunts directed at SSDD*.
Therefore I am not accusing you of what you are accusing me.
Although I could...because 10 pages later you used a Siamese cat misquoting what I did say lecturing me  on how a white star is a plasma reactor  and then you said "it was not subject related" to your photons from a red star that somehow manage to shoot like armor penetrating munitions right through a blue star.
You did the same when I pointed out that high energy photons are being used to cool macro objects to near 0 K.
And that`s not subject related to photons ?
*But 2 pieces of coal in your black smith forge example are ?*


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I asked you if you were XXXX at that time. I would never report you to the mods because I only care about the ideas. did someone actually report you?
> ...



I can also show you "Saigon`s" posts where he did the same and tried to get me banned after I pulled his pants down, because the liar`s pants were on fire.
He managed to got me banned ( for one day) after I showed him that he is not in Finland with some funky Java script embedded in a picture I posted:


> Your post was a perceived Security Threat. Now that it was checked out,  your account has been restored. Don't play with code here. Pretty  please.
> Just needed to be sure that You weren't collecting IP info on users


Admin deleted my post that showed "the educated Journalist in Finland" `s IP and I promised not to do it again.
And right now the "nuclear engineer" is trying to do the same thing with Gslack, Westwall and me after we blew up his "I used to be a nuclear engineer" garbage.
It`s about time forum admin starts looking at the computer specific MAC addresses like every public WiFi provider....to see how many of these fraud artists are logging on with one ore more different user names and hi-5 their own posts.
If I do it it won`t be as easy as admin can do it if they wanted to.
I`ll get banned for good just for trying.
It`s not all that hard to hack admin accounts in php`s and I`m tempted to do so, had I not better things to do with my time.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Quote:
> A black body is also a perfect emitter. The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity.
> 
> 
> ...



I did read part of that thread. obviously you did not see my 'thanks' (and rep) to Toddster. I have stayed out of the sandbox bullshit between you guys and the 'admiral', except to laugh when he did exactly what you called for. I still chuckle when I think about it.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


Well good for you.
Yesterday however I was wondering why you showed up in the "numan footprint thread" and hahahad me when the phony nuclear engineer got caught with yet another cheat. The siamese cat had the "erudite" numan`s okay to use his thread to "prove" his phony credentials.
If I don`t respond then I`m "chicken", "running scared", etc and if I do then the fraudster buries it and flaunts the "nuclear engineering expert credentials" in all the other threads and adds that I did not respond.
I`ll give specifics..
Just yesterday the "accredited nuclear engineer" was ridiculing Westwall:
"you don`t even know what a steam table is..."
and "I was (as a phony engineer) freakin trained to use them..."
then quoted an engineering  "steam table" in calories per gram using dimensions  a dietician would use..certainly not an engineer.
But we are supposed to yield to the Navy engineer theatricks because that phony uses Googled Navy slang buzzwords to garnish his "atmospheric physics expertise"


As far as your comment that I "seemingly agree with SSDD"...:
He applies thermodynamics in a very rudimentary fashion, but I don`t shoot him down, because in the final analysis he is accurate within 2 places behind the decimal point as far as "back radiation" from CO2 is concerned if you actually do a *quantitative* spectral analysis:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact


> http://www.john-daly.com/hug2.gif
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]
> 
> 
> ...


I`m doing "Spring cleaning" right now and check in again later.  to see your comments...
If I don`t reply, it`s not that I don`t want to...it`s because your stuff gets buried by the same bullshitters that bury my posts minutes after it`s been posted.
Have a nice day...
I mean that, because overall you are a pretty decent guy and none of us "denialists" have a problem with you.
Matter of fact 2 of them PN`ed me and said they hold you in pretty high esteem...and I do not object that they do, nor do I think that you are a fraud or a "retard". All you have to do is brush up on modern physics and don`t stay stuck with the AGW word-smithed interpretations  of out dated thermodynamics
Just don`t call us retards or ignorant like the rest of the crowd you avoid offending by obliging them to stick with AGW photons and quantum physics as they were over a century ago.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Polarbear- is this the post that you keep referring back to with respect to "agreeing to SSDD"?

As in many past cases you have become confused and accused me of a strawman of your imagination.  I suppose it is easier than quoting me and dealing with my actual statements. I left a pointed comment for you at Climate S.... Where you can respond without getting buried.

Edit- wirebender was the name I I couldn't dredge up


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > I am responding to your posts in a totally appropriate manner
> 
> 
> 
> ...









You would probably be correct in that estimate.  However, they are entirely appropriate based on the sheer mindless drivel you post, that has been demolished in threads years before you ever infected this forum.

You drone propagandists spew your pap continuously even though it has been shown repeatedly to be either wrong, or to not say what you think it says.  If you wish me to respond in a scientific manner then POST SOME DAMNED SCIENCE and none of this CRAP!


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> not SSDD. the other guy, I forget his name offhand. the one who had the crackpot theory that mixed the characteristics of electric fields with plain radiation.
> 
> you spent your time and energy attacking me while saying _nothing_ about his bilge.








I think you're thinking of wirebender.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > not SSDD. the other guy, I forget his name offhand. the one who had the crackpot theory that mixed the characteristics of electric fields with plain radiation.
> ...



thanks, it finally came to me.


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2013)

polarbear said:


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









Here I would counsel you not to. 

 First of all the board would miss you because you are both highly educated and amusing as hell!  Especially when you rip these 'tards a new a-hole.  

Secondly, even with all of their socks they are losing...and losing big time.   I figure each of our posts is the equivalent of 30 of theirs.  

And thirdly, it's unethical and beneath you as an engineer.  You're worth 30 of these asshats and prove it with every post.

Just kick back and enjoy the collapse as they begin to realise they have followed a false religion for so looooong.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.







he called this rearrangement of terms _corrupt_








some people really are deniers. even when it comes to math.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

polarbear said:


> As far as your comment that I "seemingly agree with SSDD"...:
> He applies thermodynamics in a very rudimentary fashion, but I don`t shoot him down, because in the final analysis he is accurate within 2 places behind the decimal point as far as "back radiation" from CO2 is concerned if you actually do a *quantitative* spectral analysis:
> The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
> 
> ...




you realize this post infuriates me, right?

is the Daly quote something that you just found? I have been saying for years that the CO2 effect is real, just exaggerated. and you told me I was full of shit. we argued for dozens of pages on one thread where you fought me tooth and nail over every niggling detail while ignoring howlers from wirebender and gslack. you endlessly brought up my careless use of the word energy rather than power even though I had used the proper terminology earlier in the same post. and yet you had _nothing_ to say about wirebender confusing zero degrees F with zero degrees K, even though it was integral to his argument.

now you are giving SSDD a 'pass' because you dont think the amount is significant. SSDD/wirebender are saying that no radiation is returning to the surface from the atmosphere! given that the amount of radiation generated by the surface according to SB is larger than the amount of radiation being received from the Sun, I think we have a significant problem balancing the books. where is the extra energy coming from? if the surface is not radiating at the rate of S-B, is that not a violation of a 'LAW'.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Ian, I`m not wirebender. 
But I always had an issue with it when people use the above equation to quantify how much CO2 absorbs and re-emits back down.
Because CO2 at T2 deg K *does not absor*b (T1^4 - T2^4) times the energy from a not so black body at T1 deg K. It can only absorb a tiny fraction of this energy at the quite narrow 15 µm band.
And when you actually *MEASURE *it how much, as Heinz did then you can see that it is only 1/80 th of what the IPCC says it does...and still use in their computer models.
Heinz Hug`s direct measurements were dead accurate and you get the same values with the calculations  that Gerlich and Tscheuschner did.
You should read it:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

I can`t take the credit for finding the English translation on the internet.
Somebody who writes here at the US mssgboard found it and mailed it to me....which I really appreciate,...because if I translate the original German paper and quote it, then you would call it "long winded".
Well quantum physics is a bit "long winded" and I don`t know of any publication where it`s formatted like some brochure that you can read while you are in a waiting room and walk away with a degree in physics.
...Like the instant forum physics-expert-Googlers, who read  enviro.org blogs...or the AGW favorite "Skepticalscience" web log short little bible stories  that our warmer alarmists like quoting over and over again.
B.t.w. if an equation that incorporates IR energy integration over a certain bandwidth or the Poynting vector "infuriates" you, then you should stay away from physics and math altogether


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looks like they both say the same thing.  One way gross energy flow in the first one...

Why would someone apply the distributive property to an equation that was already elegant?  Im' not sure why someone would call it corrupt though.  It's just bad math  and certainly doesn't belong anywhere in science.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.
> ...



there is always radiation for CO2 to absorb. the extinction distance gets lower and lower, as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. the closer to the ground for re-radiation, the higher the atmospheric temp, etc. I am not saying that either the surface or the atmosphere are perfect blackbodies or that there are not differences in flux. I am saying that CO2 makes a difference, even if we disagree over the amount.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.
> ...



Are you now saying that the cooler object stops.some radiation from the warmer object?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> Are you now saying that the cooler object stops.some radiation from the warmer object?




What cooler object?  The equation is describing a black body radiating into cooler surroundings.  It is describing a one way gross energy flow.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


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


I know what you are saying Ian and there is nothing wrong with what you just said...but don`t forget that CO2 is not some sort of optical diode which restricts in which directions  atmospheric CO2 can radiate.

The extinction distance is also less for 15 µm IR that comes down from the sun and is a lot more intense than what comes from a 20 C earth terrain.

If there were no 120 km path of "greenhouse gases" like H2O with a trace of CO2 between the sun and us we would be cooked.

You realize of course that while molar ppm stay the same as the pressure drops the ppm v CO2 gets less and less with increasing altitude and the up path has less and less CO2 ppm v per meter path length  than the down path...but that`s only half the story.
CO2 has a rather high optical density. If you fill an open vat half way up with CO2 you can actually see the boundary between CO2 and air as light is being diffracted as it passes into the optically denser layer....towards the vertical.
And the reverse is the case as the optical density gets less and less in the opposite direction.
So now plot a ray which is not exactly vertical but is going up into a progressively less optical density transparent medium.
You wind up on a tangent and a path length  where the remaining 15 µm IR that is supposed to be "back-radiated" is as negligible as a fly having a head on collision with the heat energy convection freight train that's going the opposite way at the same time air is being warmed.
With moderate convection there are *cubic miles* of warm air per second  way past the 10 meter path length that CO2 "traps"...and then would have to  "back radiate" through 100 meters instead of 10 meters.
A 1000 feet per  minute convection is considered "minor turbulence"...you should the  V.S.I. what happens if you stray into a thunderstorm.
B.t.w. From a distance and @ ~ 2000 feet a.g.l. you can actually see the "lens effect" over urban heat islands even when there is no visible smog.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


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


Holy shit IanC can`t you take a joke ?
That was a sarcastic remark that almost every news paper in Canada has been making about "global warming" while we are waiting for spring.
Let me explain it to you. First I`ll try and do it with math.
((x+a)^2  -x^2)/a = (x^2 + 2xa + a^2 -x^2)/ a= (2xa + a^2)/a =2x +a.
At which point will you say that the first differential of f(x)=x^2 is 2x and not 2x+a ?...How small do you want the "a" to be before you agree that the first diff. is 2x ?

Of course you are free to theorize how much taller an elephant is if he`s got a gnat sized wart on his head....like lunar or distant red star photons.
You might even show with a microscope just how big the gnat is, but by then the elephant became too huge to fit into the graph.


----------



## gslack (Apr 24, 2013)

I'm back... BTW, Ian, mammooth, saigon, and doctrorisin, nice try...


----------



## numan (Apr 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder


The freeze-dried bear-brain is an untruthful flibberty-gibbet, isn't he?
.


----------



## gslack (Apr 24, 2013)

numan said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder
> ...



numan, I thought i smelled something.....


----------



## mamooth (Apr 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> It's not stalking if it refutes an assertion that you have made.  And this one does it very well.



Your delusions aside, it is spamming, and it's directly against board rules.

"No Spamming. Multiple posting of the same thing, advertising and links to other sites."

PolarBear posted the exact same long stalkerbabble article across multiple threads. Hence, he violated the spamming rules.

Remember, my little stalkers. You are all free to stalk me. You just can't duplicate the exact same stalkerbabble across multiple threads. When you do that, I report you.

By the way, I always give decent, honest people the benefit of the doubt concerning board rules. I only report violations by my psychostalkers.


----------



## gslack (Apr 24, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's not stalking if it refutes an assertion that you have made.  And this one does it very well.
> ...



Yes and no abusing the rep system, no sockpuppets,no harassing other posters all of which you have violated numerous times... They should get an anti- whiny punk crybaby, fraud policy, then we could lose two of you right away...

Go ahead and report everyone admiral, try and get everyone banned. Then no one will be able to save your butt. People accept so much whining and then they are done..

Now go cry again, prove me right once more.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> no abusing the rep system,



Then stop abusing the rep system. I certainly don't. I never initiate a neg, I only automatically counter-neg.



> no sockpuppets,



Your "IamBorg" sock seems to have had one of the shortest lifespans ever. You certainly pulled the plug on that one quick, after I pointed out what a laughably obvious sock it was. But hey, just because he joined the board and instantly went straight only to the threads you posted on, and then suddenly vanished when I called you on it, that doesn't mean it was your sock. Oh wait, it does.

By the way, you still won't tell everyone who my socks are supposed to be, despite me asking you directly. 'Fess up. You're just making up stories, aren't you?



> no harassing other posters all of which you have violated numerous times...



Oh, do tell. This should be good. Please detail this harassment for everyone.



> Go ahead and report everyone admiral, try and get everyone banned. Then no one will be able to save your butt. People accept so much whining and then they are done..



When people go on month-long psychostalker lying campaigns against me, I lose patience with their crap. Anyone would. Cease the lying and stalking, and you won't have to worry about me. It's all up to you.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2013)

numan said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder
> ...





No, that would be you...


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's not stalking if it refutes an assertion that you have made.  And this one does it very well.
> ...









Feel free to report me then.  I will be exhonerated, and you will be investigated, and hopefully banned for false accusations and theft of ID from other folks and trying to pass it off as your own.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Apr 25, 2013)

*All of you.

Knock it off. 

If you want to flame, do it in the Flame Zone.*


----------



## gslack (Apr 25, 2013)

Wow....lol


----------



## numan (Apr 25, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> *All of you.
> 
> Knock it off.
> 
> If you want to flame, do it in the Flame Zone.*


*"A Daniel come to judgement! Yea, a Daniel !
O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!"*

Speak again, sweet doctor!

I am tempted to vote for you as absolute dictator over this thread, with plenary power over all trolls, flamers, spammers and stalkers, to condemn them and and punish them, even unto torture and the ripping out of their tongues!
.


----------



## gslack (Apr 25, 2013)

Quit sucking up numan..


----------



## IanC (Apr 26, 2013)

The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).

here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-



> Joe says:
> April 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM
> You know, one of the worst things about being a CAGW sceptic is knowing that all those people who continue to deny the fact of a &#8220;greenhouse effect&#8221; from CO2 are batting the same wicket and that they&#8217;re the ones the other side will hold up as &#8220;typical&#8221; of your team. With such easy pickings for the alarmists, no wonder it&#8217;s hard to get the MSM to take scepticism seriously!
> 
> ...



SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the _Slayers_ hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the _Slayers_ hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).



Show me some small bit of observed, measured evidence for a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.  Show me the first bit of hard, observed evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.   Show me anything like hard evidence that the atmosphere warms the oceans rather than the other way around.

Short of being able to produce actual, observed, measured, empirical evidence for those things Ian, it is you who is wrong headed and dragging out the inevetable collapse of the AGW hypothesis.  Don't ask me to take a hypothesis that I know to be wrong on faith and failing to provide any of the requested empirical evidence, ask yourself why you do.

By the way, your choice of posts from roy's site hardly reflects the clock cleaning he is getting there and gets every time he tries to defend the CO2 causes warming hypothesis.  Roy may be a fine meteorologist, but he is no physicist and when people with a detailed and working knowledge of physics show up, they tear his argument to shreds and he inevetably retreats from the thread till new posts become scarce and then he posts a new topic.  He has lost that argument at least half a dozen times and he keeps bringing it up again every time he thinks he has a new twist on it and every damned time, he gets his hat handed to him again.


----------



## gslack (Apr 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).
> 
> here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-
> 
> ...



Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...

A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....

I got an idea, why not place a glass container of CO2 in between the light bulb and the mirror and see if the reflected light from the mirror gets any extra heat back from the CO2... No that would be wrong wouldn't it.. Idiotic...

As stupid and irrelevant as that idea was, the worst was this bit of nonsense..

_*"Similarly, if you sit in front of a radiant heater, then turn a lower powered heater on behind you, you will still get warmer even though the second heater is cooler than the first. In fact, you dont need a second heater  a simple mirror to reflect the heat thats gone past you will do the same!"*_

Brilliant, pure and simple...You will get warmer if you sit between two heaters or one heater.. This guy's a genius... Yep Ian, I can see how it explains your position almost exactly... Sounds exactly like your nonsense...

The last bolded part, is epic Ian nonsense. two-way energy flow, brilliant...Photons interacting with CO2 creates more photons. Genius... Not only more of them but they can now oppose their incoming stronger force and warm that source even more.. 

Why don't you guys just admit what people are figuring out? It's a bogus theory, made to answer things about light interacting with gases they couldn't explain. It's a ,mathematical concept that shows correct mathematically but doesn't show correct in the real world. it's not the first time this has happened, and judging from the absolute dedication to this kind of logic by the scientists involved it won't be the last..

Take your buddies first concept and place a pane of glass between the light and the mirror, and see if the mirror gets warmer because of it's presence.. It won't, we all know it. Why? because energy, even your version of the magical photon, can't flow back to its greater source. I know your going to claim now that the CO2 molecule is the new source. SO what? It's source is warmer therefore no flowing to it...

Unbelievable man, your hypocrisy here knows no bounds..


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).
> ...



And the slackjawed idiot once again demonstrates conclusively that he knows absolutely nothing about science and can't comprehend it even when it is clearly explained in small words.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the _Slayers_ hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).
> ...



Damn. Now that is a lark. SSDD critisizing Dr. Spencer because he is not a physicist. So, who is the leading atmospheric physicist in the US? Someone with a BA in physics and mathematics, an MS in astronomy, and a Phd in physics.

And what organization sponsors this site;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

None other than the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society of physicists in the world. 

Now I think Dr. Spencer severly underestimates the effect of the GHGs, but he is enough of a scientist to recognize how GHGs work.


----------



## gslack (Apr 26, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



ROFL, hows your other you holding up? Knew you were a forum spammer....


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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



Interesting site.. Has this at the bottom of the first paragraph..

_"Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate."_

Notice they use the word theories.. Yes they say it's a theory not a fact. 

oldsocks you just posted a story on the theories development. How does that even address what he talked about? Seriously man, sober up...


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the _Slayers_ hurt the cause by denying CO2 even though some of their other points may be quite valid (I dont know for sure).
> ...



how odd.....I find that Spencer's arguments are always stronger. not only that but he keeps trying to attack the problem from different sides to give detractors yet another opportunity to see the light.

I see that Postma is making a fool of himself, again.


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2013)

gslack said:


> Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...
> 
> A mirror and a light bulb? Exactly what part of that farce relates to CO2 warming the planets surface? YOU sit there and day and day out on this board and belittle everyone who has made any analogy to AGW, and yet you support something as completely irrelevant to the subject as that... WOW IAN SERIOUSLY WOW....
> 
> ...




I usually dont respond to your comments but I am bored.

I can understand how you get confused, and lose track of the concepts by focussing on irrelevant details. perhaps you are saying to yourself that the light meter would throw a shadow on the mirror so that none would reflect back at the meter. that is a legitimate point if the mirror was perfectly aligned but the thought experiment is an analogy for surface/earth. the light from the surface (IR) is diffuse, the radiation from molecules in the atmosphere even more so. that is why he said a _half silvered mirror_, to accomodate the fact that only half of the atmospheric radiation has a downward component (less because of the curvature of the earth if you want to be picky). 

moving on to the heater example. do you doubt that two heaters would warm you up more? again, the single heater is not that great a simulation of the surface because it is not diffuse. one interesting aspect is that you could actually use a parabolic mirror behind you to focus the escaped IR that missed you the first time. you can magnify and direct sunlight, or output from a point source but you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any appreciable extent at ambient temperatures. this entropy is why you cannot use the large amount of energy in the ground or atmosphere to do work.

I dont really expect you to pick up on any of the concepts from Joe's comment, gslack. you never seem to be able to pick up anything. 

go back to your _ad homs_. you dont need brains for that, just bad manners.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...
> ...



IanC, do you have a BBQ?
Mine is black alu, has a 24 x 16 inch lid, and if I place it during the summer at 12:00 noon into direct sunlight it also exposes the 24 by 20 inch front to the sun...which radiates ~1000 Watts per m^2 at it. After 5 minutes it received on top and at the front ~ 244 000 watt seconds solar radiation, yet you can put your hand on the lid for as long as you want to.

But if you put a 500 watt electric hotplate inside the BBQ you can`t touch the lid after 5 minutes without getting your fingers burnt even though that was only 150 000 watt seconds.

You can try out the same thing with a 1 m^2 sheet metal painted pitch black. If you stand on it after it was exposed to the sun for an hour it won`t burn your feet either, but if it`s been sitting for an hour on a 1000 watt electric heater it would.

Photons @ x µm do represent a specific energy quantum but that does not mean that each Joule of energy carried at a given radiation flux is converted into heat.
Much of it remains radiation and only an ideal black body converts the entire amount into heat. 

It`s Okay to speculate if one lamp would heat the filament of another lamp next to it, but unless you can show that it actually does so it`s a mute point.

You keep saying it would and also keep saying that Roy Spencers silly "thought experiment" + his anecdotal "explanations" are correct, while you are disputing the rest of that "science"....the back radiation temperature yields that this photon===> equal amount of heat energy has been projecting.


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



great example. I am short on time right now but I think this is a case of convection and conduction being a much more efficient way of transferring heat. as well there is 1000w heater putting the power through much less than 1 m2. and thirdly there is the matter of emissivity, what wavelengths a material preferentially absorbs. as a kid I hated chrome doorhandles  on sunny summer days.

please be careful when saying or even implying what I have said. you have distorted my position almost every time in the past, so please just make an actual quote of my words, preferably with the context. as far as Spencer, do you disagree that the temperature of an object is not only affected by the energy input but also by the energy loss?


----------



## numan (Apr 27, 2013)

'
Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!

First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!

Moreover, how similar, *how very similar* the way heat is built up inside the barbeque is to the *back  radiation from the atmosphere to the earth!!!*

Idiocy like this is unimaginable to mere mortals -- it takes a genius of the absurd like bear-brain and his fellow Denialists to come up with something this nuts!!
.


----------



## Meister (Apr 27, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!
> 
> First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!
> ...



You're fairytale is losing steam* with each passing month....people all over the world are catching on to the warmers hype and are seeing things as they really are and not as you and your ilk spew.  Now.....carry on


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> And what organization sponsors this site;
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> None other than the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society of physicists in the world.



I've asked before and I will ask yet again...where in that link...or in any of the links that it provides is the first bit of observed, measured evidence that CO2 warms the atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> how odd.....I find that Spencer's arguments are always stronger. not only that but he keeps trying to attack the problem from different sides to give detractors yet another opportunity to see the light.



Of course you do...but you are both wrong.



IanC said:


> I see that Postma is making a fool of himself, again.



I am sure that you think that, but Postma and Cotten have actual observed, measured, repeatable, experimental evidnce in support of their side of the argument while spencer et al have failed thought experiments.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2013)

Meister said:


> You're fairytale is losing steam* with each passing month....people all over the world are catching on to the warmers hype and are seeing things as they really are and not as you and your ilk spew.  Now.....carry on



We are seeing the last gasp of the failed AGW hypothesis...the true idiots...the devoted acolytes...those who have drunk most deeply of the koolaid will be the last to know.  

You can see who they are.....they are still preaching the message while their priests are positioning themselves to get out of dodge while some career opportunities still exist.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You're fairytale is losing steam* with each passing month....people all over the world are catching on to the warmers hype and are seeing things as they really are and not as you and your ilk spew.  Now.....carry on
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......it's really hilarious, these myths and fairy tales the deranged dingbat denier cultists tell each other to keep their spirits up while their crackpot cult is sliding down the poopchute of history. *'The South will rise again, boys, so save your Confederate money'.*


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Its not at all surprising that you condone that nonsensical rape of science Ian... I bolded the stupid parts...
> ...



Classic Ian misdirect... Want to point to where I said two heaters won't warm you more?

Why do you do that? Seriously,you read what I wrote,it was very simple, yet you try that childish misdirection.. Come on Ian just once be honest about what people post. You're supposed to be so brilliant why the deliberate troll behavior?

We know,it's because you can't defend this retarded theory honestly, it's too flawed. You're too much a coward to debate this honestly...

All your high talk and in reality your just a coward... Everytime you pull this tactic, you lose respect, and not just from me.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 27, 2013)

Gslack - 



> Want to point to where I said two heaters won't warm you more?



He did not say you did - he suggested it as an example. 



> Everytime you pull this tactic, you lose respect, and not just from me.



What tactic?

Ian posted a perfectly honest and straightfoward post - which seems to have gone right over your head. 

And no, this does not mean I've taken you off ignore mode, either!


----------



## gslack (Apr 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's called a misdirect, when rather than address what was said, you address something you make up and attribute to them...And as you just said, that is exactly what he did...

His post was his usual when he can't defend some nonsense he posted or can't address something honestly without showing the weakness of his argument or position...

Now, evidently you don't know what "ignore" means. It means you ignore my posts either by choosing to not view or read them, or by using the ignore feature on the forum software. Either way it means you don't acknowledge my posts, and you certainly don't respond to them.

Saying you are still ignoring me in a response to my post is as pointless and dumb as your Dad Ian's ramblings...


----------



## Saigon (Apr 28, 2013)

GSlack - 

I do have you on Ignore Mode because you seem to lack both the literacy and intelligence to hold any form of sensible discussion - as you establish again here by misdirecting Ian's comments, even as you accuse him of doing the same thing (which he doesn't do, btw). 

I can choose to view your comment by clocking 'view comment' on the line that shows that you have posted. On this occassion I chose to look - but am unlikely to make the same mistake in future.


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> GSlack -
> 
> I do have you on Ignore Mode because you seem to lack both the literacy and intelligence to hold any form of sensible discussion - as you establish again here by misdirecting Ian's comments, even as you accuse him of doing the same thing (which he doesn't do, btw).
> 
> I can choose to view your comment by clocking 'view comment' on the line that shows that you have posted. On this occassion I chose to look - but am unlikely to make the same mistake in future.



No ya don't obviously... How many times are you going to choose to look? The entire point of ignoring me means you don't choose to look.. IF you do you aren't ignoring me...

What you ARE doing is showing your immaturity..


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2013)

perhaps we could put CO2 on the back burner and talk about the GHG that really counts, H2O.

the molecules in liquid H2O move back and forth, the average speed determines the temperature. occasionally a molecule by random interactions will find itself both close to the surface and with enough kinetic speed to break free, becoming water vapour. this actually cools the water because only fast moving (more energetic) molecules escape which leaves the average lower, which by definition is temperature.   {why arent the SLoTers saying that it breaks the second law to bump up the energy enough to escape?}

moist air is lighter than dry air, so it rises, taking the phase change (evaporation) energy with it. decreasing air pressure lowers the air temperature and at some point depending on conditions the water vapour condenses into microdroplets (clouds) and then into rain or snow, turning the kinetic energy into radiation. although the radiation is released in all directions, most of it goes upwards because downward radiation just gets reabsorbed.

are there any other ways water vapour in the atmosphere affects energy transfer? yes. H2O molecules absorb most bands of IR radiation from the surface (or elsewhere) and re-radiate it in a random direction just like CO2. not only that but micro droplets are a very good _reflector_ of IR. 

do the SLoTers also deny that atmospheric H2O is capable of capturing and diffusing surface IR, or reflecting it downwards from clouds? perhaps they think there is no observed, measured, repeatable evidence for H2O either.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > GSlack -
> ...





when my kids were small I rewarded them for good behaviour and clever ideas by being _more interested in them!_ I didnt ignore them when they were 'bad', I just made it clear that 'bad' behaviour was boring, unstimulating and unlikely to lead towards entertaining experiences. they grew up to be bright, empathetic, engaging and successful.

either gslack did not have a similar childhood or he was incapable of learning civilized behaviour because we can all see he grew up to be a bore.


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



So then you are saying it's my fault your pal can't grasp the concept of "ignore"?

Why not address my post to YOU honestly now.... Ya know Ian your chicken shit tactics are tiresome. When pressured you misdirect and your pals distract on cue. Then when you respond again it's to one of the posts by your little clones or someone else..

Calling people dumb and pretending some higher education or intellect as defense only works if you are willing to back that pretense up with honest behavior. Something you seem to never be able to do..


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!
> 
> First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!
> ...



bobgnote is well on his way to a massive red medallion rep bar again.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> perhaps we could put CO2 on the back burner and talk about the GHG that really counts, H2O.



Ever notice that along the same lines of latitude and at similar elevation that areas with more atmopspheric H20 tend to be cooler than drier areas...


----------



## gslack (Apr 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



Can't do it can ya coward... ROFL,yes Ian I am laughing AT you...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 28, 2013)

IanC said:


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



I can tell you were too much in a hurry, because I never said there was a 1000 watt heater in the BBQ, I said a 500 watt heater.
Most BBQ`s resemble a cube with rounded edges and  cubes have 6 sides, my BBQ is no exception. So the "1000 watts and less surface" argument was a slip-up I attribute to you being in a hurry,...or as you put it " *I am short on time right now".
*Take all the time you need and think about it when you are not too busy answering somebody else.
A 500 watt heater inside a metal cube (a BBQ) radiates heat in all directions except a little less through it`s own base down to the BBQ bottom. So if anything the radiation energy flux to the surfaces that face the sun is less with the 500 watt heater than what the same surfaces get from 1000 watts/ m^2 from solar.
If you don`t like the BBQ with the 500 watt heater inside...which is pretty well the same arrangement as Roy Spencer`s heated bar...with an internal electric heater then try it out with a 1 m^2 piece of sheet metal on top of a 500 watt electric heater.
After 5 minutes you won`t be able to pick up that sheet metal without wearing gloves...not even at the edges....they are sizzling hot.
Not so the same piece of sheet metal even if it`s black and laid for over an hour in the noon sun.
We`ll talk about it after "numan" shuts up...he can`t even figure out how many watt seconds a 500 watt heater delivers in 5 minutes and argues that the inside of the thin gauge metal lid is way hotter than the outside, because the 500 watt heater was inside.
We have been around this bend last year when I told you to be cautious with your acquired  habit to equate radiation flux Joules into 100 % heat...after you read Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment".
That 100% radiation absorption and conversion to heat only happens in theory with a theoretical black body of a non specified material and mass, a non specified specific heat and in a vacuum


numan said:


> '
> Well, even for the arctoid from the mental wastelands of Canada, that last posting was remarkably doltish!
> 
> First of all, his figures were wrong, but putting that aside, the  obvious difference between the cover of the barbeque and the situation  of the hot plate inside the barbeque is that air is constantly removing heat from the lid by convection and the heat of the hot plate is contained inside the barbeque!!!
> ...



Hey "numan"...if you connect 2 light bulbs 100 watts each in series how many watts worth of light will they radiate ?...Including "back radiating" each other inside a mirror sphere ?
Did it get as bright as a single 100 watt bulb ?
Or  as dim as you, together with your nuclear admiral friend, the expert on black bodies, who had no idea why heat sinks are painted black.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > perhaps we could put CO2 on the back burner and talk about the GHG that really counts, H2O.
> ...



While I have made that point myself in the past, I sm not sure we can separate the conditions sufficiently enough to accurately tease out the factors involved.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



Sorry. Maybe later. How hot with 500watts of light truncated to cut out the IR and enough ventilation to remove conduction and convection?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2013)

IanC said:


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



We can separate them enough to realise that radiative gasses produce a cooling effect as opposed to the warming effect that results from the application of flawed physics.


----------



## numan (Apr 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> either gslack did not have a similar childhood or he was incapable of learning civilized behaviour because we can all see he grew up to be a bore.


I prefer to think of him as a cad.
.


----------



## numan (Apr 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> are there any other ways water vapour in the atmosphere affects energy transfer? yes. H2O molecules absorb most bands of IR radiation from the surface (or elsewhere) and re-radiate it in a random direction just like CO2. not only that but micro droplets are a very good _reflector_ of IR.
> 
> do the SLoTers also deny that atmospheric H2O is capable of capturing and diffusing surface IR, or reflecting it downwards from clouds? perhaps they think there is no observed, measured, repeatable evidence for H2O either.


Laugh Out Loud !!

These gibbering Denialists have already proclaimed that, when there are clouds over the desert at night, you are not warmer on the ground than when there are no clouds overhead !!
· · · ·


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 28, 2013)

numan said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > are there any other ways water vapour in the atmosphere affects energy transfer? yes. H2O molecules absorb most bands of IR radiation from the surface (or elsewhere) and re-radiate it in a random direction just like CO2. not only that but micro droplets are a very good _reflector_ of IR.
> ...



noman can't even figure out that it can be warmer with no cloud cover sometimes.

So, it kinda depends on the season and the temperature, you dull-witted dip shit hack motherfucker.


----------



## numan (Apr 28, 2013)

'

Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?

An interesting psychological study worthy of an international conference may lie here.
.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 28, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?
> 
> ...



I've noticed the same thing, and you could also add 'extreme right-wing political views' to that mix. 

The only people who throw abuse around on these threads are Deniers. I wonder why that is?


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...









  Sure thing mr. journalist from Finland.  I guess your little barbs don't count because you think sceptics are too dumb to understand them huh....

What a sad, pathetic little man you are.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 28, 2013)

Westwall - 

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.








And to you too.....for proving mine

Looks like your sock noooman is getting pounded.  Seems he's a lib with a flippant mouth too.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Apr 29, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> Why do Global Heating Denialism and Tourette's Syndrome always seem to go together?
> 
> ...



*You* lie here.  There.  Everywhere.

noman, you worthless hack twit, you have as much credibility as Stephen Hawking has mobility.


----------



## Meister (Apr 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



I guess when you people keep getting your butts handed to you in discussions, that's all that's left.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



And yet here you are - proving his point.

Numan just dangles his line in the water, and you guys not only grab the bait - you scale, gut and fry yourselves.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...








Really?  Since when is stating the truth about someone and their methods beligerent conduct?  Only to you who wish to shut down any form of discussion where you lose because you either have no science to back up your claims or because you have made stuff up whole cloth and when you get caught you scream bloody murder about how mean everyone is.

Fuck you and your chickenshit tactics.  You make a claim *you* back it up or piss off.  You trolls are alike.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 29, 2013)

> Since when is stating the truth about someone and their methods beligerent conduct?



At the point you lose the ability to debate the topic like an adult. 

For you that was several months ago.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 29, 2013)

IanC said:


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



That`s Okay, like I said I`m quite busy too but in the meantime I have another example for you...and those who want to discuss "back - radiation". I keep saying that photons do represent energy but it`s not heat till photons encounter a system that does convert that energy into heat..and only quantitatively if that system was a PERFECT black body.
A Carbon Arc search light is perhaps a better example than  a heater inside a BBQ, but quite similar:







Before you open the Carbon rod contacts there are about 600 Watts rms generating mostly heat and only very little IR with the resistive filament when the arc light is "shunted".
You could heat air with it no problem. Even water in a pot if you put it on top of the shunted arc light.

But when you open the contacts the 600 watts will generate very little heat in comparison but millions of candelas















> The searchlights were based around extremely high-powered Carbon Arc lamps.
> These were developed in the late 1930s, with a 60 centimetre diameter parabolic glass reflector and was powered by an 8 kilowatt generator. The lamp output was rated at 135 million candelas, and it had a detection range of about 5 kilometres
> the Flak Searchlight-34 and -37 used 150-centimetre-diameter parabolic glass reflectors with an output of 990 million candelas. The system was powered by a 24-kilowatt generator, based around a 51-horsepower (38 kW) 8-cylinder engine, giving a current of 200 amperes at 110 volts. The searchlight was attached to the generator by a cable 200 meters long. The system had a detection range of about 8 kilometers


And when such a spot light hit a cloud, then there was some "back radiation"..:






Back scatter is a more accurate term. 
You can see about a dozen or so back scatter spots over the Port of Gibraltar. You can be sure that the Port of Gibraltar would have been a lot brighter if there would have been ~ 1200 million candelas worth of Magnesium flares air dropped above it.

Heat does not generate it`s quantitative energy equivalent in photons and photons do not generate their quantitative equivalent in heat:

Elastic collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> An *elastic collision* is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur *only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms.*
> Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photons *are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.*


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Since when is stating the truth about someone and their methods beligerent conduct?
> 
> 
> 
> ...







You don't debate asshole.  You make a claim.  It gets shot down in flames and you resort to "you people are so mean and don't talk nice".

Grow a pair or get the fuck out.


----------



## Saigon (Apr 29, 2013)

Westwall - 

Again, thanks for proving the point. 

Luckily there are still a few other posters here who can debate scientific topics sensibly and without your tantrums!


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Again, thanks for proving the point.
> 
> Luckily there are still a few other posters here who can debate scientific topics sensibly and without your tantrums!








And thank you for proving mine....yet again...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Since when is stating the truth about someone and their methods beligerent conduct?
> ...



"Saigon" keeps crapping the same crap as "numan" and the nuclear admiral just as soon as IanC gets stuck with his back-radiation energy.
.





> I am short on time right now....
> 
> Sorry. Maybe later....


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-94.html#post7164375










> *potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy* (when the particles move with this force, i.e. the angle between the force and the relative velocity is acute).kinetic energy is exchanged between the molecules&#8217; translational motion and their internal degrees of freedom with each collision. At any one instant, half the collisions are, to a varying extent, _inelastic collisions_ (the pair possesses less kinetic energy in their translational motions after the collision than before), and half could be described as &#8220;super-elastic&#8221; (possessing _more_ kinetic energy after the collision than before). Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic *as long as black-body photons are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.*




And only 10 minutes "later" it`s already buried by a page full of Saigon crap...with more "numan" and nuclear admiral crap to come.
If that`s all they can do all day long every day, that just shows how much out of their depth they are when it comes to physics.
I`ll look  back in here maybe tomorrow to see if "IanC" had more to say than 


> I am short on time right now....
> 
> Sorry. Maybe later....


----------



## numan (Apr 29, 2013)

polarbear said:


> And only 10 minutes "later" it`s already buried by a page full of Saigon crap....


Well, there is the pot calling the linen napkin black !!
· · · · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The only people who throw abuse around on these threads are Deniers. I wonder why that is?



Guess you haven't read any of neuman's posts.  He hurls plenty of abuse around these threads...and thunder???the board champion abuse hurler...and you yourself hurl plenty.  

How is it that you could be so blind....and if you are blind to something so obvious, what else might you be blind to?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 29, 2013)

polarbear said:


> "Saigon" keeps crapping the same crap as "numan" and the nuclear admiral just as soon as IanC gets stuck with his back-radiation energy. And only 10 minutes "later" it`s already buried by a page full of Saigon crap...with more "numan" and nuclear admiral crap to come.



You do realize that obsessing over an enemies list is not the sign of a healthy mind, right?

Let's do what you hate most, and talk common sense, by addressing your meander into the land of carbon arc searchlights, where you showed no common sense.



> I keep saying that photons do represent energy but it`s not heat till photons encounter a system that does convert that energy into heat..and only quantitatively if that system was a PERFECT black body.



Black body properties have jack to do with anything. It's just conservation of energy. That's all you need to know about. Energy is conserved. If the photons are gone, the energy of the photons had to have gone somewhere.



> Back scatter is a more accurate term. You can see about a dozen or so back scatter spots over the Port of Gibraltar. You can be sure that the Port of Gibraltar would have been a lot brighter if there would have been ~ 1200 million candelas worth of Magnesium flares air dropped above it.



Was there any point to such a meaningless apples and oranges comparison? After all, only a small portion of the searchlight visible light output scatters off the clouds. Most of it gets absorbed by the cloud and turned into heat in the cloud. So of course the tiny amount scattered will be dimmer than the flares.



> Heat does not generate its quantitative energy equivalent in photons



And no one ever said it did. Unless you somehow eliminate all conduction and convection, in which case the heat will have to eventually generate its energy equivalent in photons. If it didn't, the heat would keep building up and the object would eventually vaporize. Again, common sense.



> and photons do not generate their quantitative equivalent in heat:



Sure they do, assume that the photons are absorbed by something, and that the energy isn't stored as chemical/electrical energy. The energy has to go somewhere, and that somewhere almost always ends up being heat. Conservation of energy may not be denied. Sure, a person can try, but doing so reveals that person as a crank.



> Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as black-body photons are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.



Note the phrase "averaged across the entire sample". Unlike you, wiki understands statistical mechanics, and how the second law describes a statistical average.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2013)

polarbear said:


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





why do you keep bringing up examples that obscure basic principles? when we are discussing radiation you put up examples of convection and conduction. when we are talking about blackbodies you bring up examples of non-blackbody emission. what is with you? are you purposely being dishonest or is your attention span so short that you cannot stay on topic? it pisses me off that you just want to lay down red herrings all the time.


----------



## polarbear (May 4, 2013)

IanC said:


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




After ~ a week that`s the best you can do?
Get pissed off ?
Instead of getting "pissed off" you should have given it some rational thought instead of  basing your "conclusion" on your emotions.
I keep telling you that the "heat" energy equivalent of a photon is not  heat unless it encounters a system that converts it into heat.
How many times do you have to be told that the only system that is able to do that is AN IDEAL BLACK BODY.
Name 1 square inch  of the earth`s surface that  qualifies as such and while you are at it  point out a location where convection and conduction can be ruled out.
What`s the matter with you..what`s so "obscure" with that basic principle:


> *elastic collision*_ is an encounter between two bodies in which the total _kinetic energy_ of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur __*only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms. *__Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as _black-body photons*are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.*


When you heat matter, the higher the temperature, the higher the kinetic energy and if more "black body photons" are permitted to carry away energy from the system, while you are heating it, the lower  the temperature  that can be achieved  with  a given amount of energy.

Was that sentence too long for your attention span ?  
Take some Prozac and try read it  without "getting pissed  off" because you get confused if there are more than 3 words in a sentence.

If it finally dawned on you then there is no need to further explain, that the same applies if  conduction and convection  occurs at the same time.
That`s not a "red herring". It's a "red herring"  flaunting an ideal black body  radiation profile  copied& pasted from Wkipedia, like you keep doing  it, insisting that
the energy  within this envelope is  converted from radiation into heat as in  increasing the temperature  of   an absorbing gas which in the real world  is removing most of the "black body" heat  via  conduction and convection, not giving a rat`s ass how many
ppm CO2 that gas contains.
I gave you  a whole bunch of examples and  by now even a fifth grader would have understood  these " obscured basic principles" 
that a *heated*  object  *heats  *up air  (or you hand if you get near it)  almost at the same rate (in watts) as you feed heat to the object
with a* heater* as opposed to radiation* even if you feed more watts as radiation * into the system as you do by directly heating it.
The only time radiation  heats an object at the same rate is  with a purely theoretical black body *while no work is performed.
*Show me  1 square inch of  planet earth`s surface that matches this condition.


----------



## mamooth (May 4, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I keep telling you that the "heat" energy equivalent of a photon is not heat unless it encounters a system that converts it into heat. How many times do you have to be told that the only system that is able to do that is AN IDEAL BLACK BODY.



And so PolarBear has now redefined physics in a new wacky way that claims that only an ideal black body can convert photons to heat. 

Thus, by the PolarBear theory, the earth should be completely frozen, since it's not a perfect black body, and thus can't convert any photons to heat.

One wonders just where PolarBear got the insane idea that only an ideal black body can convert photons to heat. PolarBear, where did you get such an insane idea?



> That`s not a "red herring".



Correct. It's much too stupid to even rise to the level of "red herring".


----------



## IanC (May 5, 2013)

polarbear said:


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



I dont believe you are stupid so you must be acting dense on purpose. radiation is *not* conduction or convection. we also know radiation is much less efficient for transfering energy than conduction or convection. is that your 'amazing revelation' that you think I dont understand? maybe you are retarded, or at least getting senile.

you want a realistic example? let's compare radiant floor heating to forced air. radiant floor heating is much more comfortable but it is slow to warm up (or cool down) because it is comprised of a large heat sink that needs to be charged, then it heats the rest of the room by passive transfer. there is still conduction and convection but only by natural processes. there are no cold spots and there is a much smaller temperature gradient from the floor to the ceiling. on the other hand, forced air heating adds a bolus of hot air which quickly changes air temp but often leaves cold spots in areas where the forced convection doesnt reach, and the floor is always much cooler than the ceiling. 

you are comparing large temperature differential, specific location transfers of heat by mostly conduction and convection with a little radiation whereas I am talking about a small temperature gradient, diffuse transfer of heat over large areas which reduces the action of conduction and convection, and increases the proportion of radiative transfer.

all of the SLoT 'truthers' are screwed up for the same reason. they confuse the two way flow of radiation from the surface to the atmosphere as something special but it is diffuse, small temperature gradient, low energy radiation that is not capable of doing work. sunlight is ordered, large temperature gradient, high energy radiation that is capable of doing work. none of them seemed to understand enough to comment on my thread about how small changes in solar output are much more likely to change areas of the climate system than the same nominal amount of change in the IR side of the equation because the IR does nothing besides hinder the outflow of surface IR to space. blocking IR escape can change the temperature of the heat sink by allowing it to absorb and hold more sunlight energy but not much else.

so, while it was amusing to me that you noticed my absence polarbear, I am not really interested in your stupid off topic red herrings that do nothing to clarify any issues. you dont even try to explain what they are supposed to be an example of.


----------



## polarbear (May 5, 2013)

IanC said:


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



1.) *Where did I say that radiation is the same a conduction?
Don`t attribute your stupid statements to me !
*You are the one that keeps using an ideal radiation profile that you copy from wiki which  only applies for a system where there is no heat conduction and no work is performed.
Take a look at the title of this thread...!
"*Atmospheric *physics" (*!*)

Now that it finally did dawn on you how insignificant the radiative transfer from the *ground to the atmosphere* is as compared to heat conduction you try lecture me on heat flow in a room with forced air heating as opposed to room with a radiator....and where the cold spots are.

While I was showing you that an arc light heats another object quicker when it is shunted and acts primarily as a heater.

Only if you disallow all heat conduction... will the # of watts of the filament load be dissipated by radiative transfer.

*It just does not dawn on you, does it ?

*2.) After *all heat conduction is disallowed *that shunted arc light will heat another nearby object *much quicker by RADIATIVE heat *transfer in the IR range than it would do if the contact rods open and the arc light radiates *way less IR *but peaks the output at much *shorter wavelength.*

3.) *Now try and heat something *that is a *less than ideal black body *with *that radiation profile.*..!!!
*
Good luck*

4.) *Even if  heat conduction is disallowed*, for ex. if that arc light were mounted on a satellite pointed at another close by object that object would be heated quicker when the radiation profile is shifted towards IR as opposed to emitting most of the energy as UV photons.

All the while the "back-radiation" concept you subscribe to along with the other naive Roy Spencer "yes Virginias" is using the *entire energy profile* of the second, the colder object to  heat the radiator beyond it`s original temperature because there are a few photons at the high end spectrum coming back....*which could only heat an ideal black body* that performs no work.
Both objects in that stupid "thought experiment" you use as your gospel expand when they are being heated. 
*
When heat expands an object it  performed work*


Not only have you been too stupid to grasp that, but you even went beyond and kept claiming with your copy&paste black body wiki radiation profile that there is *the same radiative heat transfer* from the source to the absorber even if the spectrum is shifted to the shorter wavelength.

*And you still don`t understand the most basic thermodynamic principle that governs radiative heat transfer:
*


> *elastic collision*_ is an encounter between two bodies in which the total _kinetic energy_ of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur __*only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms. *__Averaged across the entire sample, molecular collisions can be regarded as essentially elastic as long as _black-body photons*are not permitted to carry away energy from the system.*





> all of the SLoT 'truthers' are screwed up for the same reason. they  confuse the two way flow of radiation from the surface to the atmosphere  as something special but it is diffuse, *small temperature gradient, *low  energy radiation that is not capable of doing work.


Did you ever hear of the "standard lapse rate"...???
*Obviously not *



> IR does nothing besides *hinder the outflow of surface IR to space.  blocking IR escape* can change the temperature of the heat sink by  allowing it to absorb and hold more sunlight energy but not much else.


And according to you and all the rest of the AGW idiots a 120 km path length atmosphere "blocks" only outbound IR from the surface that how did you put it..:
*"allowing it to absorb and hold more sunlight "
*That's almost as funny as the "nuclear admiral`s" black objects don`t radiate faster or his volcano drilling project to prevent eruptions.

**As soon as a photon was emitted by a radiator that radiator just lost energy*..*.it does not care what kind of detours that photon takes on its way out into space
*
*If you got air at 20 C then it emits the same frequency profile EMR with or without CO2.
* So how do you wind up with more photons with more CO2 ppm ?

Or did you discover in some sort of "thought experiment" that CO2 distorts Planck`s law ????

You like ideal black bodies ?
Okay then, let`s take an ideal black body at 4000 K and is so because it receives (incident) radiation from the 5000 K radiator






And place another one which is at 3000 K next to it.
You say the photons from the 3000 K b.b. are heating the 4000 K b.b.
which means that after it (the 4000 K)  did it must *emit more* thermal radiation as before ( emit more, as in exceeding)
Max Planck says:
Planck's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Very strong incident radiation or other factors can disrupt  thermodynamic equilibrium or local thermodynamic equilibrium. Local  thermodynamic equilibrium in a gas *means that molecular collisions far  outweigh light emission and absorption* in determining the distributions  of states of molecular excitation.
> 
> *{Remark..but you say that none of that has any effect on emission and absorption...and that I was changing the topic
> Fuck you are just as dumb as "numan" and his mob}
> ...


Poor Max never envisioned that Marihuana would be widely used and that there would be idiots like Roy Spencer who would say that a 4000 K black body with a 3000 K neighbor can exceed the thermal radiation of a  4000 K black body that was heated by the incident radiation of a 5000 K body...*while the only radiation source feeding the whole system  was the 5000 K body * ...first the lone 4000 K and then the 4000K + another 3000 K . 
*Or are you trying to tell me that our heat does not just come from the sun, but that the earth and the "greenhouse gas" atmosphere are "extra heat sources"* that somehow add up *to more than what the sun delivered*...(or than the 5000 K source in the example)

I might as well try discuss physics and chemistry with the "brilliant numan" who can oxidize limestone  with oxides in the earth`s crust and generate enough CO2 to get a 120 psi  atmosphere.

Discussing physics with you is like trying to teach somebody who can`t chew gum while walking to fly a multi-engine aircraft by instruments.
You would never be able to make sense what 6 different instruments are telling you and not know the difference if the airplane just rolled out of a steep turn or is loosing altitude...because  you are not able able to process  more than one thing at the same time and defend your inability by claiming that the VSI has nothing to to with the turn coordinator, just like you have been doing it with every example I showed you so far.


----------



## mamooth (May 5, 2013)

Well, that was incoherent. It's definitely not worth the mental effort to try to decode such raving.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, there are satellites currently mapping the polar ice cover by passively looking at the microwave radiation emitted by the ice, which is of a different frequency than microwave radiation emitted by land or water. Convenient, because even a cloudy atmosphere is transparent to most of the microwave band, unlike the UV, visible, IR and radio bands.

So, the ice is radiating in the microwave band. And that energy goes into space. And hits a satellite. When it's out of earth's shadow, that satellite is hotter than the ice. But it still absorbs the microwaves, and thus heats up a bit more. Which apparently violates the retard version of the second law, which should thus give people a clue that such a version of the second law is indeed retarded.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 5, 2013)

ZOMG!! record tornadoes!! This AGW stuff is for...what? Record low tornadoes.... that's not what the models predicted

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Saigon (May 5, 2013)

Frank - 

What does the latest IIPC report say about tornadoes?

I know that you don't know - but I suggest you find out. There is a thread on a leaked IIPC report that has something on this. Read it, and then you'll be able to come back and apologise for your ignorance.

I don't understand what you think you achieve by ridiculing theories that you have made up. First the Sahara and then this! This bullshit about tornadoes does not come from the IIPC or Al Gore or anywhere else - it's purely and simply something that you have heard somewhere and misunderstood.

I just don't know how you can stand presenting ideas here everyday that any eleven-year-old could explain to you. Everyone of your comments is simply, obviously founded in lack of knowledge. Do you think it makes you look smart?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 6, 2013)

We're now .41 ppm away from 400ppm. Do you think we get it within the next couple of weeks.


----------



## westwall (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> What does the latest IIPC report say about tornadoes?
> 
> ...








Oh dear.  Lots of tornado's = AGW....so that means lack of tornado's = NO AGW.

Sounds good to me!

"In a NOAA blog post tornado expert Harold Brooks notes that during the 12-month period from May 2012-April 2013 there were just 197 tornadoes rated EF1 or stronger. This is, Brooks says, apparently a record low for U.S. tornadoes in a 12-month period.

Heres a time-series showing the change evolution of the number of EF1 and stronger tornadoes since 1954 is below."





Tornado spike in 2011 attributed to climate change. So what to make of this year?s tornado drought? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog


----------



## westwall (May 6, 2013)

Matthew said:


> We're now .41 ppm away from 400ppm. Do you think we get it within the next couple of weeks.








Who cares.  We'll be at 500ppm in a few years.....and the world will continue on just fine....better in fact as the plants will be doing fantastic!


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Westwall -

What does the latest IIPC report say about tornadoes?

Assuming that you have already read here that the IIPC has suhgested that there is no linl between climate change and tornadoes - why are you pretending otherwise?


----------



## westwall (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> What does the latest IIPC report say about tornadoes?
> 
> Assuming that you have already read here that the IIPC has suhgested that there is no linl between climate change and tornadoes - why are you pretending otherwise?









It's YOUR mantra.  EVERYTHING is caused by AGW.  According to you guys.....  I'm now off to bed because I really live where I say mr. journalist from "Finland".


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

Westwall -

Exactly the response I would have expected. 

I just don't understand what you think you achieve by attackimg theories no one but you has ever suggested. It's inane, dishonest, and so incredibly self-defeating.


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> What does the latest IIPC report say about tornadoes?



What the latest IPCC report says is meaningless...it is what all previous reports said that tell the true story regarding climate scinece.  The IPCC is shifting the goalposts as fast as they possibly can in whatever direction they think will lend them the greatest credibility.  All one need do is look at the previous IPCC reports to see that they, like all the rest of cliamte science have failed because their original hypothesis was terribly flawed.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

> What the latest IPCC report says is meaningless...



In other words - what the IIPC reports says is extremely difficult to fault. It is clearly conservative, is honest enough to correct the odd mistake, and makes claims that most of us know are true simply by looking out of the kitchen window.

As time has passed so the models have improved and predictions becoming increasingly accurate. I also think the IIPC has learned that if it is to err, it is better to err on the conservative than the alarmist side of things.

Do you think it is a coincidence that posters like Frank, Gslack, Skooks, Oddball and Westwall NEVER discuss scientific issues anymore?

They have all found that their arguments simply can't stand up to analysis, and no doubt you'll figure that at out at some point yourself.


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > What the latest IPCC report says is meaningless...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No need to lie about us mr. finnish fraud... There are pages and pages of each one of us arguing this with you little trolls over the science. All you do is call everyone wrong defer to Ian or numan and then make up stories about your credentials while those two insult everyone who doesn't agree with them..

Science? HA! you trolls don't know a thing about it..Now go run and cry about me being back. Run along now, should be some crying or neg-repping you need to do under another account..


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> In other words - what the IIPC reports says is extremely difficult to fault.



No, what I mean is that they are meaningless.  If I had meant something else, I would have said something else.  How many times should a supposedly credible scientific organization be wrong before they become meaningless?



Saigon said:


> As time has passed so the models have improved and predictions becoming increasingly accurate. I also think the IIPC has learned that if it is to err, it is better to err on the conservative than the alarmist side of things.



No, the models have not improved...the data has simply been updated in an attempt to more accurately reflect the present...they still can't even hindcast and predict what has happened in the past because the physics are still wrong.



Saigon said:


> They have all found that their arguments simply can't stand up to analysis, and no doubt you'll figure that at out at some point yourself.



All I have found is that you are unable to discuss the science and like thunder and the rest are a cut and paste drone who actually understands very little of what you post.


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

SSDD - 

And the reason you think the IIPC is meaningless is because you are increasingly unable to fault their work. 

If you could fault their work, you'd be proclaiming their immense importance to modern science. 



> the data has simply been updated



How little you know!

Entirely new areas of research have been developed since the last report in 2007. New approaches, new directions of study, new methdologies, and entirely new projects. Things that did not exist at all in 2007. 

The only reason you are not aware of this is because, as we know, you refuse to look at science when it is presented on this board.


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> And the reason you think the IIPC is meaningless is because you are increasingly unable to fault their work.
> 
> ...



Sure and unicorns are real!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...



That's your insane denier cult myth, SSoooDDuuumb, but it has no connection to reality.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > What the latest IPCC report says is meaningless...
> ...


....and getting your retarded butts kicked to the curb every time by the actual scientific facts, you poor deluded slackjawedidiot.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > As time has passed so the models have improved and predictions becoming increasingly accurate. I also think the IIPC has learned that if it is to err, it is better to err on the conservative than the alarmist side of things.
> ...



And this is why you're called an ignorant denier cult retard....

*Climate Models: How Good Are They?*
By LISA MOORE 
EDF
Published: JULY 18, 2007
The author of today's post, Lisa Moore, is a scientist in the Climate and Air Program.

*People often confuse climate and weather. They wonder how scientists can reliably predict climate 50 years from now when they can't predict the weather a few weeks from now. The answer is that climate and weather are different, and it's easier to predict climate than weather. Weather is a short-term, local phenomenon. Climate is the average weather pattern of a region over many years. I may not be able to predict the weather in New York City on December 15, but I can predict with confidence that it will be colder than it is today, in mid-July. A climate model could make the same prediction without a single past temperature reading. Basic orbital mechanics tell us that the northern hemisphere is colder in winter than summer. As I explained in my previous post, a climate model is a mathematical description of the physics and chemistry of the climate system &#8211; for example, how heat is transferred from one place to another. The inputs to the model are things like solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gas emissions. Based on these inputs and the laws of physics, the model predicts temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate.

Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future. In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.





Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]*


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

rollingthunder said:


> ssdd said:
> 
> 
> > saigon said:
> ...



update your blog list numbnuts,this one's fubar!!!!!

Your link goes to a time warner search page!

Lol


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> And the reason you think the IIPC is meaningless is because you are increasingly unable to fault their work.
> 
> ...



You just neg-repped me for abuse when I responded to your post about me...ROFL.. Finnish fraud, I  would be careful if I were you, the wrong mod may see what you're doing and nail you for it.. I have 4 neg-reps from you and two from mamooth on my page. Your last two are back to back one on the 28th and one today.. Abusing the rep system is a TOS violation punk..


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> Sure and unicorns are real!!!



Laughable.....aren't they.


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Sure and unicorns are real!!!
> ...



Trollingblunder just cited The university corporation for climate research as a proper scientific source... Yeah, and the sad part is really believes it.. LOL, I think I'll start an advocacy group like that.. I'll call it the The University Corporation for super smart sciencey stuff and other cool things too.

ROFL


----------



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> rollingthunder said:
> 
> 
> > ssdd said:
> ...



Fixed it, fuckhead. It was just a little glitch in the forum software.


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > rollingthunder said:
> ...



No it was an out of date "daily list of propaganda to spam forums with" We know livetrollingblunderfree, we know.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> Trollingblunder just cited The university corporation for climate research as a proper scientific source...



The slackjawedidiot, in full-on retard mode, just decided that UCAR isn't a proper scientific source....unbelievably stupid but what can we expect from someone with a sub-room-temperature IQ....he even quoted the facts about who and what UCAR is, and he's still too retarded to understand what's going on.....

Here's what the slackjawedidiot denies to be a valid scientific source of information. He even quoted most of this and he's still completely clueless.....LOL...

*University Corporation for Atmospheric Research*

*The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is a consortium of over 100 member universities and academic affiliates focused on research and training in the atmospheric and related Earth system sciences. Our members set directions and priorities for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which UCAR manages with sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Through our community programs, UCAR provides innovative services in support of the community's education and research goals. 
more below >

The National Center for Atmospheric Research provides research, observing and computing facilities, and a variety of services for the atmospheric and related Earth sciences community.
more below >

The UCAR Community Programs provide innovative services in support of the community's education and research goals.
more below >

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

UCAR manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on behalf of the National Science Foundation. With guidance from its more than 100 member universities and affiliates, UCAR also provides a wide range of core programs and services supporting and extending the capabilities of the academic research community. These efforts together address the large-scale challenges associated with integrated research, technological development, and educational advancement across the geoscience enterprise. UCAR also plays a central national role in advocating for continued federal investment in the life-saving, economically critical work provided by the geosciences community. Both UCAR and NCAR are headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, with additional operations in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

UCAR's mission is to

* support, enhance, and extend the capabilities of the university community, nationally and internationally

    * understand the behavior of the atmosphere and related systems and the global environment

    * foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for the betterment of life on Earth​
Founded in 1960, UCAR is a nonprofit consortium of North American member universities, each of which grants doctoral degrees in the atmospheric and related sciences, plus an increasing number of international affiliates offering comparable degrees, and North American academic affiliates offering predoctoral degrees. 

Members of the private sector serve on governance boards, collaborate with researchers, contribute funding to specific projects, and participate in technology transfer activities. Through its Office of Government Affairs, UCAR advocates for strong federal science budgets on behalf of the geosciences community.

You'll find more about UCAR and NCAR in Our History.

UCAR Home *


----------



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> No it was an out of date "daily list of propaganda to spam forums with" We know livetrollingblunderfree, we know.



What we all know, slackjawed, is that you're extremely retarded and more than a little insane. And,of course, a rabid troll.


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No it was an out of date "daily list of propaganda to spam forums with" We know livetrollingblunderfree, we know.
> ...



Coming from a known and proven troll who posts the same identical threads verbatim in multiple forums using ever bigger font, and responds with insults to any who question it, I don't feel the least bit concerned.. You're green shill of no real and genuine substance, so please, continue on raging at everybody tool..


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Trollingblunder just cited The university corporation for climate research as a proper scientific source...
> ...



It's not, they state exactly what they are..A AGW theory advocacy group. Pretty clear to me and to anybody else who reads it, they are a group of academics put together to push AGW theory.. No mistake made at all they state as much very clearly. That of course means they already believe the theory to be fact and want to forgo the tedious way real science goes about things and go on and call it fact and teach it as such anyway...

Sound about right? Yeah I think so..

Honestly dude, do you think a genuine academic society would call themselves "university corporation"? LOL, why not forgo the pretense and call themselves "the grand poobah and omnipotent stomper of all things science"..

Seriously man,get a grip. No genuine academic society/group would so damn ignorant..ROFL

BTW, your link to their site had this link on it...Government Relations

They say this thereon this graphic...






Whats that thing they said they are doing??? ADVOCACY?????

ROFL, yes yes very scientific... advocacy Headed by a guy named Mike henry.. not Doctor Mike henry,just good old mike a regular guy...Yep.. Scientific..ROFL


----------



## RollingThunder (May 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > What we all know, slackjawed, is that you're extremely retarded and more than a little insane. And,of course, a rabid troll.
> ...



Do I hear a troll? Why, yes, I think I do. One of the really idiotic ones, it seems, whose posts are empty of all meaning or significance.


----------



## gslack (May 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Awww, don't cry little fella. It's okay, you can use the big font, I won't make fun of you anymore..LOL


----------



## Saigon (May 6, 2013)

> Awww, don't cry little fella.



Says the person who runs to the moderators every time he gets neg repped!

Gclaks, I neg rep you for your incessant off-topic abuse. Stay on topic and I won't neg rep you.


----------



## Unkotare (May 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Awww, don't cry little fella.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who runs to the moderators every time he gets neg repped!.






Says the rotten-fish eating hypocrite.


----------



## gslack (May 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Awww, don't cry little fella.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, I didn't go to any mod dipshit, why not ask one. Oh yeah that would be what you do wouldn't it...That would be your paranoia and your habit you're talking about there.. Now STAY ON TOPIC! as you like to pretend.. Practice what you preach weasel. Sorry if someone nailed for abusing the rep system,I did warn you they will eventually catch you. I warned you several times for a while now. I didn't go to a mod about it, you're the one who has a history of that, not me.

Now try and stay on topic junior..


----------



## RollingThunder (May 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Awww, don't cry little fella.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What else can you expect....the slackjawedidiot is a troll....practically the definition of one.....he will always try to derail the actual topic of any thread he pollutes with his presence...usually with a barrage of long since thoroughly debunked denier cult myths or just pure moronic nonsense....you can either ignore him or have some fun mocking and exposing his retarded ignorance....but you just can't fix stupid...his retardation is impenetrable and incurable....try not to get too sucked into his denier cult troll tricks and distractions....just laugh and pity his folly....


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2013)

gslack said:


> Trollingblunder just cited The university corporation for climate research as a proper scientific source... Yeah, and the sad part is really believes it.. LOL, I think I'll start an advocacy group like that.. I'll call it the The University Corporation for super smart sciencey stuff and other cool things too.
> 
> ROFL



Not to mention that his "paper" on how good models are is nothing more than an opinion piece from the environmental defense fund.  I guess he never bothered to look at the peer reviewed material concerning how good or bad the models are.....mostly bad.



> A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters finds that current climate models are not able to predict regional, seasonal temperature and precipitation changes and have huge "mean errors between 1 and 18&#8201;°C.



http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024018/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024018.pdf




> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that ensembles of climate models used by the IPCC to predict future climate change "may lead to overly confident climate predictions." The authors find that many models share the same computer code, have the same limitations, and "tend to be fairly similar," resulting in confirmation bias. Indeed, empirical observations have shown far less warming than the "90% confident" IPCC models in AR4, as shown in this poster by John Christy:



An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie




> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research in essence reveals climate models are not capable of reproducing the observed climate of the past century, much less the future. According to the paper, "few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940," there are "large differences" in the forcings and feedbacks used in various models and that some of these are "unrealistic." In other words, the key inputs and assumptions of the models are not known with reasonable certainty - ergo GIGO.



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD015924/abstract




> A paper published today in Climate of Past finds a 50% consensus by climate models on the response of Arctic sea ice to changes in solar radiation during the mid-Holocene. According to the authors, "Approximately one half of the models simulate a decrease in winter sea-ice extent and one half simulates an increase." The paper adds to many others demonstrating that climate models are unable to model the known climate of the past, much less the future.



CP - Abstract - The sensitivity of the Arctic sea ice to orbitally induced insolation changes: a study of the mid-Holocene Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project 2 and 3 simulations




> A new paper published in the Journal of Climate finds there has been "little to no improvement" in simulating clouds by state-of-the-art climate models. The authors note the "poor performance of current global climate models in simulating realistic [clouds]," and that the models show "quite large biases...as well as a remarkable degree of variation" with the differences between models remaining "large."



An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie




> A paper published in the technical newsletter of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment finds that climate models suppress the negative feedback from low clouds, which serve to cool the Earth by reflection of incoming sunlight. The paper notes that cloud feedbacks in computer models are not only uncertain in magnitude, but even in sign (positive or negative). As climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out, a mere 1 to 2% natural variation in cloud cover can alone account for whether there is global warming or global cooling, despite any alleged effects of CO2.



http://www.gewex.org/images/G.Stephens_Feb2010GNews.pdf




> A new paper published in Global and Planetary Change finds that IPCC climate models are unable to reproduce either the El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO] or the Indian summer monsoon, the two most influential  natural weather patterns on Earth, both of which have large effects upon global climate. The authors therefore caution that, given these large uncertainties of natural variation, current models cannot be relied upon to project future global warming from greenhouse gases.



ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - Revisiting the Indian summer monsoon?ENSO links in the IPCC AR4 projections: A cautionary outlook




> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres admits that state-of-the-art climate models exaggerate alleged warming from greenhouse gases, finding the models "overestimate the observed temperature change" in comparison to historical data since 1850. The authors also find the various models have a "large spread" or widely divergent temperature projections.



Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models - Forster - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library




> A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models "suffer from temperature-dependent biases" which "leads to an overestimation of projections of regional temperatures." According to the authors, "10-20% of projected warming is due to model deficiencies.



Temperature dependent climate projection deficiencies in CMIP5 models - Christensen - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library




> A recent paper in the Journal of Climate finds that most climate models erroneously predict that Antarctic sea ice extent decreased over the past 30 years, which "differs markedly from that observed."  As noted in the abstract, Antarctic sea ice has confounded the models by instead increasing over the satellite era. In fact, it is currently at a record extent that is more than 2 standard deviations above the 1979-2000 average. The authors lament, "The negative [Antarctic sea ice] trends in most of the model runs over 1979 - 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly."



An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie




> A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters shows the mythical "hot spot" in the upper troposphere predicted by climate models is indeed still missing. The paper shows little change in the upper tropospheric temperature measured by radiosondes and satellites from 1979-2011, while climate models instead predicted a significant increase over the same period. The paper confirms others showing that the so-called "fingerprint" of man-made global warming does not exist and therefore the computer models are based upon incorrect assumptions.



Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations - Seidel - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library




> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that current climate models are unable to simulate the climate following large volcanic eruptions, a major cause of natural climate variability. According to the authors, the paper confirms others with the same findings and "raises concern for the ability of current climate models to simulate the response of a major mode of [climate change]."



Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of climate following volcanic eruptions


And the list could go on and on as there are literally dozens of peer reviewed papers describing the abject failure of climate modelling.  Of course, modelling, and data tampering are all that the warmists have to work with so they find themselves in the sad position of having to believe in models which have been proven over and over to not be worth the time it took to write them.


----------



## polarbear (May 7, 2013)

Earth's energy budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called &#8220;back radiation&#8221 is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.[dubious &#8211; discuss]*


[dubious ]
Synonyms
doubtful - uncertain - questionable - shady - equivocal



Unfortunately you can`t discuss physics with a bunch of AGW "skeptical science" morons like "Saigon", the "brilliant numan", Siamese cats and assorted nut cases etc that spew venom and verbal excrement as soon as you try.


This "back radiation"  crack pot "science" culminates according to Wikipedia to:


> As solar heating and &#8220;back radiation&#8221; from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat&#8212;equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy


(same URL)


So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.



And to an individual, they claim that they aren't creating energy.


----------



## polarbear (May 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.
> ...



That`s not all. Not only do climatologists get 17 % more energy than was put in, but they also have "greenhouse gases" radiating more than the ultimate radiator.


> *The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface  (sometimes called &#8220;back radiation&#8221 is equivalent to 100 percent of the  incoming solar energy.[dubious &#8211; discuss]
> *As solar heating and &#8220;back radiation&#8221; from the atmosphere raise the  surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing  amount of heat&#8212;equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy
> The solar flux averaged over just the sunlit half of the Earth's surface is about 680 W m^&#8722;2


So they have 100% of the* 680 Watts per m^2 *"back radiating" from a colder atmosphere at an already warmer surface.

The ISS has 14 Ammonia radiators with a total surface area of 156 m^2 and can radiate 70 KW. That`s* 449 watts per sq.meter*  out into cold space and nothing "blocking" it.
The sun-facing "hot side" of the ISS is + 121 C and the "shade" is -157 C
When I checked this morning the ISS was at 32 North and 146 West, the Ammonia coolant was at + 9.56 C...:
Space Station Live!

This "heat rejection system" can be rotated so that is not facing directly into the sun. So we got a situation where the best possible radiator engineers have designed* can`t radiate as much power at "T-hot" = 283 K  out into a 116 K cold "T-cold" environment...*
*as the "back radiator" occult can do it with just 1 or 2 degrees (T-hot) - (T-cold).*..not only that they *can do it even if the "greenhouse gas" is colder that the surface.*

Lucky for the ISS crew that nature`s laws don`t care what the AGW occult,  IanC, the "erudite numan" etc  believe, else these radiators would be "absorbing (extra) heat" with Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment photons" instead of dumping it.


----------



## gslack (May 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Awww, don't cry little fella.
> ...



Uh-huh, Numan is that you?? Careful livetrollingblunderfree, you're channeling numan now. 

Seriously dude I don't know why you're tolerated by any forum. You have shown absolutely NO desire to debate anything you post. You just post thing sand insult everyone who questions it. Me, I expect it from you but we aren't just talking about known posters you dislike, you react the same to anyone who questions your posts. 

So if you aren't here to have debate over a subject, and discussion is out of the question unless it's in agreement with your position, why are you tolerated? Seems to me you have nothing to add but insults and scripted baiting threads you post verbatim all over the internet. 

You somehow manage to spew enough insults at people that you prevent being outed for a  forum spammer, but in the process you make it clear you cannot debate what you post and worse show yourself to be a useless troll.

Do you know what a forum troll is? Here a urban dictionary definition..

Urban Dictionary: forum troll



> Forum Troll
> 
> An obnoxious user or member on a forum that goes out of their way to make pointless, offensive, or annoying posts and messages. Often these users are labeled as spammers and will post random off-topic junk in many sections of a forum.
> 1.
> ...



There's one that fits you pretty much. Another...



> forum troll
> 
> A forum troll is someone who actively watches a forum. Not to be confused with a lurker, or just a forum frequenter, the troll annoys, pesters, and generally insults any thread they open.
> -- Interweb : "My dad called me yesterday and said that the house was up for sale and I have to move and now I won't have any friends and I'm so sad I don't even know how to use punctuation it's insane."
> ...



Yeah thats pretty much you isn't it...

Now carry on with your incessant trolling livetrollingblunderfreenuman...ROFL


----------



## mamooth (May 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.





SSDD said:


> And to an individual, they claim that they aren't creating energy.



Most denialists simply lack the common sense to understand the basic physical setup of the situation, as SSDD and PolarBear illustrate here.

You don't "get" 17% more energy. You only "get" energy if it does work. Swapping some photons back and forth isn't doing any work.

Now, if I covered several square miles with some substance that converted the whole spectrum to electricity, that would be doing some work. But it would only be getting +17% more energy briefly, using up some previously stored energy. Then it would gradually fall back to +0%, as the earth and atmosphere below cooled and stopped emitting. That's why it takes time for the earth to heat up in the morning and cool down at night, as that extra energy has to be put in and then bled off.


----------



## mamooth (May 7, 2013)

polarbear said:


> That`s not all. Not only do climatologists get 17 % more energy than was put in, but they also have "greenhouse gases" radiating more than the ultimate radiator.



The Wiki entry is clearly very wrong with the "100% backradiation" sentence. The talk page that PolarBear quoted said so directly. Nobody thinks that 100% figure is the case. It's a bad error in Wiki that hasn't been corrected.



> So they have 100% of the 680 Watts per m^2 "back radiating" from a colder atmosphere at an already warmer surface.



Try using some common sense. If the surface is radiating at 117%, that would mean backradiation would be around 17%. If it was 100%, no energy would leave the system and it would heat up to infinity.



> The ISS has 14 Ammonia radiators ...



And since the actual backradiation is more like 17% than 100%, that was a pointless rant, as those ammonia radiators are much more efficient than that 17%.


----------



## gslack (May 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So there you have it. That`s how thermodynamics works according to "climatologists". They invented a system where you get 17% more energy than you feed into it.
> ...



ROFL, your continued ignorance in this makes me have to say, STOP!

Dude there is work being done in any energy transfer, no matter what that transfer is, there is work being done in the transfer. Jesus dude.. Hence no such thing as a perfect machine you nincompoop..

Please dude just STFU already.. You're an idiot and you have made it very clear now. WTF man, you're supposed to be a former "nuke" and you don't know about energy loss in transfer?? It costs some bit of energy  at every energy transfer. Short -wave EM radiation coming from the sun when it reacts with the earths surface spends some of its own energy warming the planet and what's left is eventually radiated up and away as heat. It's not 100% perfect energy transfer you ninny, it costs something to perform the task...

Of all the ignorant, stupid claims you can make... Bouncing photons back and forth? lossless energy transfer??? MORON! ROFL


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> You don't "get" 17% more energy. You only "get" energy if it does work. Swapping some photons back and forth isn't doing any work.



You don't get energy at all.  More entropy, not less.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2013)

gslack said:


> ROFL, your continued ignorance in this makes me have to say, STOP!



Well, they are well and truely out of the closet now...making public claims about the creation of energy...imagine, 17% more energy out of a system than goes in.  I suppose our energy problems are over now.  All they need do is explain how it happens and we can all start building machines to take advantage of the excess.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 8, 2013)

what am i missing here 

did weather shaman also invent 

a perpetual  motion machine ta boot

--LOL

if so gotsta gets me one


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2013)

gslack said:
			
		

> Dude there is work being done in any energy transfer, no matter what that transfer is, there is work being done in the transfer.



No, there isn't. You're just totally clueless, as are the rest of denialist "I'M REWRITING THE SECOND LAW ON THE ORDERS OF MY POLITICAL CULT!" cranks.

I stand in front of mirror, holding a flashlight and another mirror at my chest. I shine a flashlight into the mirror. Photons start bouncing back and forth between the two mirrors. After multiple bounces between the two mirrors, the "energy flux" between the two mirrors becomes many times greater than that of the flashlight beam alone.

Ruh-roh. According to the denialist cranks, that can't be possible, because it "creates new energy", and it's a "perpetual motion machine".

However, it clearly does happen. Hence, I prove the "multiplying energy" babble that the denialist retards hold as holy gospel is yet another of their big steaming piles of BS.

Seriously glsack, learn some humility, to accept what you are. That is, a halfway competent tech who has no understanding of actual science. A product of the self-esteem generation, who thinks he's a special little snowflake because his cult told him he's just as smart as those egghead liberal scientists. It's no sin to be simple, so you shouldn't worry about that. It's only a sin to be belligerent with your stupidity, like most denialist cultists are.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I stand in front of mirror, holding a flashlight and another mirror at my chest. I shine a flashlight into the mirror. Photons start bouncing back and forth between the two mirrors. After multiple bounces between the two mirrors, the "energy flux" between the two mirrors becomes many times greater than that of the flashlight beam alone.



The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.  You are a true crank and have just shouted it out as loud.  Congratulations.


----------



## polarbear (May 8, 2013)

> *inconsistent*
> 
> not being in agreement or harmony  <_inconsistent_ theories make it difficult to settle on one explanation> *Synonyms* clashing, conflicting, disagreeing, discordant, discrepant, incompatible, incongruous, inconsonant, inharmonious, mutually exclusive, repugnant
> *Related Words* irreconcilable; antagonistic, antipodal, antipodean, antithetical,


Warmalarmism is an occult founded by John Tyndall in 1859.
Apostle John had to earn his keep in England  shoveling  coal into a boiler to keep his masters warm. According to Apostle John Tyndall, this process and those who benefited from it are evil and will be punished by the heavens with "back radiation" .
John Tyndall`s disciples keep changing their story when "denialists" want some answers how this avenging "back radiation" is supposed to work.
The only thing consistent about this man hating occult is that they have fits of anger when a "denier" points out how inconsistent their preachings are.
150 years later we have so many versions of this "back radiation" gospel that even it`s own disciples can`t make up their mind which one they should use.
Wikipedia alone has several versions..here are 2 of them, but there are almost over a dozen of them embedded in other topics:


> Greenhouse warming of the Earth's surface
> 
> [7] The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called &#8220;back radiation&#8221 is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.[dubious &#8211; discuss]
> As solar heating and &#8220;back radiation&#8221; from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat&#8212;equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow from the Earth's surface is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).


Another version in Wikipeadia has it like that:


> The atmosphere absorbs 90% of the energy radiated by the Earth, and radiates its own energy, 50% back towards the ground and 50% into space.


Trenberth preaches that the surface radiates 396 Watts/ m^2 and that there are 333 watts/ m^2  = 84% "back-radiation" .

And yesterday the Siamese cat "informed" us:


> And since the actual backradiation is more like 17% than 100%, that was a pointless rant,


Just to show you how dumb that idiot is...:
One Wiki version has it :


> The net *upward heat flow* from the Earth's surface is equivalent to *17 percent* of incoming sunlight


And according to the "I used to run nuclear reactors" it is:


> the actual *backradiation is more like 17% *


Cat shit for brains does`nt know the difference between* upward heat flow* and the "back radiation" it tries to preach
Apostles "IanC", "Saigon the journalist", the "erudite numan" etc no doubt will have their own pet "back radiation" versions.
Unless they get together and vote which one seems the most credible version...like libtards do when they get caught in their web of lies.


----------



## gslack (May 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ROFL... You idiotic little moron.. Dude you aren't any kind of tech at all. You're an idiot trying to play pretend smart guy on the internet, and doing a lousy job at it...

Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats *energy transfer* dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer. 

Idiot, just because you can see the reflection of a light source, that doesn't mean there is no loss of energy in that light transfer.

look stupid, you may think you're the sharpest kid in your home-school study group, but you're a moron and a bad actor to boot.. Your peers must be something else. ROFL

Tell ya what admiral, why not take your genius findings regarding lossless energy transfer and perfect mirrors, contact MIT and explain this process to them and make sure you include your reasoning and logic which led to this epiphany..Dude you are just too funny.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2013)

Warmalarmism is an occult founded by John Tyndall in 1859.[/quote]

In defense of Tyndall....he said:

"&#8220;Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources.&#8221;"

And that was after testing CO2 at a concentration of about 80,000ppm.

and in his experiments he noted that the carbonic acid gas was &#8220;extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate&#8221;....and his "warm blanket" hypothesis was directed at water vapor, not CO2.

He further noted about CO2's ability to absorb radiant heat:

&#8220;Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.&#8221;


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.



And thus SSDD proves that a laser oscillator can't exist.

Fascinating, how the conspiracy just keeps growing and growing, all because a group of manchildren can't admit to getting anything wrong, ever. Thus, ever deeper into the stupid hole they dig.

Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone.



			
				gslack said:
			
		

> Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.



Well sure, there's a "loss", because the total heat flow is from hot to cool, as the second law demands. But, contrary to your retard version of the second law -- the one that contradicts the last century of science -- there's no problem with some heat flowing back to hot, just as long as more heat flows out to cold.

You can't get 117% work out of the that system, beyond a short term where you use up the stored energy. Hence, like the light bouncing between mirrors, it's not creating energy, it's just storing previously generated energy. If you think it's creating energy, then simply show us your system that would harvest that 117% energy beyond the short-term. If you can't, have the decency to slither away in disgrace. Or admit you're wrong, but since you toddlers can't admit an error, ever, slinking away seems your best option.


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Cat shit for brains does`nt know the difference between upward heat flow and the "back radiation" it tries to preach



You understand that no one aside from yourself has any idea of what you're gibbering about, right? That's because you're babbling nonsense. Nobody even reads it anymore, because we know ahead of time that whatever the topic is, you'll just jabber some deranged propaganda. It's not worth the time to try to decipher what you're rambling about, so everyone just points and laughs now.

So, you'll keep saying stupid things, I'll keep mocking you for it, you'll cry about how mean I am, and I'll laugh hard. Isn't life grand?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 8, 2013)

? of the day.......

Who is the feminist bulldog on this thread??


----------



## skookerasbil (May 8, 2013)

RealClearEnergy - Environmentalists Are Killing the U.S. Economy


----------



## westwall (May 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Cat shit for brains does`nt know the difference between upward heat flow and the "back radiation" it tries to preach
> ...









No, people with a scientific background (and those people with an average IQ) have no problem understanding Polarbear in the slightest.  Why do you not understand what he's saying??......oh...wait.......you must not be.......yes, that explains it all, you're just stoopid(sic).  Yes!  That fits all the observations!


----------



## gslack (May 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.
> ...



Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss? No..LOL

Read up on things for once will ya? Seriously you have a history of making bold claims based on little to no understanding of it. This should be a lesson to you...

Laser Oscillators



> Pulsed Laser Oscillator
> 
> The Neodynium-YAG laser consists of a rod of the material which can be pumped by a flash lamp at a rate of about 15 Hz. The output is Q-switched and mode-locked with the use of a saturable absorber and an acoustooptical modulator. The output consists of an envelope of pulses which can be tuned for optimization by adjusting the mirrors, adjusting the prisms to change optical pathlength, adjusting the crystal in the acoustooptic modulator, and adjusting the frequency of the modulator.
> 
> ...



MORON!!! Lasers, the type of laser you are referring to is pulsed. Meaning the beam is pulsed at a very fast rate, appearing to be a constant and continuous beam to the naked eye. They are done this way because perfect reflectors do not exist and at every transfer or redirection of a beam there will be some energy loss in that transfer. By pulsing the beam they can get the near same effect visually, meaning you won't see a separation in the beam under normal conditions, despite the fact there is not actually one continuous beam but rather a series of very fast pulses of light, grouped so quickly together you won't see the difference.

Imagine taking your flashlight and turning it on and off at a rate so fast it appears as if its constantly on.. Ever wave a flashlight back forth quickly? Why? Because it made the light look like it was a streak of light, a little kid laser of sorts.

There is a loss at each transfer, but it is continually replenished by another pulse of light, quicker than you can see with the naked eye and given the impression of a solid and continuous beam. IDIOT!

STOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!



> Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone.



Again??? LOL, dude you are too stupid for words... Best shut up and wait for Ian to save you. Frankly I think he has learned the depths of your ignorance and has forsaken you.. What you are doing is changing your claim again.. Grow up admiral...




			
				gslack said:
			
		

> Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.





> Well sure, there's a "loss", because the total heat flow is from hot to cool, as the second law demands. But, contrary to your retard version of the second law -- the one that contradicts the last century of science -- there's no problem with some heat flowing back to hot, just as long as more heat flows out to cold.



DUDE STOP CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT WE SAW WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE.. Everyone saw it, pretending it's something else now is too late..



> You can't get 117% work out of the that system, beyond a short term where you use up the stored energy. Hence, like the light bouncing between mirrors, it's not creating energy, it's just storing previously generated energy. If you think it's creating energy, then simply show us your system that would harvest that 117% energy beyond the short-term. If you can't, have the decency to slither away in disgrace. Or admit you're wrong, but since you toddlers can't admit an error, ever, slinking away seems your best option.



Blah, blah, blah... All I see is you trying to BS your way out of your previous claim...You can't moron,you already proved your an imbecile... NEXT!


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 8, 2013)

Black body and the theories of thermodynamics are very real. Basic thermal transfers of heat wouldn't work if they weren't.


----------



## gslack (May 8, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Black body and the theories of thermodynamics are very real. Basic thermal transfers of heat wouldn't work if they weren't.



And on cue... Don't try and bury his screw up, I will re-post as needed..


----------



## westwall (May 8, 2013)

You MUST repost it.  That level of scientific stupidity is priceless.  Truly epically priceless.


----------



## gslack (May 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> You MUST repost it.  That level of scientific stupidity is priceless.  Truly epically priceless.



I love his room of mirrors with a light in it analogy LOL.. Priceless.. He says and I quote;

_"Anyways, let's get back to common sense. *If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make.* A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone."_-mamooth

LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah...

WOW!


----------



## westwall (May 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You MUST repost it.  That level of scientific stupidity is priceless.  Truly epically priceless.
> ...







Yes, just imagine, no longer would you need to expend vast amounts of technology and material for the creation of lasers, just put a light bulb in a box of mirrors and viola!  There's your laser.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo]What A Maroon! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## polarbear (May 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Isn`t it great, all that new "science" which emerges  since Marihuana is  being de- criminalized by the Democrats. Libtard IQ 50 people like "mamooth", the brilliant  "numan" and the educated journalist "Saigon" can combine to a 150 IQ because they "back radiate"  brain power at each other while re- inhaling the wacko-tobacco haze in one of these Hollywood think tanks. You know, the kind of Obama "choom gang" -study environment that is so potent that it`s a sealed record by Obama exec order...else Iran might discover how to build "back radiation bombs" with 1/2 the critical mass




It never would have dawned to the rest of us how to get unlimited wattage out of a 60 Watt light bulb if you turn it on inside a 6 mirror 1 square meter sided cubicle.  When you flick on the light each of the six 1 m^2 walls gets 10 watts from the light bulb and another 10 watts from the opposing mirror. That doubles up on all 3 axis while the 60 watt bulb keeps adding photons to the ones that keep doubling up  every 1/ 300 000 000  seconds. Before you know it there are so many photons whizzing around in this "mamooth" variation of Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment" that you can switch off the light bulb and it won`t get dark.

Oh, I`m so sorry.  I forgot to factor in the other mamooth discovery:


> Now, if I covered several square miles with some substance that converted the whole spectrum to electricity...
> But it would only be getting *+17% more energy* briefly, using up some  previously stored energy. Then it would gradually fall back to +0%, as  the earth and atmosphere below cooled and *stopped emitting*


Gee and I thought that the earth or the atmosphere would have to be at absolute zero (K) before they  would stop emitting.
I guess I should start reading that cartoonist "skeptical science" blog and brush up on "modern AGW physics".
Good thing I`m retired, because I would be "obsolete" to get one of these  government funded jobs in  "climatology computer modelling" which use "mamooth" algorithms


----------



## westwall (May 9, 2013)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...









Yes indeed, the Admiral really exposed his credentials...or, more importantly his lack thereof with that wonderful little post!  I've seen stoopid (sic) before but this clown _really_ takes the cake.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes indeed, the Admiral really exposed his credentials...or, more importantly his lack thereof with that wonderful little post!  I've seen stoopid (sic) before but this clown _really_ takes the cake.



Makes you wonder whether they believed this sort of phantasy physics before the AGW hoax began and that is why they so readily believe, or if drinking the koolaid reduced thier IQ's to the point that these phantasy physics seem reasonable and therefore believable.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 9, 2013)

I guess our educational system teaches that science and people become scientist using it. lol


----------



## gslack (May 9, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I guess our educational system teaches that science and people become scientist using it. lol



They do not teach people to believe in two-way energy flow, and lossless energy transfer, and they certainly do not teach support of perfect machines of either the first or second kind.

They do not teach "back-radiation" in any actual science save one field, and that is climate science. Meteorologists don't rely on it, physicists don't, no body else but "climate science" even mentions it. The reason is its a theory put forth using mathematics to explain what they cannot. Not a fact, not something we can prove, just a possibility the interpreted from using quantum theory mathematics. The math may be right but the interpretations we have of its answers defies the 1st and 2nd laws we have never seen defied in nature before.

So rather than dismiss the theory as they would have done any other time, they support it and call it fact anyway. It's worth a lot of money and they believe the potential good that can come of it justifies it. 

Now what mamooth is doing is talking out of his butt, because his mouth should know better. NONE of what he claims is either supported by or shown true by any scientific measure or any scientist.

If you believe in what he's saying then just say so outright, don't be passive aggressive, man up and say so. Lossless energy transfer, 117% energy efficiency in the atmosphere, you think it's true, fine say so.. Then prove it..


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I guess our educational system teaches that science and people become scientist using it. lol
> ...


It's always hilarious when the anti-science rightwingnut retards imagine that they have it right about the science and all of the world's scientists have got it wrong. This seems to be a very common delusion among people who do not understand the greenhouse effect or the 2nd law of thermodynamics either, for that matter.

A simple understanding of the greenhouse effect: The sun heats the Earth's surface continuously daily and the Earth radiates that heat outward in the form of longwave infrared radiation. Longwave radiation from the earth&#8217;s surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out &#8211; both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively &#8220;no change&#8221;. The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur. 

The "_2nd law_", simply put: "_Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature_"

What this means is this: No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body.

In the case of the real &#8220;_greenhouse effect_" and the real "_2nd law of thermodynamics_", net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn&#8217;t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground. It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction.


----------



## mamooth (May 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> TOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!



If you followed that rule, you couldn't write or speak a word.

Notice how, on any forum, any thread you touch immediately turns to shit? You, gslack, are poison to any rational discourse. It's your belligerent stupidity that does it. You are anti-knowledge and anti-rationality personified. It stems from the emotional immaturity that prevents you from admitting any error, ever, under any circumstances. Your fellow cultists share that trait to some degree, but you're the worst about it. Since you're totally wrong, being unable to admit error leaves with you a problem. You're forced to double down on "stupid" and scream hatred at whoever tries to educate you, and hence destroy any thread you appear in.

The key is not to engage you. By now, everyone has seen you're stupid and dishonest, so there's no need to waste time reinforcing those points. Instead, it's more fun to use you as evidence of the cult nature of denialism.


----------



## mamooth (May 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..



Well, yes. Common sense tells you that. For the same reasons, a room painted white is much brighter than a room painted black. Interesting that you kooks deny something as obvious as that.



> ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah..



Good. You just said I was right, but you're too stupid to realize you just said I was right.

Now, the mirror room is interesting. You'd get a "hall of mirrors" effect and see many lights shining at you. It would be very bright. Eventually, imperfections in the mirrors and the fact that you were absorbing light would limit the bounces, but you could easily get ten times the original light flux. And yet it would _not_ be "multiplying energy", as there would be an equilibrium of light emitted and absorbed.

And that leaves you kooks in a quandry. Your idiot argument relies on claiming that increased flux is "multiplying energy". Thus, you have to go into these really stupid contortions to claim that the mirror room wouldn't be brighter. And by that same kook reasoning, a white room wouldn't be brighter than a black room. Now you've all revised interior decorating as well as physics.

It's such a simple scenario, one that I thought even you dimbulbs could grasp. But I underestimated your cult devotion. It's not that you all can't understand, it's that you're all too emotionally invested in not understanding. Essentially, you're all willing yourselves to be stupid.

Oh well. Time to think of some new ways to pull the strings of my puppets. I just have to mention some bit of common sense, and out of pure spite they all start screaming the opposite it true. It's so much fun to make them dance like that.


----------



## gslack (May 9, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



You have contributed nothing but scripted nonsense and big font troll boy.. When you post an original post that isn't insulting someone you can preach, until then you're a useless forum troll..


----------



## gslack (May 9, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > TOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!
> ...



Yes yes, you hate me I got it.. You hate me for??? LOL, outing you for a pathetic lying fraud and an idiot.. You claimed so much but when questioned on it you failed. Here is another case of your childish absolute statements blowing up in your face because you can't take the time to actually learn about what you claim before hand...

Grow up junior..


----------



## gslack (May 9, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..
> ...



Now, now, childish tactics like cutting up a quote won't help you junior... Gonna have to make an example of you again and embarrass you...

_*"Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone."*_-mamooth

Your words correct? of course...

My response...

_*"LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah..."*_-gslack

As you can see by looking at the actual response and your claim, you are indeed being a fraud again... First your claim was the mirrors bounce the same light back and forth making the room brighter than the light bulb alone would make it. And my response was to point out each mirror reflects the light from the source not from the other mirrors but from the light source. The reflected energy from the mirrors coming from themselves is not reflected back again because that energy has now spent most of its energy in the transfer. 

Again, you can't get something for nothing. Perfect and lossless energy transfer does not exist, perfect mirrors do not exist, and therefore your infinity reflective room cannot exist..

Now we all know my argument wasn't about energy flux pinhead, it was about energy loss in transfer.. Don't lie about my claim..

I'm gonna re-post your laser oscillator screw up, since you conveniently ignored my response...

Fair warning to you and your troll army. Eventually the mods will no longer be able to ignore your tactics of burying one anothers screw ups, and decide your dishonest habit of selective quoting is BS. Sooner or later you will go too far and then you will need to find a new way to spend your time you should be spending studying for your home schooling..


----------



## gslack (May 9, 2013)

> Quote: Originally Posted by mamooth
> Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD
> The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.
> And thus SSDD proves that a laser oscillator can't exist.
> ...


Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss? No..LOL

Read up on things for once will ya? Seriously you have a history of making bold claims based on little to no understanding of it. This should be a lesson to you...

Laser Oscillators



> Quote:
> Pulsed Laser Oscillator
> 
> The Neodynium-YAG laser consists of a rod of the material which can be pumped by a flash lamp at a rate of about 15 Hz. The output is Q-switched and mode-locked with the use of a saturable absorber and an acoustooptical modulator. The output consists of an envelope of pulses which can be tuned for optimization by adjusting the mirrors, adjusting the prisms to change optical pathlength, adjusting the crystal in the acoustooptic modulator, and adjusting the frequency of the modulator.
> ...



MORON!!! Lasers, the type of laser you are referring to is pulsed. Meaning the beam is pulsed at a very fast rate, appearing to be a constant and continuous beam to the naked eye. They are done this way because perfect reflectors do not exist and at every transfer or redirection of a beam there will be some energy loss in that transfer. By pulsing the beam they can get the near same effect visually, meaning you won't see a separation in the beam under normal conditions, despite the fact there is not actually one continuous beam but rather a series of very fast pulses of light, grouped so quickly together you won't see the difference.

Imagine taking your flashlight and turning it on and off at a rate so fast it appears as if its constantly on.. Ever wave a flashlight back forth quickly? Why? Because it made the light look like it was a streak of light, a little kid laser of sorts.

There is a loss at each transfer, but it is continually replenished by another pulse of light, quicker than you can see with the naked eye and given the impression of a solid and continuous beam. IDIOT!

STOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!



> Quote:mamooth
> Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone.



Again??? LOL, dude you are too stupid for words... Best shut up and wait for Ian to save you. Frankly I think he has learned the depths of your ignorance and has forsaken you.. What you are doing is changing your claim again.. Grow up admiral...




> Quote: Originally Posted by gslack
> Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.





> Quote:mamooth
> Well sure, there's a "loss", because the total heat flow is from hot to cool, as the second law demands. But, contrary to your retard version of the second law -- the one that contradicts the last century of science -- there's no problem with some heat flowing back to hot, just as long as more heat flows out to cold.


DUDE STOP CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT WE SAW WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE.. Everyone saw it, pretending it's something else now is too late..



> Quote:mamooth
> You can't get 117% work out of the that system, beyond a short term where you use up the stored energy. Hence, like the light bouncing between mirrors, it's not creating energy, it's just storing previously generated energy. If you think it's creating energy, then simply show us your system that would harvest that 117% energy beyond the short-term. If you can't, have the decency to slither away in disgrace. Or admit you're wrong, but since you toddlers can't admit an error, ever, slinking away seems your best option.


Blah, blah, blah... All I see is you trying to BS your way out of your previous claim...You can't moron,you already proved your an imbecile... NEXT!

Now care to explain why you ignored the post? LOL we know junior we know...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



This is how retarded trolls respond when their moronic drivel and lies get debunked by the facts. The slackjawedidiot doesn't know his butt from his bingo card but the Dunning-Kruger Effect deludes him into imagining that he understands science better than professional scientists. He's a joke that everyone laughs at but he's too retarded to be able to see how ridiculous he is. As I said before:
 "*It's always hilarious when the anti-science rightwingnut retards imagine that they have it right about the science and all of the world's scientists have got it wrong.*"


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



And this is how a known forum troll who is busted responds.. Livetrollingblunderfree, your desire to bury juniors screw up is pathetic despite being expected. 

Make your font bigger, thats the ticket! rofl.. All you ever do is post a scripted thread and then bark at everyone who tries to debate it. As I said, when you post something original and not from a script, and you actually do decide to debate it,let me know. Until then troll and bark.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2013)

The bottom line is that the past and current crop of climate models are based on the sort of physics that the warmist wackos belive in and we all know that climate models are failing spectacularly....why?....because they are based on phantasy physics.


----------



## polarbear (May 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The bottom line is that the past and current crop of climate models are based on the sort of physics that the warmist wackos belive in and we all know that climate models are failing spectacularly....why?....because they are based on phantasy physics.


This is getting funnier all the time.
First the "nuclear engineer" was multiplying photons with mirrors and now this:


> Well, yes. Common sense tells you that. For the same reasons, *a room painted white is much brighter than a room painted black*. Interesting that you kooks deny something as obvious as that.
> Now, the mirror room is interesting. You'd get a "hall of mirrors" effect and see many lights shining at you. It would be very bright. Eventually, imperfections in the mirrors and the fact that you were absorbing light would limit the bounces,* but you could easily get ten times the original light flux. *


A white wall looks brighter than a black wall...what a stunning "insight"..from somebody who keeps  painting himself into a corner
And now we got mirrors and white walls increasing the *radiant flux* that comes from a fixed wattage light bulb "easily" by 10 times.

Radiant flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In radiometry, *radiant flux* or *radiant power* is the measure of the total power of electromagnetic radiation (including infrared, ultraviolet, and visible light). The power may be *the total emitted from a source*, or the *total landing on a particular surface.*


That interior decorating fag who is posing as an engineering expert  now claims that *luminous flux *is the same thing as *radiant flux *.
Luminous flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In photometry, *luminous flux* or *luminous power* is the measure of the* perceived* power of light. *It differs from radiant flux,* the measure of the total power of light emitted, in that luminous flux is adjusted to reflect the varying sensitivity of the human eye to different wavelengths of light.


----------



## mamooth (May 10, 2013)

polarbear said:


> And now we got mirrors and white walls increasing the radiant flux that comes from a fixed wattage light bulb "easily" by 10 times.



Yep. Those who aren't retards understand how that's possible. Alas, you and gslack fail hard in the common sense department. That's because you've never been trained in common sense, like the scientists have. You simply are _not_ as smart as those scientists, no matter how often your cult tells you otherwise. You really need to come to terms with your lack of skill here, but being you two are poster children for Dunning-Kruger, that's not going to happen.



> That interior decorating fag



I delight in ripping apart cowardly bullies like polarbear. Sure, he acts like the friendly guy, your best bud -- that is, until you call him out on his BS. Then he goes into a sputtering meltdown and shows his true face, which is rather ugly.

Radiant flux, luminous flux, it makes no freaking difference to the analogy, where all the frequencies get reflected. By thinking it meant something, polarbear again revealed his lack of common sense. And I suspect he knew he needed a deflection.

One more time, I'll try to dumb it down for the two denialist dimbulbs.

Imagine a room with snow-white walls that have a 0.8 albedo. That is, they reflect 80% of the visible light. 

Now, imagine a bulb in the room. It doesn't matter what the exact emission spectrum is, since we're only looking at the visible light here. That visible light is going to hit the walls, and 80% will bounce off. And that reflected light will hit the walls again, and 64% will bounce. And so on. By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux of the bulb alone. That's why the white room would be so much brighter than a black room, because given the same light source, it's got 5 times the luminous flux of a black room.

So, 5 times the original luminous flux. The kooks here will claim that means you've multiplied the energy output by 5. However, the kooks here are deeply stupid people. They don't understand it's just a one-time energy storage, not an energy multiplication. The light absorbed in the whole system still equals the light output of the bulb. Same for the planet, where the total energy emitted to space still equals the energy input of the sun.


----------



## mamooth (May 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss?



Why should I care about your crazy claims?

Kook, I know how to handle you, and that frustrates you to no end. It's a given that you'll lie about what everyone else says, and use to the lies to try to drag them down into a pissing match. But I don't have to play that game. I just keep laughing and returning to the point you're running from, to watch you have a meltdown over it.

Your kook theory says that a white room can't possibly be brighter than a dark room with the same light source, because it would be "multiplying energy". That's the point. Can you explain to us how the white room manages to be brighter without having more light flux than the black room?


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss?
> ...



No junior you can't "handle" me or any body else. What you do is make a claim and then keep talking even though it's proven false. You think its witty or smart or funny, but all it does is make a fool out of you.

Your selective editing won't save you...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss?
> ...



This thread has gotten pretty hilarious. I think PeanutBrain and the slackjawedidiot wiil next claim that ice is invisible because their eyeballs are warmer than the ice, therefore no radiation can travel from the cold ice to anything warmer without 'violating' the 2nd law of thermodynamics. LOLOLOL. It's like watching some kind of Special mental Olympics for complete retards. They try so hard but they 'run' in circles and trip over their own tongues and in the end, they're still utterly confused and massively retarded.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Keep burying it troll... I will re-post as needed..


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2013)

> Quote: Originally Posted by mamooth
> Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD
> The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.
> And thus SSDD proves that a laser oscillator can't exist.
> ...


Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss? No..LOL

Read up on things for once will ya? Seriously you have a history of making bold claims based on little to no understanding of it. This should be a lesson to you...

Laser Oscillators



> Quote:
> Pulsed Laser Oscillator
> 
> The Neodynium-YAG laser consists of a rod of the material which can be pumped by a flash lamp at a rate of about 15 Hz. The output is Q-switched and mode-locked with the use of a saturable absorber and an acoustooptical modulator. The output consists of an envelope of pulses which can be tuned for optimization by adjusting the mirrors, adjusting the prisms to change optical pathlength, adjusting the crystal in the acoustooptic modulator, and adjusting the frequency of the modulator.
> ...



MORON!!! Lasers, the type of laser you are referring to is pulsed. Meaning the beam is pulsed at a very fast rate, appearing to be a constant and continuous beam to the naked eye. They are done this way because perfect reflectors do not exist and at every transfer or redirection of a beam there will be some energy loss in that transfer. By pulsing the beam they can get the near same effect visually, meaning you won't see a separation in the beam under normal conditions, despite the fact there is not actually one continuous beam but rather a series of very fast pulses of light, grouped so quickly together you won't see the difference.

Imagine taking your flashlight and turning it on and off at a rate so fast it appears as if its constantly on.. Ever wave a flashlight back forth quickly? Why? Because it made the light look like it was a streak of light, a little kid laser of sorts.

There is a loss at each transfer, but it is continually replenished by another pulse of light, quicker than you can see with the naked eye and given the impression of a solid and continuous beam. IDIOT!

STOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!



> Quote:mamooth
> Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone.



Again??? LOL, dude you are too stupid for words... Best shut up and wait for Ian to save you. Frankly I think he has learned the depths of your ignorance and has forsaken you.. What you are doing is changing your claim again.. Grow up admiral...




> Quote: Originally Posted by gslack
> Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.





> Quote:mamooth
> Well sure, there's a "loss", because the total heat flow is from hot to cool, as the second law demands. But, contrary to your retard version of the second law -- the one that contradicts the last century of science -- there's no problem with some heat flowing back to hot, just as long as more heat flows out to cold.


DUDE STOP CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT WE SAW WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE.. Everyone saw it, pretending it's something else now is too late..



> Quote:mamooth
> You can't get 117% work out of the that system, beyond a short term where you use up the stored energy. Hence, like the light bouncing between mirrors, it's not creating energy, it's just storing previously generated energy. If you think it's creating energy, then simply show us your system that would harvest that 117% energy beyond the short-term. If you can't, have the decency to slither away in disgrace. Or admit you're wrong, but since you toddlers can't admit an error, ever, slinking away seems your best option.


Blah, blah, blah... All I see is you trying to BS your way out of your previous claim...You can't moron,you already proved your an imbecile... NEXT!

Now care to explain why you ignored the post? LOL we know junior we know...

Re-posted because the trolls keep trying to cover it up... I will do so repeatedly until the dishonest mamooth responds to it, or goes away. 

All trolling tactics to bury this will make me repost it again and again...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOL......oh, slackjawed, all you ever post or repost is just more evidence of your own insanity and retarded ignorance.


----------



## gslack (May 10, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Yes and your attempt to bury juniors screw up is painfully obvious... Keep going, and I will keep re-posting.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I have no idea what you're raving about, slackjawed. Your drivel is exceptionally incoherent and pointless today.

 But, please, tell us, do you think ice is invisible? If you can see it, does that violate the 2nd law?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 11, 2013)

What degree in science do you have? I mean serious back ground within physics and the atmosphere....

Unless you're sitting next to James Hansen no one will listen to you.


----------



## gslack (May 11, 2013)

Matthew said:


> What degree in science do you have? I mean serious back ground within physics and the atmosphere....
> 
> Unless you're sitting next to James Hansen no one will listen to you.



What degrees do you have ins science or climate science? None? Didn't think so.. 

My credentials to debate this obviously surpass those of you and the troll brigade, and most certainly surpass mamooth the admiral.

Trying the "you don't have the credentials to debate this" excuse is weak. Your pals get caught being ignorant about what they're debating, and they first resort to attacking, neg-repping, and incessant crying, and when that fails you pull this nonsense? ROFL..

Frankly my credentials have been more than adequate to show through your fake admiral, your fake physicist, and your pseudo-science. I'm a Data Analyst, I get paid to spot BS in complex and often differing information and sources. That's all you need to know about me.

What about you? Besides trolling forums under many names what are your credentials?


----------



## gslack (May 11, 2013)

> Quote: Originally Posted by mamooth
> Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD
> The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.
> And thus SSDD proves that a laser oscillator can't exist.
> ...


Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss? No..LOL

Read up on things for once will ya? Seriously you have a history of making bold claims based on little to no understanding of it. This should be a lesson to you...

Laser Oscillators



> Quote:
> Pulsed Laser Oscillator
> 
> The Neodynium-YAG laser consists of a rod of the material which can be pumped by a flash lamp at a rate of about 15 Hz. The output is Q-switched and mode-locked with the use of a saturable absorber and an acoustooptical modulator. The output consists of an envelope of pulses which can be tuned for optimization by adjusting the mirrors, adjusting the prisms to change optical pathlength, adjusting the crystal in the acoustooptic modulator, and adjusting the frequency of the modulator.
> ...



MORON!!! Lasers, the type of laser you are referring to is pulsed. Meaning the beam is pulsed at a very fast rate, appearing to be a constant and continuous beam to the naked eye. They are done this way because perfect reflectors do not exist and at every transfer or redirection of a beam there will be some energy loss in that transfer. By pulsing the beam they can get the near same effect visually, meaning you won't see a separation in the beam under normal conditions, despite the fact there is not actually one continuous beam but rather a series of very fast pulses of light, grouped so quickly together you won't see the difference.

Imagine taking your flashlight and turning it on and off at a rate so fast it appears as if its constantly on.. Ever wave a flashlight back forth quickly? Why? Because it made the light look like it was a streak of light, a little kid laser of sorts.

There is a loss at each transfer, but it is continually replenished by another pulse of light, quicker than you can see with the naked eye and given the impression of a solid and continuous beam. IDIOT!

STOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!



> Quote:mamooth
> Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone.



Again??? LOL, dude you are too stupid for words... Best shut up and wait for Ian to save you. Frankly I think he has learned the depths of your ignorance and has forsaken you.. What you are doing is changing your claim again.. Grow up admiral...




> Quote: Originally Posted by gslack
> Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.





> Quote:mamooth
> Well sure, there's a "loss", because the total heat flow is from hot to cool, as the second law demands. But, contrary to your retard version of the second law -- the one that contradicts the last century of science -- there's no problem with some heat flowing back to hot, just as long as more heat flows out to cold.


DUDE STOP CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT WE SAW WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE.. Everyone saw it, pretending it's something else now is too late..



> Quote:mamooth
> You can't get 117% work out of the that system, beyond a short term where you use up the stored energy. Hence, like the light bouncing between mirrors, it's not creating energy, it's just storing previously generated energy. If you think it's creating energy, then simply show us your system that would harvest that 117% energy beyond the short-term. If you can't, have the decency to slither away in disgrace. Or admit you're wrong, but since you toddlers can't admit an error, ever, slinking away seems your best option.


Blah, blah, blah... All I see is you trying to BS your way out of your previous claim...You can't moron,you already proved your an imbecile... NEXT!

Now care to explain why you ignored the post? LOL we know junior we know...

One more time because the troll army keeps trying to bury it..


----------



## polarbear (May 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by mamooth
> > Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD
> > The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.
> > And thus SSDD proves that a laser oscillator can't exist.
> ...



That`s what we call a "Rohrkrepierer"





http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-99.html#post7208795


> I'll keep mocking you for it, you'll cry about how mean I am, and I'll laugh hard. Isn't life grand?


Don`t forget to re-post this :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7128364


> Any other 'tards here want to back up PolarBear's nutty claim about how a dark object radiates more at the same temperature?
> 
> If only the world knew that they could make heat sinks more effective by  painting them flat black. Once more, PolarBear has made an amazing new  discovery in physics that the rest of humanity had somehow missed.


Why are car radiators painted black


> *Why are car radiators painted black?*
> 
> Car radiators are painted black because it emits the most heat through    radiation (highest emissivity). This improves the heat transfer out of    the radiator when air isn't moving through the radiator.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-98.html#post7206966


> I stand in front of mirror, holding a flashlight and another mirror at  my chest. I shine a flashlight into the mirror. Photons start bouncing  back and forth between the two mirrors. After multiple bounces between  the two mirrors, the "energy flux" between the two mirrors *becomes many  times greater than that of the flashlight beam alone.*


But if you do then the freaks reply:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-88.html#post7138024


> Quote: Originally Posted by *polarbear*
> 
> 
> _Figure that one out.
> ...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-88.html#post7140363



> I actually suggested yesterday
> Reporting is probably the best option - along with neg repping.


*Isn't life grand?*
Yes it is and a lot of fun to boot. The last time I laughed as much was when my neighbor tied  a burlap sack to his rim and one of these annoying yapping dogs  caught up to his pick up and bit that sack.

More than makes up for this:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GOvvxndZs&feature=youtu.be"]Manitoba Maydays - YouTube[/ame]
"Spring" in the rest of Canada ain`t much better:
https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/325378775980326913


> Tonight's Finale: Newfoundland glowing on a lovely Spring evening.


We sure could use some of that "back radiation" between that white stuff on the ground and these white clouds.
Or the "Nuclear Admiral`s hall of mirrors" that multiplies energy flux by at least 5 times:



> That visible light is going to hit the walls, *and 80% will bounce off.* *And that reflected light will hit the walls again, and 64% will bounce.  And so on. By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final  light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux*


I wonder if that gem came from "skeptical science" or straight out of the shit for brains kitty litter box

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_intensity


> Luminous intensity should not be confused with another photometric unit, luminous flux, which is the total perceived power emitted in all directions. Luminous intensity is the perceived power _per unit solid angle_. Luminous intensity is also not the same as the radiant intensity, the corresponding objective physical quantity used in the measurement science of radiometry.
> In photometry, *luminous flux* or *luminous power* is the measure of the perceived power of light. It differs from radiant flux, the measure of the total power of light emitted, in that luminous flux is adjusted to reflect the varying sensitivity of the human eye to different wavelengths of light.








So if she uses white cream:






According to the mamooth photon multiplier using the infinite summation formula  this could happen






*
Unbelievable how stupid some people can be...that`s now 3 times that this moron has been told that:

*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminance


> *Luminance* is a photometric measure of the luminous intensity per unit area of light  travelling in *a given direction. *It describes the amount of light that  passes through or is emitted from a particular area, and *falls within a  given solid angle*. The SI unit for luminance is candela per square metre (cd/m2).
> The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540×1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity _*in that direction of 1&#8260;683 watt per steradian.*_
> 
> Luminous intensity should not be confused with another photometric unit, luminous flux, which is the total perceived power emitted in all directions. Luminous intensity is the perceived power _per unit solid angle_. *Luminous intensity is also not the same as the radiant intensity, the corresponding objective physical quantity used in the measurement science of radiometry.*


----------



## polarbear (May 11, 2013)

> That visible light is going to hit the walls, *and 80% will bounce off.* *And  that reflected light will hit the walls again, and 64% will bounce.   And so on. By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final   light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux*


*
*
*Unbelievable how stupid some people can be...that`s now 3 times that this moron has been told that:*



> *Luminance* is a photometric measure of the luminous intensity per unit area of light  travelling in *a given direction. *It describes the amount of light that  passes through or is emitted from a particular area, and *falls within a  given solid angle*. The SI unit for luminance is candela per square metre (cd/m2).
> The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source   that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540×1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity _*in that direction of 1&#8260;683 watt per steradian.*_
> 
> Luminous intensity should not be confused with another photometric unit, luminous flux, which is the total perceived power emitted in all directions. Luminous intensity is the perceived power _per unit solid angle_. *Luminous intensity is also not the same as the radiant intensity, the corresponding objective physical quantity used in the measurement science of radiometry*


According to 




  It makes no difference...:

Using a 100 watt light bulb in a room designed by "mamooth" can be  pumped up  in 1 second with 500 watt seconds instead of 100 watt seconds....and that`s whats happening just between 2 walls.
On all 3 axis according to "mamooth" it would be 1500 watts after just one second....and the other 20 % of the light that does not get reflected by the white walls should be in there as heat....as another 500 watt seconds worth of heat,  after just one second  = 2000 watt seconds ...and all that with a 100 watt light bulb.
*"By the infinite summation formula, calculating the final   light flux at 1/(1-.8)*" any occupant would be incinerated in less than 5 minutes

Makes you wonder how a conventional power plant can make any money.
*And all the while this shit for brains claims
*


> Me?...I used to run nuclear reactors


* 

Meooow
*


----------



## mamooth (May 11, 2013)

Gslack, spamming is against board rules. Cut it out.

Plus, there's the matter that no one can figure out what you're babbling about. Only your fellow psychostalker PolarBear wants anything to do with you. The saner denialists don't want to be associated with your stalking, that's how bad you've gotten.

Anyways, if you can locate your balls, try addressing the way I ripped about your retarded "117% flux means multiplying energy!" stupidity with my simple white room example. I correctly take the fact you won't even try as your admission of surrender on that point.


----------



## mamooth (May 11, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Unbelievable how stupid some people can be ...



Indeed. polarbear is a retard on this topic. Nothing unusual, as he's equally stupid in all science he tries to talk about, hence why most of his posts now consist of crazy stalking. In this case, he just can't seem to grasp how it makes no difference to the example whether you use luminous intensity or radiant intensity. No matter how much I try to dumb it down for him, it's just nearly impossible to dumb something down enough for polarbear to understand it.



> Using a 100 watt light bulb in a room designed by "mamooth" can be  pumped up  in 1 second with 500 watt seconds instead of 100 watt seconds....and that`s whats happening just between 2 walls.



No, six walls, dumbass. You truly suck at problem setup, as I keep mentioning. The light scatters in all directions, but since it always hits another wall, direction doesn't really matter. Much. Sure, a little less bright in the corners, but we can say the room is spherical to fix that issue. Not really relevant to the point, which is that higher local energy density only means you're storing energy, not multiplying it.

Anyways, as any non-retard can understand, 500 watts would be flying through the air, if you had a 100 watt bulb in a white room with a .8 across-the-whole-spectrum albedo. However, since albedo is .8, only 20% of that would be getting absorbed. That is, 100 watts. Exactly what the bulb puts out. Equilibrium. How about that. 500% flux locally, but the same net energy output.

It's the same situation with the earth and the 117% backradiation. Extra stored energy inside the system is irrelevant. In the equilibrium state, the energy radiated to space is still the same as energy incoming to the earth, no matter what's happening inside the system.

This is sophomore level physics, but poor polarbear can't grasp it. He might be able to struggle through freshman physics with a "C", but he'd fail hard in electromagnetism class of the sophomore year.


----------



## gslack (May 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Gslack, spamming is against board rules. Cut it out.
> 
> Plus, there's the matter that no one can figure out what you're babbling about. Only your fellow psychostalker PolarBear wants anything to do with you. The saner denialists don't want to be associated with your stalking, that's how bad you've gotten.
> 
> Anyways, if you can locate your balls, try addressing the way I ripped about your retarded "117% flux means multiplying energy!" stupidity with my simple white room example. I correctly take the fact you won't even try as your admission of surrender on that point.



Don't talk to me about board rules weasel, you are dodging the post again... I will re-post as I feel schmuck, and you can go cry to a mod again. 

You have been caught ONCE AGAIN, talking about things you do not understand, and making bold claims you don't have the knowledge on.. 

If you could have made an excuse for it you would have by now,you don't and can't so now you resort to appeals to authority and crying about the rules.

You're done admiral.. You're a proven fraud, a fake, and a liar, and completely dishonest, and now we can add incessant, whiny little punk to that.. Good day admiral, your credibility is zero..


----------



## polarbear (May 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Gslack, spamming is against board rules. Cut it out.
> ...



Talk about babbling...
this moron paints his room white so it`s a "photon capacitor" which tanks up with 5 times more photons than what`s coming at any time from the light bulb in his room....and starts squealing  if you quote his crap in another thread where he`s grandstanding "Me, I used to run nuclear reactors".


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> You have been caught ONCE AGAIN, talking about things you do not understand, and making bold claims you don't have the knowledge on..



You'd look less crazy if your magnum opus post that supposedly skewered me didn't closely resemble the Unibomber Manifesto.

I don't have to respond line-by-line to any Unibomber Manifesto to refute it. I just need to point out that it's crank nonsense created by a craven retard, and laugh my ass off at it. Oh, I'm sure you think it's a truly impressive piece of work, but so did the Unibomber.



> If you could have made an excuse for it you would have by now, you don't and can't so now you resort to appeals to authority and crying about the rules.



I just politely asked you to behave like a grownup for once. Clearly, that was too much to expect of you.



> You're done admiral.. You're a proven fraud, a fake, and a liar, and completely dishonest, and now we can add incessant, whiny little punk to that.. Good day admiral, your credibility is zero..



You realize you're comic relief now, right? I just sit here pulling your strings, and watching how my happy little puppet dances.

And again, when you locate your balls, you can start talking about the science. I'll keep trying to bring you back to the point that you're running from. Which is that your "117% flux means multiplying energy!" claim is really stupid, as my simple example showed. Even you know that by now, as your refusal to discuss the issue indicates.


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2013)

polarbear said:


> this moron paints his room white so it`s a "photon capacitor" which tanks up with 5 times more photons than what`s coming at any time from the light bulb in his room...



Yep. If you're not a retard, you understand why that's the case. Being that I dumbed it down to a sixth grade level should have helped, but that wasn't simple enough to help polarbear.

In polarbear's fantasy physics kingdom, the bulb in the white room puts out 100 watts. The energy hits the wall, 20 watts is absorbed, and the other 80 watts ... just magically vanishes. A wild violation of conservation of energy, but this is polarbear, who has unilaterally declared much of the physics of the past century to be a liberal plot. Our new Einstein, polarbear, has created a new politically correct physics where conservation of energy only has to hold when it's convenient for his political beliefs.


----------



## IanC (May 12, 2013)

mamooth-  gslack is on the wrong side of the bell curve so it is of little use trying to communicate with him. polarbear is different though. his whole schtick here is to make debating points or something. he purposely misunderstands the idea that you are trying to put forward, then replies with some _non sequitor_ with a lot of numbers and equations. or sometimes he just picks a poorly chosen phrase and ridicules it, endlessly.

anyone with half a brain knows that a mirrored, or even just white, room is brighter than a dark room. anyone with half a brain knows that a 1000w gold smelter uses heat sinks to produce a high temperature but a 1000w room heater doesnt melt the room.

anybody with half a brain knows that the earth's surface is a heat sink that is a higher temp because the atmosphere interferes with energy loss, allowing the Sun's energy to warm the surface until it is radiating and conducting energy at a high enough rate to force energy through the atmosphere so that it matches the incoming energy. just because the heat sink changes temperature that does not mean that the input or output has changed.


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > You have been caught ONCE AGAIN, talking about things you do not understand, and making bold claims you don't have the knowledge on..
> ...



So we can just call you coward and liar and be done then? Good... Once again when faced with your BS you cower and run.. Grow up junior, you have gone beyond being a simple lying idiot to a full fledged cowardly scumbag..


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> mamooth-  gslack is on the wrong side of the bell curve so it is of little use trying to communicate with him. polarbear is different though. his whole schtick here is to make debating points or something. he purposely misunderstands the idea that you are trying to put forward, then replies with some _non sequitor_ with a lot of numbers and equations. or sometimes he just picks a poorly chosen phrase and ridicules it, endlessly.
> 
> anyone with half a brain knows that a mirrored, or even just white, room is brighter than a dark room. anyone with half a brain knows that a 1000w gold smelter uses heat sinks to produce a high temperature but a 1000w room heater doesnt melt the room.
> 
> anybody with half a brain knows that the earth's surface is a heat sink that is a higher temp because the atmosphere interferes with energy loss, allowing the Sun's energy to warm the surface until it is radiating and conducting energy at a high enough rate to force energy through the atmosphere so that it matches the incoming energy. just because the heat sink changes temperature that does not mean that the input or output has changed.



And now YOU... Where to start? DO we start with your complete lack of ethics and decisions to ignore the mind-numbingly ignorant claims of your pal here and attack me? Or do we start with your hero-worship of Roy Spencer and his deliberate fudging of science?

You're luke-warmer and apologist nature cannot hide your continued cowardice when confronted on this subject. When you get challenged you pretend you don't speak english anymore. So please your opinion of me means squat..

Why don't you correct the admirals claims Ian? LOL, because you lack the character to do it we know..


----------



## polarbear (May 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> mamooth- gslack is on the wrong side of the bell curve so it is of little use trying to communicate with him. polarbear is different though. his whole schtick here is to make debating points or something. he purposely misunderstands the idea that you are trying to put forward, then replies with some non sequitor with a lot of numbers and equations. or sometimes he just picks a poorly chosen phrase and ridicules it, endlessly.
> 
> anyone with half a brain knows that a mirrored, or even just white, room is brighter than a dark room.



Gee, I expected something a little bit better from you, but then again I should not because you aren`t much better than this idiot:


> That visible light is going to hit the walls, and 80% will bounce off. And that reflected light will hit the walls again, and 64% will bounce. And so on. By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux


Cat shit for brains is accumulating photons, which requires a system that could accumulate photons over a period of time.
That would require nothing less than a novel "photon capacitor" which according to the "I used to run nuclear reactors" needs nothing more than a room with mirrors or walls painted white.
So why don`t you tell me how long it takes before that "white room" goes dark after you switched off the light bulb, then calculate the "photon capacitance" of this "mamooth" stupidity which culminates  in 5 times the original flux

That`s one thing.
It`s a whole other matter when anyone with half a brain  (like you) starts adding vectors that point in all possible directions and sums them up regardless of direction to get to :


> By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux[


What`s the matter with you?
Can`t you read?


> Gerhard Gerlich
> Institut Mathematische Physik
> Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina
> In classical radiation theory radiation is not described by a vector field assigning to every space point a corresponding vector. Rather, with each point of space many rays are associated (Figure 3). This is in sharp contrast to the modern description of the radiation field as an electromagnetic field with the Poynting vector field as the relevant
> quantity [99].


Apparently not, :


> anyone with half a brain knows that a mirrored, or even just white, room is brighter than a dark room


because only people with half a brain would come up with:


> By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux[


The rest of them who don`t just have half a brain would know that:



> In physics, the Poynting vector represents the directional energy flux density (the rate of energy transfer per unit area, in watts per square metre (W·m&#8722;2)) of an electromagnetic field.
> 
> Energy flux is the rate of transfer of energy through a surface.
> *This is a vector quantity*, its components being determined in terms of the normal *(perpendicular) direction* to the surface of measurement.
> A vector) is a geometric object that has* magnitude* (or length) *and direction* and can be added to other vectors according to vector algebra.


And simply add all the vectors up as though they were in parallel lockstep and all pointing in the same direction regardless that  half of the vectors have opposing directions:


"Half a brain" that`s what all you Roy Spencer worshipers have in common.
In your half brained "logic" a detector could register not just the incoming light, *but add the emitted light to it as if both vectors were pointing into the same direction.*
Wow...that means your eye could catch up to the photons from a light source next to you that is pointed out into space.
So if they had a rifle with a laser and a scope on the ISS and point it at a nearby object, according to half brain "physics" you would not only be able to register the incoming light that is being reflected but also the light that the laser emits towards the object, the light with the directly opposite vector.
Amazing


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

I don't even get how this is being debated so far.

Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I don't even get how this is being debated so far.
> 
> Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.



And there is Ian's sock on cue...


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I don't even get how this is being debated so far.
> 
> Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.



I believe SSDD has claimed that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. He maintains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been 'misunderstood', or something, and that back radiation does not exist. 

If you have the patience, there must be 30 pages of him disagreeing with virtually everyone on the forum covering this.

You'll have to wade through a lot of spamming, abuse and photographs of Polarbear's barbeques to read it, though.


----------



## polarbear (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I don't even get how this is being debated so far.
> 
> Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.




We already know that you don`t get it ever since you equated "back radiation" to the frog popping power of your microwave oven.

This is what`s being debated:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-98.html#post7207238


> *The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface  (sometimes called &#8220;back radiation&#8221 is equivalent to 100 percent of the  incoming solar energy.[dubious &#8211; discuss]
> *As  solar heating and &#8220;back radiation&#8221; from the atmosphere raise the   surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing   amount of heat&#8212;equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy
> 
> 150 years later we have so many versions of this "back radiation" gospel  that even it`s own disciples can`t make up their mind which one they  should use.
> Wikipedia alone has several versions..here are 2 of them, but there are almost over a dozen of them embedded in other topics:


So in addition to your microwave popping frogs we got another idiot that can surpass the 117% gain, first it was :


> Now, the mirror room is interesting. You'd get a "hall of mirrors"  effect and see many lights shining at you. It would be very bright.  Eventually, imperfections in the mirrors and the fact that you were  absorbing light would limit the bounces,* but you could easily get ten times the original light flux. *


Then it was:


> That visible light is going to hit the walls, *and 80% will bounce off.* *And  that reflected light will hit the walls again, and 64% will bounce.   And so on. By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final   light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux*


Making your frog popping 1:1 power microwave oven obsolete
So tell us, which version do you not "deny"...
the 1/2 brained- 117% version, the 10 times or the 5 times version ?
Or do you prefer your own scatter brained version ...


> infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space


...which would be in numbers ?..... what exactly?
Be careful how you answer, I got a sharp pencil
[dubious ]
Synonyms
doubtful - uncertain - questionable - shady - equivocal


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I believe SSDD has claimed that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. He maintains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been 'misunderstood', or something, and that back radiation does not exist.



There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is far greater than the claimed greenhouse effect...further, the atmospheric thermal effect accurately predicts the temperatures on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and has been proven experimentally.

The greenhouse effect on the other hand can't even accurately predict the temperature here on earth and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets in the solar system...and doesn't have the first bit of observed measureable evidence in support of its existence...belief in a greenhouse effect is pure faith.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I don't even get how this is being debated so far.
> 
> Do the deniers in this thread even understand the greenhouse effect? Its really simple - infrared radiation coming from Earth's surface is scattered rather than streaming into space. That's really it.









Yeah, except that's not really what happens is it.  Especially when all you can give is a "thought experiment" to describe the concept.  there is zero empirical data to support your "theory".  You would think that someone with a PhD in physics would understand that....sadly it seems to have escaped your teachers...


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even get how this is being debated so far.
> ...








No, once again you misrepresent what has been said...but what would one expect from a propagandist..no, there most definitely is a greenhouse effect...and it occurs in sealed systems like......uh.....ohhhhh.....GREENHOUSES!  Yeah, that's it!  Greenhouses exhibit that effect because they're closed systems...

Care to explain how the Earth is a closed system....


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

> You would think that someone with a PhD in physics would understand that....sadly it seems to have escaped your teachers...



It seems to have escaped Stephen Hawking as well. 

It's amazing how many posters on this board know more about physics than Hawking does.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > You would think that someone with a PhD in physics would understand that....sadly it seems to have escaped your teachers...
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Yes, and Hawking has been wrong on how many subjects now?  So, how is it in Finland now mr. east coast USA poster...


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

Westwall - 

Oh, I'm from the US East Coast now am I?! Fantastic! What was it that gave me away?!

btw. In Helsinki it's drizzling, around 15C and a bit dull and colourless. I just got home from work. 

Honestly....what a child you are!


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Oh, I'm from the US East Coast now am I?! Fantastic! What was it that gave me away?!
> 
> ...







15?  The weather channel says its 11.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

Westwall - 

I notice you are very quiet on exactly why you don't think I'm in Finland! Is it a secret?

After all, you have repeated this claim a dozen times now - why not post the damning proof?!

btw. The weather channel probably uses data from out by H-V airport, where it is quite windy.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even get how this is being debated so far.
> ...


The opacity of Co2 to infrared radiation is experimentally verified.


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



the earth is not a closed system. that is why it is so odd that the SLoTers here make a big fuss over changes in the location equilibrium temperatures as energy flows from the sun, through the earth system and then out to space. why shouldnt the surface be radiating more energy than it receives from the sun? a large fraction of it does not escape.

let's ignore GHGs. would an atmosphere of just N2 warm the surface? even though all the surface IR could directly escape to space, the atmosphere would be sending energy to the surface via blackbody radiation. I realize the blackbodies are not perfect, I understand the concept of potential/kinetic energy heat sink of the atmosphere, etc. any atmosphere will raise the average surface temperature and reduce the swings in temp from daylight to nighttime.

if we add GHGs, then surface radiation is actually impeded, unlike a pure nitrogen atmosphere. of course GHGs actually make it _easier_ to lose IR once it gets high enough in the atmosphere so it is actually close to a 'push' except that there is a resistance close to the surface. energy from the sun was used to fill up the heat sink of the surface until it reached a temperature able to get IR past the 'speed bump' caused by GHGs. perhaps 'Dam' is a better analogy because energy is like water, always seeking the lowest level. once filled the dam does not change the flow of water, just the height at which it drops from.

personally I dont think CO2 has a very big part of the process because it is already in sufficient quantity to diffuse its favourite band of IR. the next 400ppm will only add ~1C. other pathways take up the energy CO2 returns to the surface. BUT! to deny the basic physics principles of how CO2 interacts with the general equilibrium systems of sun/earth/space just gives the warmists cause to ignore everything else we say. you dont find McIntyre, Watts, Dyson, Lindzen, Monckton, or any of the important skeptics, denying what we should all know to be possible even if it is severely curtailed by other processes.


----------



## polarbear (May 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> {_the earth is not a closed system. that is why it is so odd that the SLoTers here make a big fuss over changes in the location equilibrium temperatures as energy flows from the sun, through the earth system and then out to space. why shouldnt the surface be radiating more energy than it receives from the sun? a large fraction of it does not escape._}
> 
> **let's ignore GHGs. would an atmosphere of just N2 warm the surface?* even though all the surface IR could directly escape to space, the atmosphere would be sending energy to the surface via blackbody radiation. I realize the blackbodies are not perfect, I understand the concept of potential/kinetic energy heat sink of the atmosphere, etc. any atmosphere will raise the average surface temperature and reduce the swings in temp from daylight to nighttime.
> 
> ...




Sometimes you (almost) make sense. I say (almost) because the rest of the time you allow yourself to be sucked in again by Roy`s stupid "thought experiment" again and again.
I`m Okay with that, because the universe shall unfold as it should regardless what you believe.
So this time let`s focus on the part that made sense.

Let me start with 
**let's ignore GHGs. would an atmosphere of just N2 warm the surface?*

You would have been on to something had you asked that question the other way around :
*"**let's ignore GHGs, would the surface warm an atmosphere of just N2".*..(ignoring also water vapor)
Of course it would ! 
You can`t avoid to heat any gas over a heated surface, Nitrogen is no exception...need examples?...Nah...you are not nearly as stupid as "mamooth" so we`ll just take it from there.
Assuming we are talking about a 1 G planet this Nitrogen atm would have a temperature gradient (lapse rate) due to convection and should according to the "back radiation" hypothesis act accordingly, no different than any other gas, CO2 included.
The only difference is that you can`t blame the presence of Nitrogen or Oxygen on mankind and tax the shit out of us.
Just mentioning CO2, a trace gas as a "greenhouse gas" on a planet with 7/10 th of the surface being water is an oxymoron.
Even if there would be no water, the amount of heat transferred by a warm surface to a gas above it dwarfs the tiny amount of IR that CO2 can absorb..and *can convert into heat (quantitatively) if you disallow all other avenues, such as expansion*
That leaves us with the IR fraction that CO2 re-emits towards the surface...be aware that Heinz Hug`s measurement does not  consider the Poynting vector...*this is the total amount:*
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact


> [FONT=Arial, Geneva]We integrated from a value _E_ = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (_E_ = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line _E_=0.   IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm *[SIZE=-1][13][/SIZE]*. For the 15 µm band our result was:[/FONT]
> 15 µm band  357 ppm  714 ppm    total integral
> 624,04 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 703,84 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]  0.5171/cm  1.4678/cmsum of slope integrals  1.11*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE]/cm  9.79*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE]/cm
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the *relative increment of greenhouse effect *. This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
> ...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Assuming we are talking about a 1 G planet this Nitrogen atm would have a temperature gradient (lapse rate) due to convection and should according to the "back radiation" hypothesis act accordingly, no different than any other gas, CO2 included.



CO2 is opaque to most infrared, N2 is not.


----------



## polarbear (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming we are talking about a 1 G planet this Nitrogen atm would have a temperature gradient (lapse rate) due to convection and should according to the "back radiation" hypothesis act accordingly, no different than any other gas, CO2 included.
> ...


You are the dimwit that claimed to be a physicist and kept spelling it "physisist". So you better stay out of it, seeing the best you can do is"CO2 is opaque to most infrared" *while you were looking at a IR band 2µ "wide" *:






First we have to establish that you can read. After that I`ll let you have 54 milli -watts of power which is about the power rating of a jumbo IR LED on your TV remote.
Point that  IR remote at a square meter of black dirt and tell me how much the dirt warmed up. If that don`t work you can stick it right into the dirt so that there is no albedo effect in case "black dirt" is something that is politically incorrect since Obama became President.
After you`re done stick that remote up your ass and check if your eyes bugged out like the frog`s eyes you used to pop in your microwave oven...as you said you did last last year when you said  that you were a "physisist"...


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> First we have to establish that you can read. After that I`ll let you have 54 milli -watts of power which is about the power rating of a jumbo IR LED on your TV remote.



What are you babbling about?

That's why no one responds to you. You're not dazzling anyone with brilliance. You're baffling everyone with bullshit. It's like you're speaking some authentic frontier gibberish, to steal a quote from Blazing Saddles. 

This is why we can tell you've never been trained as a scientist or engineer. You stink at communicating. Good scientists and engineers can explain a topic clearly. You can't. You toss up your pictures and numbers, but no one can figure out why you tossed them up.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...





You're a strange person.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I notice you are very quiet on exactly why you don't think I'm in Finland! Is it a secret?
> 
> ...









You don't speak like a Finn, nor do you seem to be on the same schedual as a Finn, especially given your so called work.  I gave you the initials of three extremely well known Finnish sportsmen, that EVERY Finn knows, and you couldn't come up with their names.  Plus the fact that you have to google everything you ever say about Finland leads one to believe that you ain't a Finn.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








To a point.   Nobody has done anything with those numbers since the late 1800's.  I wonder if our new and more accurate instruments might change things?  The climatologists have been very conspicuous by their unwillingness to accurately calculate the actual greenhose effect.

Of course it is mostly moot anyway as the Earth doesn't have a glass roof.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > First we have to establish that you can read. After that I`ll let you have 54 milli -watts of power which is about the power rating of a jumbo IR LED on your TV remote.
> ...







He is speaking about things far above your intellectual abilities there admiral....best you crawl back under your rock..


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...










Yes, he is...and far better educated than you'll ever be.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....one retard affirms another retard's confused drivel......when both of them are out of their depth standing on wet pavement...too funny....


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



So you're calling mamooth a retard.. Good glad to see you coming around..


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2013)

numan said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Hey numan what happened to your rep meter dude? LOL, looks like you got nailed for something...ROFL, so what was it? Socking, trolling, what?

Another edit for trolling blunder what is it number 6 now? And 15 hours later..


----------



## RollingThunder (May 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL....and the retarded troll shows that he is far too stupid to understand what he reads...once again...


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> He is speaking about things far above your intellectual abilities there admiral....best you crawl back under your rock..



Westwall, please summarize polarbear's argument for us ... in your own words. But be detailed. I mean, since you've proclaimed it's so brilliant, you obviously must understand it completely. So demonstrate for us your self-proclaimed deep understanding of the issues here. After all, you wouldn't want everyone to think that you simply knee-jerked out some support for a fellow 'tard, and that like everyone else, you actually had no idea of what he was babbling about either.

Gslack, don't you be shy either. Explain exactly, with all the mathematics, what polarbear was speaking of. Again, only use your own words. After all, you wouldn't want people to think you had no freakin' clue either, and were just jumping on the 'tard vendetta bandwagon, right? I mean, they already think that, but score big here, and you can get them to think otherwise!


----------



## polarbear (May 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > He is speaking about things far above your intellectual abilities there admiral....best you crawl back under your rock..
> ...



*You,..*.who took a course in "locker repair" and did not even know why radiators are painted black, just to mention one example what an "expert" you are want to give Westwall a science exam ?
He is a geologist and graduated from a University, not a "locker repairman" course and claimed he "used to run nuclear reactors".
Let`s review how your "water chemistry" exam turned out:

Here was the question:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...the-atmosphere-is-what-we-11.html#post7241522


> Dipshit, you haven`t got the vaguest idea how to measure a pH accurately even if I`ld let you have a pH meter.
> Suppose I gave you this one and you had to measure the pH of a sample what`s the first thing you would have to do?
> 
> 
> ...


And here is the "water chemistry expert"...(+nuclear expert) answer...if you can call it an answer:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...the-atmosphere-is-what-we-12.html#post7241807


> That's why I'd read the instructions for the particular model.
> 
> So, we see one of your usual sad attempts at a deflection, but it won't work. You _still_ fail at water chemistry.


You found nothing with Google.
That`s a run of the mill pH meter with a pH and a KCl reference probe.
*They all work the same*.
The calibration buffers use also all the same color coding WORLD WIDE...
You had no idea which one in that picture was the pH 4 and which one was the pH 10 calibration buffer and meowed:


> That's why I'd read the instructions for the particular model.
> 
> So, we see one of your usual sad attempts at a deflection


So who is deflecting?
And you are trying to give me an exam in "water chemistry"...?
What the fuck is that ?
I took Math, Physics, Phys Chem, Organic Chem, Inorganic Chem, Organic synthesis Chem,...Lab, Pilot plant & Industrial Scale (Chem eng.)+
Radio Chemistry, Trace Analysis,...such as Atomic Absorption  Spectroscopy, Infrared and UV spectroscopy, HPLC, GLC etc etc..but I  never heard of "water chemistry"...then again I did not study at  "skeptical science.org" like you do

*I won`t grade you...let`s have a jury decide.
But as I recall, their last verdict was as damning as this one is likely to be
I bet you even Gslack`s kid could think circles around you...and did...that`s why you had him banned !
*


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> But as I recall, their last verdict was as damning as this one is likely to be



The jury concluded that you had disgraced yourself beyond any possible redemption by spitting on a veteran in the name of a personal vendetta. You make the glaring logical mistake of assuming that your butt-buddies are a jury. It's part of that hilarious lack of common sense and logical ability that defines you. No one outside of your tiny retard clique doubts my credentials, but at least you succeeded in making everyone think you're obsessed and delusional.

(Cue polarbear's butt-buddies ... now.)

Anyways, as I prefer to talk about the science, let's get back to the latest thing you were running from. Let me check what it was. It's hard to keep track, given how often you piss yourself and run when I address your wacky claims.

Oh yes, you ran when I laughed at the senselessness of your meaningless picture and your babble about 54 milliwatts. Care to try again at explaining just what that was supposed to mean?

You know, if you didn't suck so badly as a scientist and engineer, you'd be able to explain things clearly and briefly, like I can do. Everyone thinks you suck. Why do you even keep trying?


----------



## polarbear (May 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > But as I recall, their last verdict was as damning as this one is likely to be
> ...



 Damn right, I`m spitting on assholes that impersonate officers, not on bona fide veterans . 
Nuclear Officer, 


> "I used to run nuclear reactors"...2 turbines can`t run in sync...I know what every knob does..


And when I uploaded some of my vintage stuff manuals you had absolutely no idea what that was either:




How about your water chemistry exam ? 





> Meow, that`s why I read the instructions


 That was a run of the mill pH meter... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 your answer was as revealing what a fake you are, as these bar room pilots who can`t point out what`s what in a Cessna because they used to run nuclear reactors an fly  Pipers. Of course the 54 milliwatts per m^2 would be as meaningless to a white room photon multiplication expert like you who has no idea what Heinz Hug measured with his IR Spectroscope at 14 to 16 µm. But you claim you know about Spectroscopy..let`s see how much you know about it then. Here is a run of the mill Absorption Spectrophotometer...anybody who has seen one would know which of the knobs I blanked out is used to tune the desired wavelength: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   Oh what`s this? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



* Happy Googling Mr.Nuclear Engineer*  Oh I just found another one of your price less Google insights, after you could not find with Google how &quot;water chemistry&quot; color codes calibration buffers 





> True, because I didn't look, because I don't give a shit. The mechanics of a specific pH meter aren't relevant to anything. You only want to bring them up as one of your patented cowardly evasions. Then why do you suck so badly at water chemistry? A topic, by the way, which the ACA seems to think exists. Odd you never heard of something that mainstream. You know, the chemistry of dissolving stuff in water.


  You don`t think that chemistry covers dissolving"stuff in water"? Fuck what kind of school did you attend?...or did you drop out already at Kindergarten?
_*But that`s exactly the dimwits they pick to work in a climatology lab "analyzing CO2 in ice cores"*_








He had no clue either and this is what he did best:


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > But as I recall, their last verdict was as damning as this one is likely to be
> ...



And there it is again... Total disconnect from reality.. ROFL, you are the forum joke admiral.

You get nailed being ignorant and you pretend it didn't happen.. Too silly for words..

Edited for trolling blunder, edit number 6 and 8 hours later...


----------



## polarbear (May 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



The "Admiral" is on a roll,...lecturing me on "water chemistry" ...a highly specialized branch of chemistry which involves dissolving "stuff in water"...like the "ink molecules" he was meowing about yesterday.
See, I did not know that if you slurry up black carbon soot and shellac in water that the Carbon turns into "ink molecules"
You should print out a hard copy of that "mamooth science" post and have your kid take it to school so that his science class  can have a good laugh
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...to-the-atmosphere-is-what-we.html#post7223459


> If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque  black. Even though the concentration of *ink molecules* is just a tiny  trace...


Had to come back here and add this because it fits the "I used to run nuclear reactors" profile:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/293923-so-much-for-the-consensus-myth.html#post7240015


> I've had a hub motor for 10 years now. Get with the times. It was fairly easy to hook into my mountain bike.
> 
> Nice thing is, it's invisible and silent. So I can pretend to pedal  while actually kicking in the motor, and nonchalantly cruise by the  young guys on their racing bikes.


Normal people go mountain biking for the exercise, but not "mamooth"


> So I can pretend to pedal  while...
> I nonchalantly cruise by the  young guys on their racing bikes.


When my wife gained some weight and I did not want to hurt her feelings, so I had our washing machine shrink all her clothes.
The only reason I got caught that I switched over the hot & cold water hoses was because I could not quit laughing.
Some day, maybe one of these "the  young guys on their racing bikes" will reverse the battery terminals and wait for:
"So I can pretend to pedal  while actually kicking in the motor," flying over the handle bar....OOw fucking meow


----------



## RollingThunder (May 15, 2013)

The denier cult retards blindly and ignorantly deny the greenhouse effect even though it is well established scientific phenomenon completely accepted by the world scientific community for over a century. Typical of braindead reality deniers arguing their politics rather than the actually science..

Here's an article from a dozen years ago highlighting some of primary evidence that effectively proves the existence of the greenhouse effect.

*UK scientists see greenhouse evidence*
BBC News
16 March, 2001
By BBC News environment correspondent Alex Kirby
*A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real. Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case. The team analysed data in the form of spectra of Earth's outgoing longwave radiation, which measures the escape of heat to space and bears the imprint of the gases believed to be causing global warming. They compared two sets of data. The more recent was collected over a nine-month period from October 1996 by the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite. The earlier data set were collected by Nasa's Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft from April 1970 to January 1971.

The researchers say they found differences which showed a statistically significant increase in the characteristic spectral bands of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, ozone, and two chlorofluorocarbons, refrigerants blamed for ozone depletion. Their findings, reported in the journal Nature, show that less radiation was escaping from Earth to space in 1997 than in 1970. It means the gases are being kept in the atmosphere, and are trapping the Sun's heat. The team leader, Dr John Harries, said...he is in no doubt that global warming is real. He said: "The results presented here provide to our knowledge the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect. We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity. What we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases." Dr Harries was president of the UK's Royal Meteorological Society from 1996 to 1997, and is a former director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre.*


----------



## numan (May 15, 2013)

'
Thanks for the heads-up, Rolling Thunder. I will try to find the scientific papers themselves.

But those damned popular media reporters!! They always get the science wrong!!

Its impossible that "significantly less radiation is escaping into space than was previously the case" !!! 

It must be that the spectral characteristics of the radiation prove that greenhouse-gas global heating is occurring.

Not that it was in doubt by sensible people, but one must pile Ossa upon Pelion for the education of the Denialist fools.
.


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The denier cult retards blindly and ignorantly deny the greenhouse effect even though it is well established scientific phenomenon completely accepted by the world scientific community for over a century. Typical of braindead reality deniers arguing their politics rather than the actually science..
> 
> Here's an article from a dozen years ago highlighting some of primary evidence that effectively proves the existence of the greenhouse effect.
> 
> ...



Your link is messed up again, sends us to a Time Warner search page again... Better egt into the habit of updating your news aggregator software troll. Either that or your method of using it is flawed...

BTW, your posts may seem less like the work of a green-party automaton if YOU actually did the work to put them together yourself, rather than relying automation so much. Might stop this kind of silliness as well. How many times has this happened now? I know of two within the last couple weeks...LOL

UPDATE***

Did your job for you and googled the headline of your post.. Found this from 2001...

LOL the big font was for you...



> Friday, 16 March, 2001, 14:17 GMT
> UK scientists see greenhouse evidence
> 
> A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real.
> ...



ROFL, yes in 2001 they made that claims and since then? Well they disappeared and their paper went the way of the Dodo bird... 

Okay troll... You are once again busted peddling propaganda. Your links half the time go nowhere, and your only response to anybody debate wise is abuse... The mods should do something about your waste of space ass now. I think your trolling days should be up, I for one am tired of it..

And the fact numan loves you shows how little he is worth as well...

Edit for trolling blunder. Edit 5 and 6 hours ago..


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Thanks for the heads-up, Rolling Thunder. I will try to find the scientific papers themselves.
> 
> But those damned popular media reporters!! They always get the science wrong!!
> ...



Yes a 2001 story posted by a green party automaton... And you...LOL, jumping right on his side. How telling.. Did you follow the link? No you couldn't have because it's busted. Did you google the story and check it? No because you would have seen it's a 12 year old story..

Numan your ignorance has bit you again. I suppose you support other old and incorrect theories as well. Btw, the earth is round..

Your continued use of the word denialist over denier shows through your false intellect and claimed education. Just because you repeat stupidity,and get equally stupid people to repeat it, doesn't make it true or even witty, just stupid...Not surprising seeing that you just came out in support of a 12 year old story as if it were a new study...

And what's up with your rep meter? You get busted socking?

Edited for trolling blunder.. Thats edit number 4 and a post 6 hours old...


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Yeah, I've never heard of a water chem class either.  Organic and inorganic chem yes, but hydrology is more broad based, and deals with water contaminants and how to model water flow etc.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > But as I recall, their last verdict was as damning as this one is likely to be
> ...








Good luck with that one fraudster.  Polarbear IS a veteran, unlike you.


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2013)

LOL, My son isn't banned. He has baseball, and work, and now he's gotten a projected 33 ACT on the pre-test. Now colleges are seeing that and his .400 batting average with good power from the right, and he has become rather busy lately. According to his prep teachers he could get a perfect 36 if he worked on being patient and taking his time. He tends to get impatient and rush to finish fast. At the same time he works nearly 20 hours a week.

Anyway he will post again when he has time. He finds the complete lack of intellect in people like mamooth hilarious. 

Remember when I posted the thought experiment asking them about 2 heat lamps pointing at 150F pointed at one another? He found it completely hilarious that mamooth was absolutely sure that the two lamps of perfect and equal 150F would heat one another more than their energy output would allow.. ROFL, he said mamooth is unable to think in the terms of physical science..

Edit number 3 for trolling blunder..


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yeah, I've never heard of a water chem class either.



That's nice. Now can you explain why the ACA lists water chemistry as a category? Not hydrology, which is more a mechanical/civil engineering thing. Water chemistry.

I learned it as a Navy thing, but anyone running a boiler needs to know water chemistry. I guess that explains why none of my psychostalkers has the slightest inkling of it, as it goes along with their complete ignorance of anything having to do with the Navy. Heck, I'd guess none of those ivory tower nancyboys has ever seen a boiler in their lives. We had to dose the primary coolant with ammonia for pH control, control the scale and pH of the secondary loop water with trisodium and disodium phosphate, keep a crazy close eye on chloride levels, watch the potable water and dose that right. 

Now, the ELT's actually did that work, but everything they did had to be run by the EOOW, which was me. So I would separately do all the calculations (caught them in an error a few times), reviewed their logs (catching the trends that they might miss from being too close, so I could tell 'em "Did you know your demineralizer resin is failing?"), spot checked their pH checks. They did have some pH gear like polarbear's setup, but contrary to his wacky claim, the Navy does not use liquids with pretty colors. That kind of useless color-coded silliness is reserved for polarbear frufru types. Navy guys just read the label.

Anyways, good to see that as I predicted, the kooks are now revising the last century of chemistry, to go along with their revision of the last century of physics.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> He found it completely hilarious that mamooth was absolutely sure that the two lamps of perfect and equal 150F would heat one another more than their energy output would allow.. ROFL, he said mamooth is unable to think in the terms of physical science..




Now, I could go over the heat lamps again, and slowly and carefully show how mind-bogglingly stupid you are with your magical vanishing photons theory, and how you wildly violate conservation of energy, but what's the point? You'd just squeal and run again, and by this point, everyone is fully aware that you're a gibbering retard. You will always be a 'tard because you want to be a 'tard. Until you decide not to be a 'tard, there's no way to untard you.

Oh, tell us again how insulation won't raise the temp of a heat source. My jaw literally dropped when I read that, since I found it hard to believe a grown human could be that stupid. Even a 3-year-old understands that a blanket makes a heat source warmer. But then, the 3-year-old hasn't undergone the cult brainwashing that you've undergone.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Good luck with that one fraudster.  Polarbear IS a veteran, unlike you.



Westwall, you failed to explain polarbear's magnum opus that you said destroyed me. I'm sure it was just an oversight, and that it was totally obvious to you. I mean, if you were so sure it was above my intelligence, you must have understood it fully.

Go on, explain it right here. What was polarbear's 54 milliwatts and strange picture rant all about? Share with everyone your keen grasp of the science here. Show us that it wasn't just gibberish, and you weren't just kissing up again.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

A 36 is a perfect moron... LOL, ACT scores...

Score Information | National Ranks for Test Scores and Composite Score | ACT Student



Score   36		English  99		Mathematics  99		Reading  99		Science  99		Composite  99	




Damn you're stupid.. LOL, I guess you are dedicated to showing how pathetic and ignorant you really are.

So we know know you never took the ACT test...LOL, meaning you certainly didn't qualify for the nuke program either...

BTW, two 150 F heat lamps will not heat the other beyond 150F moron lol... They are both already 150 F how the heck can they raise the temps of something already 150F? Jesus man...

Thanks dummy, you just insulted a member of my family, and showed how much a liar and idiot you are all in one post..Expect to hear from a mod this time admiral, you went too far...


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> A 36 is a perfect moron... LOL, ACT scores...



But you said he's only getting a 33, dimwit. Damn, you're stupid. You can't even remember what score you just mentioned.

That's pretty much why you get everything so wrong. You're just dumb. You always fail to understand what anyone is talking about, and that always makes you end up screaming "liar!" at them. And that's why everyone concludes you're a retard.

By the way, in the same way that "fag" no longer refers to gay people (see the South Park episode), the word "retard" no longer applies to mentally disabled people. "Retard" only applies to 'tards like gslack, people who have deliberately made themselves stupid.



> BTW, two 150 F heat lamps will not heat the other beyond 150F moron lol... They are both already 150 F how the heck can they raise the temps of something already 150F? Jesus man...



Seriously, you're a retard. You seem to think there's a magical heat fairy that stops the temp of a hot object from rising when you hit it with more heat. It's a totally retarded belief, and you're too retarded to understand how retarded it is.



> Thanks dummy, you just insulted a member of my family, and showed how much a liar and idiot you are all in one post..Expect to hear from a mod this time admiral, you went too far...



Yes! Yes! A total crybaby meltdown. Gslack is officially and forever my beeeeyatch!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The denier cult retards blindly and ignorantly deny the greenhouse effect even though it is well established scientific phenomenon completely accepted by the world scientific community for over a century. Typical of braindead reality deniers arguing their politics rather than the actually science..
> ...


Yeah, when I use the forum auto-link feature, it inserts an extra "http//" in front of the actual web address that i'm copying into the little box, and that screws up the link. I sometimes forget to check that and correct it before I post. I used the 'edit' feature and corrected it here on this last post. If you have any trouble with any links in the future, look at the web address when you 'quote' it and see if there is an extra 'http//' there instead of spinning off on one of your wacko conspiracy theories. Just a little sanity suggestion there, slackjawed.











gslack said:


> Did your job for you and googled the headline of your post.. Found this from 2001...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such an insane little retard......OF COURSE it says 2001, you nitwit, it says that on the excerpt I quoted very plainly AND I said when I intro'd the article: "*Here's an article from a dozen years ago*".

The article is reporting on established, peer-reviewed science and it still stands. Nothing has changed. Lot's of other satellite evidence confirms the fact that the Earth is still receiving slightly more energy from the sun than it is able to radiate away into space. Your nutjob cult of reality denial can produce no sound science that in any way refutes the evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect or backradiation. All you retards have are your moronic myths, lame-ass pseudo-science, and crackpot conspiracy theories.

*Global Warming - Frequently Asked Questions
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Climatic Data Center*
Aug 21, 2012
* The Greenhouse Effect
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.*






gslack said:


> yes in 2001 they made that claims and since then? Well they disappeared and their paper went the way of the Dodo bird...



LOLOLOL....you're the "_dodo bird_" here, slackjawed...."_they disappeared_" did they....LOLOLOL...."_they_" being the scientists who published that study, like this guy - 
*"The team leader, Dr John Harries, said...he is in no doubt that global warming is real. He said: "The results presented here provide to our knowledge the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect. We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity. What we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases." Dr Harries was president of the UK's Royal Meteorological Society from 1996 to 1997, and is a former director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre."*

LOLOLOL....you are such a lying little retarded bastard, slackjawed...."_disappeared_" hah....


*Imperial welcomes appointment of Professor John Harries to top science role for the Welsh Assembly Government*
Imperial College - News Release 
Date	 -  	02 Feb 2010
(excerpts)
*Professor John Harries' appointment to the post of Chief Scientific Adviser for Wales was warmly welcomed today by Imperial College London. The news makes Professor Harries the second current Chief Scientific Adviser at the College, joining Professor John Beddington who became adviser to the UK Government in October 2007. Professor Harries holds the Chair in Earth Observation in the College's Department of Physics and will continue to focus around 20% of his time on his academic role at Imperial. A renowned atmospheric physicist, he is particularly known for leading the team that produced the first direct observational evidence of an increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect between 1970 and 1997. Published in 2001 in the journal Nature, this research provided fundamental evidence that significant rises in the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide were responsible for warming the Earth by trapping more of the sun's heat in the atmosphere.

Professor Harries' career began at the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, in 1967 where he worked while carrying out his PhD at King's College London. He went on to become Principal Scientific Officer and Head of Environmental Standards Group before joining the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in 1980 to help to develop a new Division of Geophysics and Radio. During this period, he continued his scientific interest in atmospheric physics, and became Associate Director and Head of the new Space Science Department in 1986, focusing on atmospheric and astrophysical space research, and space technology. He joined Imperial in 1994 as Professor of Earth Observation and took on the role of Head of the Space and Atmospheric Group between 1999 and 2006. He is a past President of the Royal Meteorological Society, and of the International Radiation Commission, and has been a member of the Natural Environment Research Council and several NERC Boards. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, the Royal Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and a member of the American Meteorological Society.*


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Thanks for the heads-up, Rolling Thunder. I will try to find the scientific papers themselves.
> 
> But those damned popular media reporters!! They always get the science wrong!!
> ...



I don't guess you noticed that the news article was from 12 years ago.  I suppose that we would have heard about at some point in the interim if there was anything to it.  Satellites have told us since then that the OLR has increased...not decreased...further calling into question the greenhouse hypothesis.

By the way...what happened to your reputation?  It appears to have gone all the way down the toilet and is now resting in the lower limits of the septic tank.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



LOL, so your response to posting a bad link to a 12 year old article is to post a 2 year old resume of one of the papers writers????

ROFL, you are just too silly troll...Nice edit. See I just edited this post too... Watch I'll do it again...

See?Edit number 2..

Just went back 15 hours and edited a post of mine trolling blunder.. See how that works? You think you're smart or witty? LOL, you're a troll.. Says this at the bottom of your post troll..*"Last edited by RollingThunder; Today at 02:37 AM."*

My response to it was posted at 11:29 pm. You edited it at 2:37 AM... LOL, see the problem? Of course you do you dishonest little weasel you... ROFL...


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



LOL, he keeps ignoring when I ask him about the rep problem he's having.. I think he got busted socking. And if so, it's about time. Hopefully more of them get busted soon.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2013)

Guess he thinks the old resume somehow changes the fact that the 12 year old paper was just another bust brought to us by the cult of the AGW consensus.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Satellites have told us since then that the OLR has increased...not decreased...



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... 

Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS
Link

SPIE | Proceeding | Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earths infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/P...nts/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

Give it up, kooks. The satellites show the IR flux squeezing down in the CO2 bands. It's not possible for a rational person to deny it's happening any longer. One can reasonably argue about the extent of the warming, but at this point, it's delusional to declare the CO2 isn't causing any warming.

The measurable increase in backradiation is the second smoking gun. You know, the backradiation that all the kooks here all universally declare doesn't exist. And yet we measure it increasing. Curious, no?

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect - Philipona - 2004 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Kooks, why is it we can measure something you swear doesn't exist? The fact that you make such a crazy claim does correctly reveal you as political cultists.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

Mammoth- You edited the post.. Why? Scared of the potential backlash? It's okay admiral we know you're a coward and a weasel.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

Of course I edited the post. That's how grownups do things. If no one edited, every post would double in size until the board crashed. Geez, you're dim.

Now, my posts get read, because they're brief. Yours posts usually get ignored, because no one wants to wade through your whiny crap.

So, with that out of the way, let's get back to this latest issue that has you soiling yourself and running.

Scientists measure the increasing backradiation. See the previous references.

You claim backradiation is a myth.

If backradiation is a myth, then why is it present and measurable?


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Satellites have told us since then that the OLR has increased...not decreased...
> ...



I am afraid it is you and your outdated data that is cuckoo.  







That report you linked to was proven to be a bunch of bull.  It didn't provide the graphs and when the graphs finally were provided, it showed exactly the opposite of what they claimed.

The graph above is courtesy of NOAA via the KNMI Climate Explorer




mamooth said:


> Give it up, kooks. The satellites show the IR flux squeezing down in the CO2 bands.



Looks like you guys are the kooks and clearly, the outgoing LW radiation has increased...exactly the opposite of what the greenhouse effect hypothesis claims.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, he keeps ignoring when I ask him about the rep problem he's having.. I think he got busted socking. And if so, it's about time. Hopefully more of them get busted soon.



With both farts and socks, he who smelt it, dealt it.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> Mammoth- You edited the post.. Why? Scared of the potential backlash? It's okay admiral we know you're a coward and a weasel.



To bad he didn't start with good information to begin with.  He should have deleted the whole post for all the good it did...outdated claims that were proven wrong immediately upon providing the graphs that went along with the paper.  If anyone wonders, here are the graphs.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> That report you linked to was proven to be a bunch of bull ....



By your crank blogger.



> Looks like you guys are the kooks and clearly, the outgoing LW radiation has increased...exactly the opposite of what the greenhouse effect hypothesis claims.



Yet you can't find a single source saying so, other than your crank blogger. Meanwhile, I have multiple papers from across the world. You didn't even try to address them all. All you did was paste some cherrypicked graphs, which you don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of. But your crank blog told you they disproved something, and you BELIEVE!

Sucks to be you. None of the evidence ever agrees with your cult, so you have to resort to all the weird fabrications. Me, on the other hand, I simply have to point to reality to "win".

And SSDD, you also need to explain why the backradiation you swear doesn't exist gets measured and is seen to be increasing. How does your cult explain that?


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That report you linked to was proven to be a bunch of bull ....
> ...



So show me a decrease in the OLR on the graphs above of IMG IRIS and TESS.



mamooth said:


> Yet you can't find a single source saying so, other than your crank blogger.



So in your estimation, NOAA is a crank blogger?  

This is according to NOAA








mamooth said:


> And SSDD, you also need to explain why the backradiation you swear doesn't exist gets measured and is seen to be increasing. How does your cult explain that?



Because it doesn't get measured.  Check your sources out.  The only devices that actually measure radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth are devices that are cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere an in that case, it isn't backradiation because the atmosphere is warmer and radiating to the cooler instrument.

No one has ever measured backradiation moving from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer earth.  There are those who don't understand what the instruments are measuring that have have managed to fool themselves, but the manufacturers of the devices themselves state that what the kooks believe they are measuring isn't what they are measuring at all.

There is no backradiation...

And were you calling KNMI climate explorer a cazy blogger?  If so, then you didn't even visit the page....it is a resarch tool nothing more.  You should know about tools since you are a tool (a very blunt one I might add) of the warmist propaganda machine.

From the KNMI page:

*The KNMI Climate Explorer is a web application to analysis climate data statistically. It started in late 1999 as a sinple web page to analyse ENSO teleconnections and has grown over the years to more than 1 TB of climate data and dozens of analysis tools. It is now part of the WMO Regional Climate Centre at KNMI, together with ECA&D. *

http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere

Like I said, you should just stop talking.  The more you talk the less intelligent and less informed you look.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

And after over a hundred pages, we return to the "photons can't move from cold to hot!" claim. The cycle returns to its starting point. Very poetic. The world is still totally wrong, as the fringe cult can't be shaken from their religious beliefs.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Of course I edited the post. That's how grownups do things. If no one edited, every post would double in size until the board crashed. Geez, you're dim.
> 
> Now, my posts get read, because they're brief. Yours posts usually get ignored, because no one wants to wade through your whiny crap.
> 
> ...



Funny but you just posted a different story on my visitor messages.. There you claimed that it was all good to insult family since I mentioned them... 

What's up admiral? You little coward you edited it to save your butt from a mod. We both know it.. Coward... It's okay, you can play your little game until your busted...

But now... You are a proven coward and weasel, and you get no benefit of the doubt from me. From now on you get nothing from me but disdain.

Wannabe warrior fraud.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, he keeps ignoring when I ask him about the rep problem he's having.. I think he got busted socking. And if so, it's about time. Hopefully more of them get busted soon.
> ...



And we don't have to guess on at least one fellow puppeteer do we..


----------



## polarbear (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I've never heard of a water chem class either.
> ...



It`s almost worth while to devote a new thread just to list your bullshit which would have to be sub categorized in chapters.
Let`s get started with "water chemistry". According to M-*EOOW  *every  Chemical engineer or Ph.D would have to turn in his diploma because he  did not take a course in "water chemistry"...like a janitor who looks  after the swimming pool. Which reminds me how surprised I was how lax the regulations are in the U.S. when it comes to boilers.
That`s  about the only country that allows janitors to run high pressure  boilers...after they took a course in "boiler chemistry"...which is  probably way below mamooth "water chemistry science".
Anyway even these lowly "boiler chemistry" janitors knew, that it`s a big no-no to use Ammonia,  which by the way is a gas to adjust the pH in boilers. In any case they  would have used Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4OH) and not NH3 which is a gas.  But had they there would be a huge risk, which is called "Siede Verzug"  and boilers have been know to blow up when "Siede Verzug" (a.k.a. *"bumping, **boiling retardation*, or *boiling delay*") happens. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdJ_xPIvyo"]Siedeverzug - YouTube[/ame]

That`s  why "boiler chemists" unlike "mamooth water chemistry" graduates would  use a Lewis base like Hydrazin instead of "Ammonia" like the M-EOOw  idiot said he used...because Hydrazine Hydrate is also an Oxygen scavenger.
*But that works only for primitive boilers that were used over a century ago, *like in old steam locomotives which did not use Copper alloys.
Technical Paper on Copper Boiler Systems : Steam Generation Systems, Inc, Water Treatment Solutions and Consulting : Alexander C. McDonald Ph.D.

(NH4)+  ions corrode the Copper alloys by dissolving Cu and rapidly pitting the  tubing used in the super heaters, the pre- heaters and the condensers.

pH  control is the least of the problems because the ion exchange resins  which are used to control the TDS contribute NaOH to the make up water  anyway and the pH stays alkaline.
Nothing pertaining to the operation  of a boiler would change the boiler water to go acidic...even a janitor  who took a quickie course in "water chemistry" would know that... so  you are full of shit:


> So I would separately do all the calculations (caught them in an error a  few times), reviewed their logs (catching the trends that they might  miss from being too close, so I could tell 'em "Did you know your  demineralizer resin is failing?"), spot checked their pH checks.


*There is no change in pH *when the ion exchanger has trapped as much Calcium as it could and exchanged the Ca++ with Na+ ions.
When  that happens the TDS sensor on that particular cartridge would  shut it down automatically  anyway and all makeup water would come from one of the other  regenerated cartridges.

The very fact that you never even  mentioned Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and the oxygen scavenger status  tells me that you don`t have the vaguest idea about "water chemistry" or  what`s what in a boiler.
But I already knew that when you were lecturing Westwall with


> Steam tables...you would not even know what that is...I was fricking trained on these


And  quoted it in calories per gram. Which was pretty funny considering how  astronomical these numbers are even  with a tiny 100 bhp boiler .
That`s how somebody who took a "Diet Science" course would quote a steam table.
No  wonder that even the "choom gang graduate" Obama is convinced that the education system is failing the  industry as US technology is being outpaced by other countries. We got too many "graduates" in "water chemistry", "diet  science", first aid etc and too few MD`s, *Real science Ph.D s in general and  engineers .*
To that add the  latest "academic" option, a Ph.D. in "climate science" that requires only basic  high school math and physics, + maybe a course in "water  chemistry"...and presto you are a celebrity status "Ph.D." with a guaranteed taxpayer  funded 6 figure paycheck and a platinum pension plan.
So now we can add a whole new field.."water chemistry" which makes "ink molecules" when you drop carbon& shellac into water:


> If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque  black. Even though the concentration of *ink molecules* is just a tiny  trace...


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

polarbear said:


> According to M-*EOOW  *every  Chemical engineer or Ph.D would have to turn in his diploma because he  did not take a course in "water chemistry"



Nah. But you couldn't run a reactor without learning it. Check out this handy DoE guide to Reactor Water Chemistry.

http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/Reactor Water Chemistry.pdf

Take note of the words *"Water Chemistry"* in the title.

And thus the kooks all fail hard again. When will they understand that reflexively calling me a liar always leaves them looking like crybaby retards? They try so hard to catch me at something, and always end up doing a face plant into a cow patty. But they just get up, wipe the cowshit off their faces, and try again.



> That`s  why "boiler chemists" unlike "mamooth water chemistry" graduates would  use Hydrazin instead of "Ammonia" like the M-EOOw  idiot said he used...because Hydrazine is also an Oxgen scavenger.



So is ammonia, in a reactor. Radiation breaks some ammonia down into N and H, and the H scavenges oxygen. That's reactor chemistry, understanding the additional radiation effects on the chemistry. You don't have a clue about it.

And don't nitpick. Ammonia in solution is ammonium hydroxide, but nobody calls the bottle of ammonia in the kitchen cabinet "ammonium hydroxide". It's just ammonia. It's assumed it will be dissolved, as handling ammonia gas is way more difficult. In the Navy case, we used 30% aqueous ammonia.

There's also no problem with Siede Verzug -- boiling delay -- because there's no boiling in a Navy reactor. Yet another basic concept you fail to understand.



> (NH4)+  ions corrode the Copper alloys by dissolving Cu and rapidly pitting the  tubing used in the super heaters, the pre- heaters and the condensers.



Which would be why ammonia isn't used on the secondary side. On the primary side, no copper alloys. Just stainless steel.



> pH  control is the least of the problems because the ion exchange resins  which are used to control the TDS contribute NaOH to the make up water  anyway and the pH stays alkaline.



No such resin on the secondary side, and the primary side resin is for filtering, not pH control. You're just not very good at this. You inexplicably keep incorrectly assuming your experience applies to Navy nuclear power plants. 



> Nothing pertaining to the operation  of a boiler would change the boiler water to go acidic...



That's nice. Why are you rambling about such nonsense? As, is usually the case, did your voices tell you I said such a thing? Please, point out where I said it.



> There is no change in pH when the ion exchanger has trapped as much Calcium as it could and exchanged the Ca++ with Na+ ions.



You just don't get it. There was no ion exchanger on the secondary loop. Wouldn't work when your water is treated with phosphates. The phosphates are what pulls out the calcium and magnesium to prevent scaling. The soft sludge falls to the bottom of the steam generator, and you do regular blowdowns to flush it out.

What I'm talking about is the demineralizer that the feed water gets run through to purify it before injecting it into the secondary loop. When you see the chloride concentration creeping up there, you know the resin is failing.



> When  that happens the TDS sensor on that particular cartridge would  shut it down automatically  anyway and all makeup water would come from one of the other  regenerated cartridges.



No TDS sensors. Makes no sense in a phosphate chemistry system, since by design they have a huge crapload of TDS.

This is how you always screw it up hard. You always stupidly assume that your own experience _must_ apply to every other single thing in the world, and then you brainlessly scream that anyone with a different experience is a liar. 

Boiler water can be treated either with hydrazine, or with phosphates. Your system used hydrazine. The Navy used phosphates, as dissolved oxygen in the water wasn't an issue, since the water came from an evaporator. Thus, the rest of your crank rambling is meaningless, as it only applies to a hydrazine chemistry system.



> But I already knew that when you were lecturing Westwall with Steam tables...you would not even know what that is...I was fricking trained on these



Liar. I said I could get the steam tables. Future tense. You know that, but you _still_ choose to lie about it.



> And  quoted it in calories per gram.



Yep, because it was the simplest way to explain it. Good engineering. Compared to your suckass engineering, where no one can ever understand what you're babbling about. Good engineers communicate clearly, briefly, and to the point, and you can't do that.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> Funny but you just posted a different story on my visitor messages.. There you claimed that it was all good to insult family since I mentioned them...



Liar. I said it was good because you chose to pass along insults from that family member, who is also a board member. You didn't just mention your family. You deliberately brought your family into the insult festival, and then whined when I took a tiny jab. One would think that if you really thought your family was off limits, you wouldn't bring them into the insult festival.

So, is it possible for a human to get more cowardly than gslack? I don't see how it's possible to get lower than using family members as virtual human shields.



> What's up admiral? You little coward you edited it to save your butt from a mod. We both know it.. Coward... It's okay, you can play your little game until your busted...



Seriously, what are you babbling about? No one can figure it out. You're getting hysterical again. Man up, snap out of it and stop shrieking. Then specifically tell everyone what I supposedly edited out that has you so outraged. Was it the voices that told you I wrote whatever those terrible things are?



> But now... You are a proven coward and weasel, and you get no benefit of the doubt from me. From now on you get nothing from me but disdain.



Oh noes! No more high quality discourse from gslack!

Gslack, threatening to behave badly isn't a threat when you already behave as badly as is humanly possible. 

I should pull a gslack, and get mom to sign up here. Then, if anyone was meeeeeeaaaaaan to me, mom could report them for attacking a family member. Rule abuse, baby, rule abuse!



> Wannabe warrior fraud.



Poor jealous gslack. You still haven't explained why we can measure backradiation when you claim it doesn't exist. Remember the science?


----------



## numan (May 16, 2013)

'
Why do you even bother to read gslack? I don't.

He's just another of the sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome on this site -- he never has anything substantive to say.

Just a waste of time and space to respond to him.
.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Funny but you just posted a different story on my visitor messages.. There you claimed that it was all good to insult family since I mentioned them...
> ...



Yes, yes, I see... So you have a need to feel important and respected by adults. I see this from you plainly.. Sad really... You know you could go and play with kids your own age, then perhaps you wouldn't have such a strong feeling of inadequacy.. Give it a try. You might find you like your age and won't need to play pretend on a web forum..

That session was free admiral. Next time, try to use the big boy voice okay..


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Why do you even bother to read gslack? I don't.
> 
> He's just another of the sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome on this site -- he never has anything substantive to say.
> ...



Whats up with your rep dude? Somebody took it from you? Did CO2 burn it away? Did bigfoot take it?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



You're a known liar, SSoooDDuuumb, who posts fraudulent pseudo-science, and since your graph has no link to NOAA, just some anonymous "blogspot", and since nothing like it shows up on google searches, I'm calling this one a phoney. 

You can prove me wrong by providing a direct link to an actual NOAA website containing that graph. But of course you can't because you just scraped it off of some denier cult blog that claimed it was from NOAA.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> You're a known liar, SSoooDDuuumb, who posts fraudulent pseudo-science, and since your graph has no link to NOAA, just some anonymous "blogspot", and since nothing like it shows up on google searches, I'm calling this one a phoney.



Look in a mirror thunder...it is you who posts fraudulent pseudoscience.  Look back through my posts...95 percent of what I post is published peer reviewed material.  Sorry that you visited the site and didn't know what you were looking at.  It isn't an anonymous blogspot, it is a research tool that is part of the WMO regional climate center at KNMI.  Sorry that you aren't bright enough to catch that.  I thought I made it clear when I put it in blue text...guess it didn't help huh?



RollingThunder said:


> You can prove me wrong by providing a direct link to an actual NOAA website containing that graph. But of course you can't because you just scraped it off of some denier cult blog that claimed it was from NOAA.



If you had half the brains that you think you do, you would be able to easily reconstruct the data from the vast cache of data at KNMI.  Guess you can't.  

Here is the dataset...maybe that will help.

*IPCC claim of "trapped" OLR 1975-2012 calculated using the IPCC formula: 5.35*ln(393.81/331.08) = .93 Wm-2
OLR values from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
# using minimal fraction of valid points 30.00

# olr [W/m^2] from Monthly means of OLR from interpolated OLR dataset
# cutting out region lon=   -1.250  358.750, lat=  -90.000   90.000 1975   234.1676    
 1976   233.3056    
 1977   231.9952    
 1978   227.6897    
 1979   232.2657    
 1980   230.0455    
 1981   230.6246    
 1982   230.7409    
 1983   231.3250    
 1984   230.8478    
 1985   231.5050    
 1986   231.6427    
 1987   231.5573    
 1988   232.2282    
 1989   232.7308    
 1990   231.7560    
 1991   230.7416    
 1992   229.6506    
 1993   229.5302    
 1994   229.9730    
 1995   232.1093    
 1996   231.7132    
 1997   231.5179    
 1998   231.5533    
 1999   230.0013    
 2000   229.3632    
 2001   231.1178    
 2002   231.5232    
 2003   233.2428    
 2004   232.9978    
 2005   232.9438    
 2006   233.0898    
 2007   233.2389    
 2008   232.9702    
 2009   233.1986    
 2010   233.0779    
 2011   232.8238    
 2012   232.2572    

Guess that didn't help either...even with all the data, you still don't know any more than you did before, do you?

It really doesn't matter, you only believe what you choose to believe and if it doesn't match what your priests tell you, then you disregard it.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You're a known liar, SSoooDDuuumb, who posts fraudulent pseudo-science, and since your graph has no link to NOAA, just some anonymous "blogspot", and since nothing like it shows up on google searches, I'm calling this one a phoney.
> ...


LOLOLOL.....those are some of your delusions but, as always, they have no connection to reality.





SSDD said:


> Sorry that you visited the site and didn't know what you were looking at.  It isn't an anonymous blogspot,


The actual address for that graph that shows up when your post is quoted is this (minus the 'h' at the beginning and the 'g' at the end so it won't auto-format):
*ttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Gh-NsgvOWY/UTVkzC3ZgfI/AAAAAAAAFA4/zMR5z-2PyFg/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B342013%2B72040%2BPM.jp*

It very obviously *is* an anonymous blogspot, nitwit.

Here's what you claimed:



SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you can't find a single source saying so, other than your crank blogger.
> ...



...SO WHERE'S THE LINK TO NOAA, YOU FLAMING RETARD???

Not some cherry-picked crap you supposedly cooked up on some data storage site but an actual link to the source at NOAA that you claimed for it, you stinking LIAR.













SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You can prove me wrong by providing a direct link to an actual NOAA website containing that graph. But of course you can't because you just scraped it off of some denier cult blog that claimed it was from NOAA.
> ...


You expressly claimed that the graph you posted was from NOAA - "_This is according to NOAA_", not something somebody somewhere supposedly "_reconstructed_" from some "_vast cache of data_" in the Netherlands. You are a liar.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> You expressly claimed that the graph you posted was from NOAA - "_This is according to NOAA_", not something somebody somewhere supposedly "_reconstructed_" from some "_vast cache of data_" in the Netherlands. You are a liar.



No, I expressly claimed that the data was from NOAA.  Any retard should be able to do a graph from the data...I gave you the data.

Piss and moan all you like thunder...it doesn't change the fact that OLR is increasing and no one but you is arguing the fact.  Even the crazy kitty can see that the data disputes her claims...

Your continued whining should comfort her somewhat....it should tell her that there is someone on this board even more intellectually stunted than her...But we already knew that about you didn't we?  We know all about your deep feelings of inferiority and intimidation that make you behave as you do.....and we pity you for it.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You expressly claimed that the graph you posted was from NOAA - "_This is according to NOAA_", not something somebody somewhere supposedly "_reconstructed_" from some "_vast cache of data_" in the Netherlands. You are a liar.
> ...


Liar. Pretty retarded liar too, considering that your previous statements are still there on the thread for everybody to see. You "_expressly_ and very clearly claimed that that graph you posted was from NOAA. It's not. Now you're trying to rewrite your previous lies and claim that you'd really said that "_the data was from NOAA_, but in fact, that is an unsupported claim since there is no link to any NOAA data sites, just to some site in the Netherlands that may or may not be using the complete NOAA data set. If it is really NOAA's data, why can't you cite them directly? All of their data is available. Nobody with any sense or memory of your previous lies would trust any cherry-picked data you hand them to support your idiotic denial of something as scientifically well established as the greenhouse effect. Your graph is a fraud.





SSDD said:


> it doesn't change the fact that OLR is increasing and no one but you is arguing the fact.


That's your denier cult myth. The fact is that comparisons of satellite measurements of the OLR at the TOA showed a decrease over the last four decades that matched the buildup of greenhouse gases and happened in the wavelengths those gases absorb, and nobody but you deluded denier cult cretins are arguing that fact.

You got caught lying about the source of the graph you posted and now you're just trying to spin it.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...







Nope, people figured out he's a sock troll so are slamming him at every opportunity.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Liar. Pretty retarded liar too, considering that your previous statements are still there on the thread for everybody to see.



Yes, my statements are still there and prove beyond a doubt that you are either a liar or stupid.  Personally, I think you are both.  My original statement on the graph is HERE

I said "The graph above is courtesy of NOAA via the KNMI Climate Explorer."

So is that to difficult for you to read and understand or are you just completely unable to tell the truth about anything.  Maybe the sentence is to complex for you...KNMI being a recognized scientific tool used to compile data from other sources, the sentence means that the data is from NOAA and compiled and put into graph form with the KNMI Climate Explorer.  I didn't think that we really had to write in crayon and try very hard to use one syllable words in order to be understood by warmists but I guess I was wrong.

And my bet is that even if you had understood, you would have lied anyway because that is just who you are and what you do.




RollingThunder said:


> You "_expressly_ and very clearly claimed that that graph you posted was from NOAA.



Again, I said "The graph above is courtesy of NOAA via the KNMI Climate Explorer."  

Maybe you don't know what that little word after NOAA means.  Via?  Ever hear of it?  Ever use it?  Here is a defintion although the definition itself may have words in it that you don't know so it is really a pointless exercise in futility to try and simplify anything for you isn't it?

via - preposition -1. by a route that touches or passes through
2. by the agency or instrumentality of

Note the second definition is specific to the point at hand...data from NOAA by the instrument KNMI climate explorer.

So you ware wrong...now wiggle some more for the delight and entertainment of those who enjoy seeing you squirm. 



RollingThunder said:


> Now you're trying to rewrite your previous lies



Not at all.  As you can see I cut and pasted a direct quote from myself and clearly stated that the graph was produced at KNMI.  You just can't comprehend the words that you read and are therefore always mischaracterizing what people say.  




RollingThunder said:


> You got caught lying about the source of the graph you posted and now you're just trying to spin it.



The only one who got caught was you thunder.  You got caught either not knowing how to read, or deliberately lying about what another poster said...or both.  Now you are attempting to cover up your error by making a big deal over trivialities and in your attempt bury your original mistake in an ocean of bloviation.


By the way thunder, how often do you use graphs produced by someone other than the original collector of the data without going to the original source and bringing forward the entire data set to verify that your source used the entire data set correctly?  I would say damned near every time you post a graph...  Lets take a look to see just how big a hypocrite you are:

Why, in this very thread, just a couople of pages back inTHIS post you used this graph from a blogger and represented it as being from IPCC AR4 figures.  I don't see the complete data set from the IPCC, or a link to the IPCC data set,  and clearly yours is from a blogger...how do you know she used the entire data set correctly?  By your definition, that means that every graph you have posted in which you don't provide links to an official agency graph and data set, must be invalid.  Wow thunder, you have sure posted a whole lot of invalid information.






You have left a trail of just this sort of thing going back to your earliest days on the board thunder...providing graphs supplied by admitted blogs as opposed to the WMO recognized data analysis tool that I used and not providng the complete data set from the original recorder of the data in a single instance.   So now we have you being dishonest, stupid, and a hypocrite.  Congratuations.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 4, 2013)

Here is another example just how utterly retarded these morons who think they can lecture us in physisc really are





numan said:


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








He is looking at the Bohr diagram which depicts how much more energy it takes to raise electrons that are closer to a nucleus at the n=1 shell to a higher orbital than for those are are more distant at the n=4 shell from the nucleus...which require less energy to go into a higher energy orbital the larger the distance or the shell is from the nucleus.
According to him Bohr said :
"*The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"

*As if!!!What Bohr said was thatouter shell electrons require less energy to do their quantum leap  than inner shell electrons.
This moron has electrons going *gradually* with *less and less energy * to a  *" next energy level" *as it was when  nobody ever even heard about quantum physics and quantum leaps.
By saying that he also figured that during this process electrons from shell #1 wind up in the next higher shell number, *because only then *would such an electron require less energy .
And then crown his stupidity with the ultimate stupidity:
*"It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"*

Like fuck "must it absorb" lower frequencies.
An electron in that shell will absorb at the exact same wavelength as it did before it did a quantum leap and then emits this energy quantum as a photon you moron.


> *"or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"*



They do...all you have to do is heat a substance to the plasma state, like that big bright thing in the sky that keeps you from freezing you idiot.

But when I said to IanC with his retarded red star to white star "back radiation", that a plasma can`t absorb photons of that particular lower wavelength when the corresponding "ground state" electrons are missing after the substance was ionized ...IanC, the mamooth ink molecule idiot and you, the "quantum physisc expert" insisted that it can...
Yeah right...
Bohr, Einstein and all the other physicists would roll over in their graves hearing that,...because the only way that would work if the remaining inner shell electrons could absorb longer wavelength light after the outer shell electrons that ionization had removed.
The only way that could happen if you can stuff electrons from a lower shell number to a higher shell number.
How exactly is that supposed to happen ?
*It could not possibly get any funnier than that*, *including the choice of your avatar*


> Oh, my lord! Imagine anyone claiming a knowledge of physics saying that! What a howler!! You've got it exactly ass-backwards!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



STFU Princess and do some work.. Look up Climate Explorer and find the source of the data. As in ----



> Climate Explorer: Field



Then go enter the SAME LAT LONG and time series info as is in SSDD graph of OLR.. You will get the same result.. 

If you were COMPETENT -- you'd know that an Interactive GUI type Data Retrieval like the Climate Explorer doesn't LINK to a particular result... It serves data based on your current entries and DOES NOT SAVE YOUR WORK.. 

So you are both LAZY and INCOMPETENT TinkerBelle, but now that I've taught you a new skill........ Do you want to comment about why it's hard to SEE A DECREASE in OLR over the years??? 

Or to you just want to play bully some more??


----------

