# What the science says



## Crick (Aug 3, 2016)

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal




Nevermind...

1. the highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
2. ocean raw data shows NO WARMING in the oceans
3. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adds at least 80 billion tons of new ice every year
4. Antarctic Sea Ice continues to grow, setting 5 new all time record highs since O took office
5. the warmers cannot answer the question "why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?"
6. we continue to set a new all time record duration for no Cat 3 strikes on the US every day, with almost 200 years of data on that subject

Indeed, there is unequivocal evidence to believe Global Warming is 100% fraud, supported only by FUDGE and FRAUD, and that those behind it should be PROSECUTED for fraud and treason.


----------



## Crick (Aug 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal





LaDexter said:


> 1. the highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE



These satellite data say you're wrong.  Or that you're lying.






These balloon data say you're wrong.  Or that you're lying.





Why don't you show us this "highly correlated" shite you've been babbling about post after post after post?



LaDexter said:


> 2. ocean raw data shows NO WARMING in the oceans



What data would that be?  Because, these data:





























say that you're full of shite.  Or that you're lying.




LaDexter said:


> 3. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adds at least 80 billion tons of new ice every year



The largest factor in sea level rise is steric expansion from the heating just demonstrated.  Seas are also rising from meltwater from the world's glaciers and Antarctica and Greenland.  Zwally is STILL the only scientist to conclude that Antarctica's mass balance is positive.  More than a dozen other studies conclude that Greenland and Antarctica, particularly the western peninsula, are melting.



LaDexter said:


> 4. Antarctic Sea Ice continues to grow, setting 5 new all time record highs since O took office



Sea ice which was formerly Thwaites Glacier, Pine Island Glacier, Haynes, Smith, Pope and Kohler Glaciers.



LaDexter said:


> 5. the warmers cannot answer the question "why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?"



Jesus, is this the result of some sort of traumatic brain injury?  There is a continent at the South Pole surrounded by oceans.  There is an ocean at the North Pole surrounded by continents.  How stupid do you have to be to think that's some great fucking mystery?



LaDexter said:


> 6. we continue to set a new all time record duration for no Cat 3 strikes on the US every day, with almost 200 years of data on that subject



Notice anything here numbnuts?







LaDexter said:


> Indeed, there is unequivocal evidence to believe Global Warming is 100% fraud



Then let us SEE this "unequivocal evidence"



LaDexter said:


> those behind it should be PROSECUTED for fraud and treason.



Treason?  On what grounds, you ignorant ass?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> These *FUDGED* satellite data say you're wrong



There, corrected...

:  Global Warming Differences Resolved with Corrections in Readings

"But while temperature readings at the surface showed this increase, readings in the atmosphere taken by satellites and radiosondes -- instruments carried by weather balloons -- had shown little or no warming (actually slight cooling)"

""This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected* (FUDGED)*," researchers said "


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Treason? On what grounds, you ignorant ass?




Treason

2. giving aid and comfort to our enemies


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> There is a continent at the South Pole surrounded by oceans. There is an ocean at the North Pole surrounded by continents.




So you admit that WHERE LAND IS determines HOW MUCH ICE THE PLANET HAS...

and CO2 hence has NOTHING TO DO with HOW MUCH ICE THE PLANET HAS...


Thanks


Now, WHY TF do we care about CO2 since it has NOTHING TO DO with HOW MUCH ICE IS ON THE PLANET and HAS NOT WARMED THE ATMOSPHERE, nor caused any NET ICE MELT....???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick never explained AR5s concept of "excess heat" that was trapped in the ocean.  In fact he dismissed it as bogus


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 6, 2016)

It seems like you are both screaming that the sky is falling.

I don't see any difference between either of you.

So how you can be disagreeing I cannot tell.

I love charts and graphs but these ones here just seem to show that the Earth is getting more energy.

One of the leading theories is that the Sun is getting hotter.

In that case we all better just get ready for the coming supernova and kiss our own azzes goodbye.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> One of the leading theories is that the Sun is getting hotter.




The taxpayer funded Tippys put that bogus theory out because it is easy to discredit.  During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving CO2 had NOTHING to do with either, because climate change is CONTINENT SPECIFIC, as are ice ages...


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> One of the leading theories is that the Sun is getting hotter.



That is NOT one of the leading theories.  The sun has been getting cooler for some time now.


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > One of the leading theories is that the Sun is getting hotter.
> ...



Apparently you were also unaware that the sun's TSI had been going down for decades and may be headed for a minimum.

Your mindless repetition is really and truly pathetic.

Think about something here Dickster.  Start at any point on the Earth's surface and move either west or east till you have circled the Earth.  Will you have experienced any temperature changes?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 6, 2016)

Those damned cave men! Just as soon as they hit the scene they melted the ice age away. Killing all sorts of mega fauna, and changing the climate! Those sons of birches are just waaaay to powerful and influential. They can literally change the climate of an entire planet!


----------



## Vastator (Aug 6, 2016)

Yeah... You global warmers sound that stupid...


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

Vastator said:


> Those damned cave men! Just as soon as they hit the scene they melted the ice age away. Killing all sorts of mega fauna, and changing the climate! Those sons of birches are just waaaay to powerful and influential. They can literally change the climate of an entire planet!



Did you have some actual point to make or are you simply going to reject all of mainstream science because your mind is incapable of dealing with the scales required.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Apparently you were also unaware that the sun's TSI had been going down for decades and may be headed for a minimum.




Claims are claims.  The claim the Sun is the source of Earth climate change fails several tests dramatically - sea ice and NA/Greenland specifically.


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

Your claims are hamster shit.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
> 
> ...



Ok, suppose you are right?

Now what do we do?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 6, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> ...



In your Grand mind crick what are we supposed to do about it?

Tell. Me more tell me more,


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

Reduce CO2 emissions.  Did you think there was something else?  And where the fuck did you not learn to write?


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Reduce CO2 emissions.  Did you think there was something else?  And where the fuck did you not learn to write?


_"CO2 Emissions" aren't warming the planet. The longest period of warming experienced was before the Industrial Revolution, which if your 'theory' put forth by 'scientists' were true, would have caused either more warming, or continued warming... yet it didn't. The warming stopped during the Industrial Revolution. That alone busts this myth._


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Reduce CO2 emissions.  Did you think there was something else?  And where the fuck did you not learn to write?



Can't you show us the lab work that controls for all variables except for CO2?  No

For each 10ppm reduction in CO2 what's the expected decrease in temperature? Right, you have no answer


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

You asked me a question and I answered it.  Now it's your turn.  Do you really believe all of mainstream science, from scientists all over the world, different political opinions, different religions, different ethical positions, different goals, different personalities - are all involved in a massive secret conspiracy?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 7, 2016)

Not all scientists are in agreement. Those are the facts. Scientific fact is not acquired through a voting process. It is arrived at through the process of elimination of competing theories.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

And who is it that decides if a theory has been eliminated?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> And who is it that decides if a theory has been eliminated?


Dont try deflecting. You said all scientists from all countries, all religions, and all political opinions agree. And you are categorically wrong. They absolutely do not.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Deflecting?  I am responding directly to your comment in the immediately preceding post.  Do you not recall having just said "It is arrived at through the process of elimination of competing theories"?

At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.

My comment containing "scientists all over the world, different political opinions, different religions, different ethical positions, different goals, different personalities" was a query concerning the common denier claim that all such scientists are involved in a conspiracy, a hoax; either to keep grant money flowing or to create a socialist state or to put humanity back in the stone age or to increase taxation or to increase the power of government.  I certainly believe that scientists from all over the world and from all over the spectra of politics, religion, ethics and personality agree with the IPCC.  For one thing, those are the people from whose work the IPCC's conclusions originate. For another, a large number of different surveys, polls and studies of such scientists and their work have clearly shown that to be the case.  Of course there are climate scientists who reject the IPCC's bottom line: About one out of every 100 of them.  Do you really think those few are more likely to be correct about all of this?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2016)

Vastator said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And who is it that decides if a theory has been eliminated?
> ...


Yet so many do agree on the basics of AGW that there are no Scientific Societies arguing that it is not taking place. And all the National Science Academies of the world state that it is taking place. As do all the major Universities in the world. 

And who do you have? A few scientists playing the contrarian role. Some of whom stood before Congress and argued that smoking tobacco was not harmful. LOL


----------



## Vastator (Aug 7, 2016)

I find your claim of 97% very, very dubious. And as you said; the people who agree with the IPCC, are the scientists who provided the information from which the IPCC, has drawn thier conclusions. Do you really expect these scientists to dispute their own provided findings? Would kinda dry up that grant money; dontcha' think?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2016)

Egad, another dumb fuck that has no idea how grant money is awarded, and the controls on how it is spent. Tell me, boy, did you ever finish high school? Bother to get a GED?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 7, 2016)

The earth has experienced fluctuations of temperature, and climate since well befor the dawn of man. On what do you place the blame; for the millennia of previous changes? And how can our recent, and very incomplete observations rule out natural fluctuation? The fact is that they can't.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Egad, another dumb fuck that has no idea how grant money is awarded, and the controls on how it is spent. Tell me, boy, did you ever finish high school? Bother to get a GED?


Personal insult betrays your lack of knowledge pertaining to the subject at hand. It also parallels the response of a losing argument in the political arena. Hmmm...? You can waste all the bandwidth you'd like. But you won't be wasting anymore of my time...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2016)

Quite on the contrary, we have a pretty good understanding of many of the past climate fluctuations. And, yes, we have ruled out natural causes for the present rapid increase in temperatures. This site presents a very good layman discussion of this;

Global Warming: Man or Myth - Natural Causes of Climate Change


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2016)

Vastator said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Egad, another dumb fuck that has no idea how grant money is awarded, and the controls on how it is spent. Tell me, boy, did you ever finish high school? Bother to get a GED?
> ...


Personal insult to an asshole that just accused the majority of scientists of being frauds. Hell man, I was nice, you are simply to dumb to even realize what the term scientific fraud means to anyone engaged in scientific disciplines.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Vastator said:


> I find your claim of 97% very, very dubious. And as you said; the people who agree with the IPCC, are the scientists who provided the information from which the IPCC, has drawn thier conclusions. Do you really expect these scientists to dispute their own provided findings? Would kinda dry up that grant money; dontcha' think?



The various studies and polls did not ask "do you agree with the IPCC?".  They asked "Do you believe human activity is the primary cause of the observed warming?".

There has long been a serious misunderstanding among deniers that the IPCC is doing climate research and publishing its findings in its assessment reports.  The IPCC does NO research.  It is simply assessing the research of others and reporting what it finds there.  What it has found there (and what Naomi Watts, Cook, Anderegg and Powell all found there) was that the overwhelming conclusions of all such research is that human activity is indeed the primary cause of the observed warming.

The vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions because that is what their research and the research of others has told them is taking place.


----------



## Dante (Aug 7, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Indeed, there is unequivocal evidence to believe Global Warming is 100% fraud, supported only by FUDGE and FRAUD, and that those behind it should be PROSECUTED for fraud and treason.


The people who should be prosecuted are those denying the science. They need to be prosecuted for ignorance and stupidity


----------



## Dante (Aug 7, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> There, corrected...
> 
> :  Global Warming Differences Resolved with Corrections in Readings
> 
> ...


  from your own link, so how dumb can one person be? time to start the trial


Findings of the report include:


-- Since the 1950s all data show the Earth's surface and the low and middle atmosphere have warmed, while the upper stratosphere has cooled. Those changes were expected from computer models of the effects of greenhouse warming.


-- Radiosonde readings for the midtroposphere -- the nearest portion of the atmosphere -- show it warming slightly faster than the surface, also an expected finding.


-- The most recent satellite data also show tropospheric warming, though there is some disagreement among data sets. This may be caused by uncertainties in the observations, flaws in climate models or a combination. The researchers think it is a problem with the data collection.


*-- The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone.*


The report came a day after the government reported that the greenhouse gases widely blamed for raising the planet's temperature are still building up in the atmosphere.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday there was a continuing increase in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the air last year, though methane leveled off. Overall, NOAA said, its annual greenhouse gas index "shows a continuing, steady rise in the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere."


----------



## Vastator (Aug 7, 2016)

It's definitely a subject that deserves more study. However given the only very recent observations, and the lack of an accurate base line; it would seem too soon too claim that man made emissions are the sole cause of temperature fluctuations. Earth has experienced increases in CO2 and other gases throughout its history, in tha absence of man. And until we can fully understand those changes as well; we're left with an incomplete picture.
Without a complete picture it's improbable that we can develop an effective solution. The issue needs more study. By more study I mean broader study. With better, and more complete computer modeling.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.


That lie was debunked years ago.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 7, 2016)

Dante said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, there is unequivocal evidence to believe Global Warming is 100% fraud, supported only by FUDGE and FRAUD, and that those behind it should be PROSECUTED for fraud and treason.
> ...


It would be the warmist-alarmist group of ANTI SCIENCE fools who believe the science is settled and all opposing view points are invalid..  because they don't fit with your socialist agenda.  Your side would be first in line for prosecution..   FOOL!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 7, 2016)

Dante said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > There, corrected...
> ...


Bull Shit!


Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant from one another, DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. *During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*

*Where is there room for any causation by man? Then in late 2012 the magical temperature adjustments began making our historical record useless... They claimed the models are right so the facts and observed data must be wrong..  This is akin to witch-doctoring...*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 7, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
> ...








Legates Et Al showed John Cook to be a liar and a poor scientist. Dana Nuttercellie is among his group of clones who couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag.They have now tried three times to prop up their lies and deceptions on it, only to have it shredded within minuets of publication. No reputable journal will even carry Cooks work now.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Reduce CO2 emissions.  Did you think there was something else?  And where the fuck did you not learn to write?
> ...




for the claims made that should be easily done


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 7, 2016)

Another Abraham thread killed by facts....


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 7, 2016)

Hide the decline!


----------



## Dante (Aug 7, 2016)

I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.





AnCap'n_Murica said:


> That lie was debunked years ago.



Let's see it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 7, 2016)

Dante said:


> I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
> 
> NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


I will go where science leads... Not where political whores tell me to go.. How is that Muslim out reach organization doing these days?


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 7, 2016)

Dante said:


> I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
> 
> NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
> ...


How many sources do you need? Would 97 be enough?

Popular Technology.net: 97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"


----------



## Dante (Aug 7, 2016)

again, I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> AnCap'n_Murica said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Cook et al were published in Environmental Research Letters.  Legates?  His work (along with his esteemed co-authors Willie Soon the Sellout, Monckton the Royal wee and Famous-for-Fucking Up statistician William M Briggs) went out in Science and Education, a journal that has nothing to do with climate science whatsoever.  The topic of the piece had to be disguised as one concerning education techniques to get published there.

Cook's next paper was again published in Environmental Research Letters.  Legates has no second paper.

So, what lies were you telling again?

Let's have  a look at the abstract

*Abstract*
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook _et al_ (_Environ. Res. Lett_. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (_N_ = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 _Environ. Res. Lett._ 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
***************************************************************

Legates contention, that any paper that does not explicitly state that it agrees with the IPCC conclusions DISAGREES with those conclusions is an error you'd have to go back to primary school to find being made by normal students.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > AnCap'n_Murica said:
> ...



_Ive read the crap you all try to foist up the flag pole.. none of it passes muster.._


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
> 
> ...









For the umpteenth time.  CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!


----------



## Dante (Aug 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> For the umpteenth time.  CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!


 This is precious coming from a science-denier who backs a premise built upon drawing correlations


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2016)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > For the umpteenth time.  CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!
> ...







Feel free to present a statement of mine that backs up your drivel.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> _Ive read the crap you all try to foist up the flag pole.. none of it passes muster.._



You've read it have you?  Very impressive.  Than you can tell us what was wrong with it.  You probably have a ready explanation for the very close agreement between Cook's team's evaluation and that of the actual authors.  And perhaps you can explain why Legates claims that unless a paper explicitly states it agrees with the IPCC conclusion, it's authors disagree with the IPCC conclusion.  Cause, that really needs an explanation.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Quite on the contrary, we have a pretty good understanding of many of the past climate fluctuations. And, yes, we have ruled out natural causes for the present rapid increase in temperatures. This site presents a very good layman discussion of this;
> 
> Global Warming: Man or Myth - Natural Causes of Climate Change



You didn't rule ou



They didn't rule out shit.
Heck it took them to last year to realize clouds cover Greenland


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 7, 2016)

Dante said:


> I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
> 
> NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming




Yea and ignore common sense


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > AnCap'n_Murica said:
> ...


Still trying to play that game?

Jesus Christ


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Still have nothing meaningful to say?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Still have nothing meaningful to say?



I am not the one bringing up totally dead horses all the time, every one knows cook is full of shit


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Still have nothing meaningful to say?


 






You have presented nothing meaningful, thus there is nothing to say.  When someone presents us a shit sandwich I toss it in the toilet and walk away.  There IS nothing to be said.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Still have nothing meaningful to say?
> ...



Even though no one has presented a single solitary shred of evidence to indicate that might be so?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> You have presented nothing meaningful, thus there is nothing to say.  When someone presents us a shit sandwich I toss it in the toilet and walk away.  There IS nothing to be said.



Gosh, what a surprise to hear you say such a thing.

NOT.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Every one knows what cook did..

For example a published paper on the three blind mice..

3 blind mice walking down the street, the *climate* was fine, they went up to a *man* and asked for *change*.

Presto the writer says man made climate change is real

Also a bunch of those papers we're abstracts


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Cook was not by himself on this study.  You're suggesting they all agreed to do it dishonestly?  And how do you explain the result of the author interviews? Or did they all just make it up?  What evidence do you have to support your charges?  Let me guess: "everyone knows".


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


So again, you're saying that there is something else that warms the planet if you actually believe it is getting warmer. What is that something?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Cook was not by himself on this study.  You're suggesting they all agreed to do it dishonestly?  And how do you explain the result of the author interviews? Or did they all just make it up?  What evidence do you have to support your charges?  Let me guess: "everyone knows".


Evidence? Experiment?


----------



## Crick (Aug 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> So again, you're saying that there is something else that warms the planet if you actually believe it is getting warmer. What is that something?



Reading comprehension is not one of your strong points jc.  The planet's equilibrium temperature is being raised primarily by the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.  If you think I'm saying something else or that I believe something else or that I have some ulterior motive, you're going to have to make a better case than you've made so far.


----------



## Crick (Aug 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Evidence? Experiment?



AR5, Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis.

And to get back to the topic you're trying to get away from: precisely what is it you believe Cook et al have done and on what evidence is that belief based?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence? Experiment?
> ...


Models are not empirical evidence of anything..  and yet you continue to state it as if they presents some kind of scientific facts.  You really are in fantasy land lust like the ipcc...How is Alice?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Cook was not by himself on this study.  You're suggesting they all agreed to do it dishonestly?  And how do you explain the result of the author interviews? Or did they all just make it up?  What evidence do you have to support your charges?  Let me guess: "everyone knows".


Cook chose his cronies well and they manufactured crap.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence? Experiment?
> ...


dude, I have no idea what you're referencing in AR5 as I've stated over ten times in here.  Please offer up your observed evidence you feel exists in that report?

Also, you mean what Cook et al failed to do, and that is to provide scientific evidence.  SCIENTIFIC, look up the word, it's obvious you have no clue its meaning. An experiment that shows adding 'x' amount of CO2 will cause 'y' 'z' to happen to the planet's temperatures.  With the write up and description of what was observed during such experiments.  Why is it you can't achieve this deliverable?

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

 snippet:

"The paper, Cook et al. (2013) '_Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature_' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors."


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Cook was not by himself on this study.  You're suggesting they all agreed to do it dishonestly?


Likely. They have to know that they're rigging the info, if they come up with such preposterous numbers as 97%.


----------



## Dante (Aug 8, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
> ...


Look up: counter-intutive

and the go away, far, far away


----------



## Dante (Aug 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Too much work right now. But I am sure others have that info at the ready


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Aug 8, 2016)

Dante said:


> Look up: counter-intutive
> 
> and the go away, far, far away


Look up:  appeal to authority.


----------



## Dante (Aug 8, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Look up: counter-intutive
> ...


Appeal to authority?  

Linking to facts and experts is an appeal to authority? 

You can't even use the English language correctly: An *Appeal to Authority* is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an *authority* on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2016)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...







Good luck with that.  Like most progressive silly people you are all long on prevarication and short on actual fact.  You must be related to harry reid that paragon of lying so long as it furthers your purpose it's OK ethical behaviorism.

The facts are this OP, like 90% of the AGW bullshit, is based on correlation.  Correlation that stopped 18+ years ago.  Face it silly boy, you're the one who is the anti science denier.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
> ...


Silly Billy, you are a liar. You know that as does everyone else. The Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities state that AGW is real. Now who makes up those institutions? Scientists. And what do scientists study? Science. And what are you absolutely denying? Science. 

You reject the research and findings of generations scientists to run with the rantings of obese junkies on the AM radio and fake English Lords. You reject the photographic evidence of what is happening in the cryosphere. You reject all the evidence gathered by government agencies over the whole world regarding land temperatures and sea level rise. In other words, you just flap yap without even bothering to understand any of the basics of science.


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
> 
> ...


You are full of shit.

What the sience says is that we are warm-blooded mammals and therefore, by definition, we must warm our environment in order to survive.

You anti-human zealots are fucked in the head.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


Can't you find any real data?


----------



## Crick (Aug 8, 2016)

And... is that the ONLY thing your science says?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*Face it, you are a foolish old liar. Are you stating that the temperature has not risen in 18 years? In the face of two back to back record years, with a third in the offing?*

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July 2016 is +0.39 deg. C, up a little from the June, 2016 value +0.34 deg. C (click for full size version):







UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2016: +0.39 deg. C «  Roy Spencer, PhD

*That is not warming? LOL A linear fit is going to slope strongly upward from left to right.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> ...


For the umpteenth time, the causation is well understood. Basic physics. From Tyndall to Arrhenius. That you deny that, then claim to be a scientist, is one funny contradiction. The absorption spectra of GHG's has been well mapped for a long time now. And the AGU and GSA both have statements that state unequivocally that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 8, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Quite on the contrary, we have a pretty good understanding of many of the past climate fluctuations. And, yes, we have ruled out natural causes for the present rapid increase in temperatures. This site presents a very good layman discussion of this;
> ...


Really? Clouds cover Greenland all the time? Part of the time? Some of the time? 

Have you any idea of what you are stating? Or do you just copy, blindly and without the least understanding, statements from wingnut publications?


----------



## Crick (Aug 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> For the umpteenth time.  CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!



Care to show us causation WITHOUT correlation?


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > For the umpteenth time.  CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!
> ...







Sheesh.  Talk about a piss poor understanding of science......  Dude, you need to go back to school....


*"Causation without correlation*.* It is a common misconception that correlation is required for causation*. Let’s start with a simple example that reveals this to be a fallacy. Suppose the value of _y _is known to be caused by _x_. The true relationship between _x _and _y _is mediated by another factor, call it _A_, that takes values of +1 or -1 with equal probability. The true process relating _x _to _y _is _y = Ax_.

It is a simple matter to show that the correlation between _x _and _y _is zero. Perhaps the most intuitive way is to imagine many samples (observations) of _x, y_ pairs. Over the sub-sample for which the pairs have the same sign (i.e. for which _A _happened to be +1) _y=x_ and the correlation is 1. Over the sub-sample for which the pairs have the opposite signs (i.e. for which _A_ happened to be -1) _y=-x_ and the correlation is -1. Since _A _is +1 and -1 with equal probability, the contributions to the total correlation from the two sub-samples cancel, giving a total correlation of zero."


Causation without Correlation is Possible | The Incidental Economist

*Strong causation can exist without any correlation: The strange case of the chain smokers, and a note about diet*

Causation without Correlation is Possible | The Incidental Economist

"Now it is a well-known fact that correlation does not mean causation. What people are less familiar with is that causative relationships can exist when correlation is equal to zero. Putting it simply, correlation reveals nothing about causative relationships and is neither necessary nor sufficient for it."



Is there a good example of a causation without correlation


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...







Who cares other than you anti science denier types.  Appeals to Authority are logical fallacy's, thus they are MEANINGLESS!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2016)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Too much work to back up a claim you made so casually?.....sounds much like the entirety of climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2016)

Dante said:


> AnCap'n_Murica said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



The problem is that your "facts' aren't....and linking assumed facts to questionable experts is a problem.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2016)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The all operate on the premise that the end justifies the means....even if they can't even begin to predict the end as evidenced by their very long track record of unintended consequences.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Silly Billy, you are a liar. You know that as does everyone else. The Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities state that AGW is real. Now who makes up those institutions? Scientists. And what do scientists study? Science. And what are you absolutely denying? Science.



And yet, when asked, you can't provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the basic premise of AGW...what is going on in a field of science when all the experts agree that a hypothesis is correct, but can't provide any actual evidence at all to support their agreement?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > For the umpteenth time.  CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!
> ...



And that is what you call science?...no wonder you have been so completely duped....


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2016)

Then us explicitly what a dupe I've been.  Show us causation without correlation.

And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.

And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

And if anyone suggests a conspiracy, I will take that to mean you have nothing and have completely given up your side of the argument.

I find it amusing to hear you attempt to denigrate what thousands of scientists consider to be good science.  You must be one smart motherfucker.  Or really, really stupid.


----------



## xband (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
> 
> ...



When pineapples and date palms are growing on Ellesmere Island, I will move up there and let the tropics bake.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 9, 2016)

First of all..........nobody is caring! The "science" is having no impact outside of the little science world and the band of k00ks who are OCD with this stuff. That's just a fact........well documented in these pages.Three years after the question was posed to the AGW religious members in here, it still hasn't been answered: "Where is the science mattering in the real world?"

And oh...the data displayed in the charts posted on page 1 indicate *insignificant* warming.........graphs can be set upa million different ways. Isnt it funny how ALL the graphs displayed by the AGW OCD's display the sharpest incline..........when one squeezes the axis on these, anything is possible = ghey. If the graphs were displayed in proper context, they are very unremarkable.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 9, 2016)

I love this forum.......without fail every day, I come in here and see every member of the religion having his head explode. These meatheads come in here year after year thinking they are going to win this debate in an internet forum yet they get consistently embarrassed.

Meanwhile, public interest in this stuff is at an all time low..........90% of the country could not care less!! And that is everything........if the public doesn't care, then essentially, all this "science" stuff is  nothing more than a hobby. And the policy makers aren't giving a shit either.........for near 10 years now. Renewable energy still grows at a snails pace despite the perpetual bomb throwing by these phonies.

In 2016, lets face it........its all good if you are a skeptic.........


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 9, 2016)

Hysterical......and so spot on accurate. Scientists need to take a couple of years off from studying the climate and go to marketing school!!


Just not understood by the people in here who are the hyper-alarmists.......at the end of the day, the science just does not matter!!


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.




Indeed, it is more fudge than Willy Wonka could possibly imagine...


----------



## Dante (Aug 9, 2016)

Alan T. Jeffers, a company spokesman, said last week that Exxon Mobil welcomed a dialogue with shareholders.


“We want them to understand that we see the issue of climate change,we see the risks of climate change and take them seriously, and we are working hard on lower emissions technology,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...e-as-climate-shifts-along-with-attitudes.html


----------



## Dante (Aug 9, 2016)

A few weeks before seminal climate change talks in Kyoto back in 1997, Mobil Oil took out a bluntly worded advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post.

“Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” the ad said. “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”

One year earlier, though, engineers at Mobil Oil were concerned enough about climate change to design and build a collection of exploration and production facilities along the Nova Scotia coast that made structural allowances for rising temperatures and sea levels.

“An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” for the 25-year life of the Sable gas field project, Mobil engineers wrote in their design specifications. The project, owned jointly by Mobil, Shell and Imperial Oil (a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon), went online in 1999; it is expected to close in 2017.

http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Then us explicitly what a dupe I've been.  Show us causation without correlation.



The fact that you believe is prima facia evidence that you have been duped.



Crick said:


> And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.



Really?...then why, when asked explicitly for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions, could you not produce it?  And rather than claiming that you already posted it, to which I will ask you to simply post it here, to which you will not be able to comply, why not skip the bullshit and simply admit that there isn't any...not the first bit.



Crick said:


> And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?['/quote]
> 
> Already been through it...the gravito thermal atmospheric effect, which accurately predicts the temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor...
> 
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 9, 2016)

*“Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” the ad said. “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”
*
No truer words were ever spoken s0ns........and it would appear that the policy wonks concur!!

So...........who's not winning?



Indeed.....what we have in here s0ns is this massive group navel contemplation session on the science........going on for years in here btw!! For all the "97% consensus" ......shrieking in angst, what exactly has changed in the real world?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Then us explicitly what a dupe I've been.  Show us causation without correlation.
> 
> And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.
> 
> ...


_*And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?*_

for what?  What is it you are referring to?


_*I find it amusing to hear you attempt to denigrate what thousands of scientists consider to be good science.  You must be one smart motherfucker.  Or really, really stupid*_

There's that thousand's number again, let's see the list crick.  you fail to post every time you post this nonsense.  But thanks for playing today.


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Then [show] us explicitly what a dupe I've been.  Show us causation without correlation.





SSDD said:


> The fact that you believe is prima facia evidence that you have been duped.



So, you have no examples of causation without correlation but you're embarrassed to admit it.  That's what I thought.  So, having correlation IS evidence of causation, simply not proof.  But, of course, this is the natural sciences.  I wasn't wasting my time looking for proof.



Crick said:


> And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.





SSDD said:


> Really?...then why, when asked explicitly for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions, could you not produce it?  And rather than claiming that you already posted it, to which I will ask you to simply post it here, to which you will not be able to comply, why not skip the bullshit and simply admit that there isn't any...not the first bit.



IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".



Crick said:


> And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?





SSDD said:


> Already been through it...the gravito thermal atmospheric effect, which accurately predicts the temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor...



The "gravito thermal" effect.  That would be impressively science-like... if I were a third-grader watching Captain Fantastic.

From the Gravito Thermal Effect discussion at JudithCurry.com

David Springer

"Absolutely amazing that Coombs and Laue only got two citations since 1985, over 30 years for a paper that “proves” a controversy about gravity acting at the quantum scale that’s never been proven since proposed since 19th century golden age of physics. We still don’t to THIS day have a theory of quantum gravity. Amazing that such definitive abstract “proof” can be asserted about an imaginary physical system that doesn’t actually occur in nature."

and

Pierre Normand

"The models don’t eliminate entropy. They maximize it. All defenders of the gravito-thermal effect have taken it to apply to an ideal gas in thermodynamic equilibrium. It’s not my assumptions that the system is under equilibrium or that the effect applies to an ideal gas. It’s their’s. They don’t argue that it’s a real effect that stems from deviations from ideality. There is one person in the world (that I am aware of) who claims that the gravito-thermal effect only is exhibited in a real atmosphere that doesn’t satisfy those assumptions, and that’s you. But your theory isn’t well worked out yet. Indeed, everyone of your posts so far seems to have express a completely different ad hoc ‘non-ideal’ theory."

The Gravito Thermal effect is crap.



Crick said:


> And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?





SSDD said:


> Highly massaged data...nothing more nothing less...the satellites don't show warming and the satellites track nicely with the actual measurement by radiosondes....



So, a perfect global conspiracy.



Crick said:


> And if anyone suggests a conspiracy, I will take that to mean you have nothing and have completely given up your side of the argument.





SSDD said:


> It isn't a conspiracy because the fraud is right out in the open...the mainstream data sets show that the US has been warming right along with the rest of the world at the same rate while the CRN network...state of the art, triple redundant, and so pristinely placed that it does not require adjustment says that the continental US has been cooling at the same time the mainstream networks show warming in the continental US....they are obviously massaging the data to show warming...and they are doing it for money.



You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie.  That's a conspiracy.  You're an idiot to even consider the possibility.  But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Then [show] us explicitly what a dupe I've been.  Show us causation without correlation.
> ...


Why don't you post up correlation =causation.  Your reverse analogy is funny stuff dude!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 9, 2016)

Dante said:


> Alan T. Jeffers, a company spokesman, said last week that Exxon Mobil welcomed a dialogue with shareholders.
> 
> 
> “We want them to understand that we see the issue of climate change,we see the risks of climate change and take them seriously, and we are working hard on lower emissions technology,” he said.
> ...




That's the goal of company's to make money when they realize the liberal propaganda machine is running full boar.


Just like the US military, precaution against every known threat real or not.


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2016)

Full B-O-R-E.

Well, that's your interpretation.

Responding to every possible threat, whether real or not, is NOT what an entity interested in constantly maximizing profit would choose to do.


----------



## Dante (Aug 9, 2016)

bear513 said:


> That's the goal of company's to make money when they realize the liberal propaganda machine is running full boar.
> 
> 
> Just like the US military, precaution against every known threat real or not.


another employee of_* Laundromats of America *_spinning away


----------



## SSDD (Aug 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".



Yeah...you keep saying that but as predicted, when asked to bring just a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data from those "thousands of pages"...you can't pluck even one out...and why?....because it isn't there...all models all the time and in real science, computer model output is not observed, measured, quantified data.



Crick said:


> The "gravito thermal" effect.  That would be impressively science-like... if I were a third-grader watching Captain Fantastic.



So you think it is just coincidence that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system?...including earth...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor?




Crick said:


> And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?



So, a perfect global conspiracy.[/quote]

Since the fraud is being perpetrated right out in the open, I would't call it a conspiracy...I would call it malfeasance.




Crick said:


> You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie.  That's a conspiracy.  You're an idiot to even consider the possibility.  But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.



You don't think the prospect of literally trillions of dollars being pumped into the field would motivate consensus?....I can provide plenty of examples when far less money has motivated consensus..

It is you who has no argument crick...logical fallacy after logical fallacy...and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence.


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".
> ...



Since the fraud is being perpetrated right out in the open, I would't call it a conspiracy...I would call it malfeasance.




Crick said:


> You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie.  That's a conspiracy.  You're an idiot to even consider the possibility.  But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.



You don't think the prospect of literally trillions of dollars being pumped into the field would motivate consensus?....I can provide plenty of examples when far less money has motivated consensus..



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> It is you who has no argument crick...logical fallacy after logical fallacy...and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence.



Your repeated contention that WGI contains no evidence and only the output of models tells me one of two things: 1) You've never read a page of it or 2) You're perfectly willing to lie.  Take your pick.

The Grand Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists is the contention of the insane or the abysmally ignorant or someone sufficiently desperate (from a lack of anything else to throw against the wall) to be willing to appear insane or abysmally ignorant.

That the lead paper on the "gravito thermal" effect has received two citations in the many years since its publication tells me the rest of the world thinks, as do I, that it's a piece of shite manufactured to provide an ad hoc, non-GHG cause for global warming.

No one is paying trillions of dollars to climate scientist to conduct research.  They never have and they never will.  They will end up spending trillions to respond to the changes AGW is bringing about and, after that, perhaps someone will wish a little of that money HAD been thrown into research and mitigation.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Full B-O-R-E.
> 
> Well, that's your interpretation.
> 
> Responding to every possible threat, whether real or not, is NOT what an entity interested in constantly maximizing profit would choose to do.




My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 10, 2016)

Crick said:


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




s0n......got some bad news. You could sit on this board for the next 1,000 years posting up how appalled you are about the state of things and there is 100% certainty NOTHING is going to change. Fossil fuels are going to be with us loooooooooong after you are in your box. You see..........costs don't matter to progressives. But they do matter to the rest of the world!!


Only progressives wake up and have their coffee thinking the world will be just fine giving up their iPhones, living without air conditioning and riding their bikes to work.


Sorry but I cant help you............


----------



## jc456 (Aug 10, 2016)

Crick said:


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


and still you fail to pull the pieces out of the AR5 report you think backs your claim.  Funny, it isn't how a debate happens.  Take that to court.  here judge read these hundreds of pages and find my argument.  Yeah, that's how it works in your world friend.  I see you still have nothing.  malfeasance is correct.  Couldn't have said that any better myself.  And you come back with a lecture rather than evidence.  It is who you are we get it.  wash, rinse, repeat with you over and over. 

So crick, let's see that language from AR5 that supports your claim.  Or do you forfeit?


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!



My god! These deniers think there are no special interests tied to the massive fossil fuel industry?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Your repeated contention that WGI contains no evidence and only the output of models tells me one of two things: 1) You've never read a page of it or 2) You're perfectly willing to lie.  Take your pick.



You have to be one of the most dishonest posters on this board crick and in the company of folks like rocks and mammoth, that is saying something....Surely you are not so stupid as to have missed the entire point...or perhaps you are...dishonesty and stupidity go hand in hand... so let me clarify for you one more time...as if the entire thread I posted wasn't enough...

There is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

if you believe there is, feel free to post a single paragraph of it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!
> ...



We know that there are...which is why we concentrate on observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claims made in the AGW hypothesis...there is none to be found so that would lead one to believe that the climate science side of the argument is full of shit.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!
> ...


so you deflected again.  We're still waiting for the section and a snippet from the section of the AR5 report that backs your claim buddy.  And you don't have to violate any forum rules.  Nice deflection, never saw that one coming btw.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


or is tied to special interest themselves.  D'OH!!!!


----------



## Crick (Aug 11, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!





Crick said:


> My god! *These deniers think there are no special interests tied to the massive fossil fuel industry!*





SSDD said:


> *We know that there are*...which is why we concentrate on observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claims made in the AGW hypothesis...there is none to be found so that would lead one to believe that the climate science side of the argument is full of shit.



I'm going to hang on to that quote.  For the several years I've been debating this topic, I have yet to see a denier accept that the Fossil Fuel Industry has reason to attempt to affect this debate.  Every scientist on the planet will endanger his entire career to get another grant, but Exxon-Mobil had the intentions of angels when it funded every denier crackpot on the face of the planet.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> [
> 
> I'm going to hang on to that quote.  For the several years I've been debating this topic, I have yet to see a denier accept that the Fossil Fuel Industry has reason to attempt to affect this debate.  Every scientist on the planet will endanger his entire career to get another grant, but Exxon-Mobil had the intentions of angels when it funded every denier crackpot on the face of the planet.



What politically charged issue doesn't have special interests involved on either side....geez you are an idiot...but far more special interest money flows into climate science than does the fossil fuel industry....the disparity in funding makes that fact undeniable...you want to claim that there are no special interests supporting the AGW hypothesis?


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> far more special interest money flows into climate science than does the fossil fuel industry


*
HAHAHAHAhahaahaahhaaaahaaaaa......*


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > far more special interest money flows into climate science than does the fossil fuel industry
> ...



Laughing like a monkey in a tree is hardly a rational argument...but then...rational argument from you is hardly expected.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 12, 2016)

Crick parrots every piece of garbage the "warmer industry" tosses on the floor.

Oil companies = evil

Left wing liar kleptocratic fudgebakers = wonderful


Also, despite the vast right wing conspiracy, Hillary is wonderful too....

Thanks, Crick.  Have a cracker on me...


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

Then, SID, show us some reputable source that shows more money flowing into "climate science" than the >$10 billion we see flowing into the US petroleum industry annually (and that flowing into US coal, natural gas, LNG and the rest of the world's fossil fuel industries.)


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
> 
> ...


 Thinks men in big leather chairs with white Persian cats in their lap control the weather.

Maybe you should call another climate conference in the French Rivera so everyone can fly their private jets from around the world to attend AGAIN.


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

Those statements come from an extremely prestigious group of climate scientists.  Have you got something better?


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

1) Ten years ago, science historian Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 papers published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003.  Twenty-five percent of the papers studied methodology or paleoclimatic issue and took no explicit or implicit position on the current global warming issue.  Of the remaining 75% of papers, ALL explicitly or implicitly accepted anthropogenic climate change.

2) Three years later, in 2007, on behalf of George Mason University's Statistical Assessment Service, Harris Interactive (a market research firm and source of the Harris Poll), conducted a survey of 489 individuals randomly selected from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American Geophysical Union (AGU).  Their survey found that 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased.  84% agreed that this warming was induced by human activity while 5% said they thought human activity had not contributed to greenhouse warming.

3) In August of 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch surveyed 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different nations and received responses from 373 of them (18.2%).  One question was "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" All respondents answered that they were so convinced to at least some extent.  Zero of the respondents answered that they did not agree at all. A second question was "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 98.65% agreed to some extent.  1.35% stated that they did not agree at all.

4)  Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 Earth scientists.  They received responses 3,146 of them (30.7%).  They analyed these responses for the demographics of the respondents.  79 respondents were climatologists for whom more than 50 percent of their peer-reviewed publications had concerned climate change.  Of these 79 climate change experts, 77 believed that human activity had been a significant factor in changing global temperatures.  This poll is frequently mentioned by AGW deniers who seem to believe - or intend to give the impression - that all of AGW is based on the opinion of 77 climatologists. The conclusion of Doran and Zimmerman was that the more someone knew about the climate and climate change, the more likely it was to believe that human activity was the primary cause of global warming.

5) That conclusion was supported by a 2010 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) which reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 publishing climate scientists.  The study found that 97-98% of the most actively publishing researchers accepted AGW and that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".

6) In 2013, a paper published in Environmental Research Letters found 4,014 abstracts out of 11,944 examined that contained the terms "global warming" or "global climate change".  Out of these 4,014, 97.1% accepted AGW as valid

7) Former National Physical Science Consortium executive director James Powell performed an analysis 13,950 articles on climate change and global warming published in peer-reviewed journals between 1991 and 2012.  24 of them (0.17%) rejected AGW.  A second analysis by Powell examined 2,258 articles by 9,136 authors published in the 13 months between  November 2012 and December 2013.  9,135 of the 9,136 authors accepted AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Then, SID, show us some reputable source that shows more money flowing into "climate science" than the >$10 billion we see flowing into the US petroleum industry annually (and that flowing into US coal, natural gas, LNG and the rest of the world's fossil fuel industries.)



You are going to try to compare actual earnings from work done and product sold to grant money?...damned but you are a slimy equivocator.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2016)

You're the one  who made the claim dickweed.  How about some evidence backing it up?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> You're the one  who made the claim dickweed.  How about some evidence backing it up?




We were talking about money injected from special interests weren't we?....which special interest is funding big oil and how much money are they providing?


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2016)

That would be the portions of representative government bought and paid for with fossil fuel money to give subsidies and tax breaks to an already extremely profitable industry.  I said $10 billion, but I've just recently heard that $38 billion might be a more accurate figure.  Do you think you can find $38 billion being put into "climate science" each year SID?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 15, 2016)

The FRAUD tries to blame the oil industry for the fact that

1. highly correlated satellite and balloon data show no warming in the atmosphere
2. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is adding 80 billion tons of ice every year
3. The Tippys censor the question WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?


The OIL INDUSTRY is not responsible for cherry picking, fudging and FRAUD.  The warmers are because the warmers are pushing a TAXPAYER FUNDED FRAUD.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> That would be the portions of representative government bought and paid for with fossil fuel money to give subsidies and tax breaks to an already extremely profitable industry.  I said $10 billion, but I've just recently heard that $38 billion might be a more accurate figure.  Do you think you can find $38 billion being put into "climate science" each year SID?



*to give subsidies and tax breaks to an already extremely profitable industry.* 

Claiming that typical business expense write-offs are a subsidy for the oil industry is equivalent to StupidShit's smart photon theory.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> That would be the portions of representative government bought and paid for with fossil fuel money to give subsidies and tax breaks to an already extremely profitable industry.  I said $10 billion, but I've just recently heard that $38 billion might be a more accurate figure.  Do you think you can find $38 billion being put into "climate science" each year SID?



So according to you, there is no special interest money going into the fossil fuel industry.....spending one's own money on one's own interest hardly qualifies as special interest....


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That would be the portions of representative government bought and paid for with fossil fuel money to give subsidies and tax breaks to an already extremely profitable industry.  I said $10 billion, but I've just recently heard that $38 billion might be a more accurate figure.  Do you think you can find $38 billion being put into "climate science" each year SID?
> ...


well sure, in a leftist world one isn't allowed to reinvest.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
> 
> ...


Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

"A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind "man-made global warming" were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

 Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> ...


*
A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant,*

How does that work?

*That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted.*

Radiation is contradicted?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


LOL.  So you have to lie about what Todd has claimed!  Of course you do, because you have not other argument. No, Todd never said that the CO2 in the atmosphere heats the Earth more than the sun. Nor has anyone else with the slightest bit of sanity. That, of course, do not include jc.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sure he has, he's a big boy, he can argue his own case, Derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun.*

Nope. Never did. Not even once.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You imply it almost every post t me. I've asked you for the experiment that proves your co2 claim, and you give a formula. Derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*You imply it almost every post t me.*

No I don't. Not even close.

*and you give a formula.*

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann. I understand why you don't like that one.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


cause it isn't an experiment and it is what I asked for.  derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Like an experiment that shows it's a coolant? Good idea.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


like I posted.  yup!

BTW, ever read up on the Trenberth's Travesty? 

here from Skeptical Science.  Great article;

Understanding Trenberth's travesty

*"Understanding Trenberth's travesty*
*Posted on 12 December 2009 by John Cook*

Throughout the Climategate controversy, the second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: _*"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."*_ This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system."

Why is earth cooler than it was supposed to based on all of the formulas?

The comments again under the article good as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The fact that I point out your idiocy in no way means I believe the AGW scammers. Sorry.

There are no smart photons and building windmills is a waste of money.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I guess you ignored the link.  hmmmmmmm.  again, it shows the math isn't working.  One has to manipulate the surface readings to make the math work.  Therefore the math is in error or no good. Somewhere you all are flying blind.  I'm open minded, and why I'm reading the alternate information.  You just pofoo it.  And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I guess you ignored the link
*
Does the link prove smart photons or that CO2 is a coolant?

*And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.*

Is that the guy who plugged numbers to claim the heat is hiding in the ocean? Why would I defend him?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Did you read it? If so can't you answer? Derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes. No smart photons. No CO2 is a coolant.
I've never defended Trenberth. No reason here for me to start.

Did you have some reason for posting any of this stuff to me?
Looks like something better posted to Crick....or some other warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth.  you have no evidence to prove that, but you do anyway, so what again is different from your position and Crick?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth.*

CO2 slows the escape of IR into space.

*so what again is different from your position and Crick?*

He believes we should waste trillions on windmills to reduce temps by 0.1 degrees in 2080.
I think that's a stupid idea.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and so what is slowing IR down have to do with a warmer surface since it is in the atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Since matter above 0K radiates in all directions, that should be obvious.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No it isn't cause you've net proven it will warm the surface. And that isn't slowing down IR. Does the gas get more dense as it rises?

Does density change absorption?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*No it isn't cause you've net proven it will warm the surface*

The radiation that hits the surface will warm the surface.
*
And that isn't slowing down IR.*

If it doesn't instantly escape into space, it has been slowed down.
*
Does the gas get more dense as it rises?*

Density has what to do with radiation? Remember Stefan-Boltzmann?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So again you believe as crick! Funny

And yes density affects absorption and emissions. So does temperature


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yeah, I believe in basic physics. Funny.
The real kind, not the smart photon kind.

*And yes density affects absorption and emissions. 
*
Where is density in the Stefan-Boltzmann formula?


----------



## Dante (Aug 17, 2016)

How is it people who for all practical purposes are considered  'intelligent, and educated' can believe NASA on everything but .. but the very one thing the anti-regulation shills for Big Biz Concerns, pay huge amounts of $$$ to do battle with?


----------



## Dante (Aug 17, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe
> ...


Common sense? 

Look up the meaning of : "counter-intuitive" and then


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


all math and no experiment.  I agree, where is the experiment that eliminates density, when density, pressure, gravity and conduction contributes to keeping the planet warm.  you got any yet?  I've been asking you for some time.  Any? 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2.
Where is it located, how many meters up is there CO2, is it equal between all the layers?
Is it four feet off the surface? one mile off the surface?
is the temperature of the CO2 molecule the same at each location?
Why is it then the higher one goes in the atmosphere the cooler it gets?
Is the pressure the same high up as down near the surface?
Does CO2 rise even though it is heavier than air?
If CO2 which is mixed in the atmosphere and carries heat, why can't we see the hot spot?
Still hasn't been produced bubba.
Does CO2 heat the atmosphere or does CO2 heat itself?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*all math and no experiment.*

I guess you could show the math is wrong.

*I agree, where is the experiment that eliminates density, when density, pressure, gravity and conduction contributes to keeping the planet warm.*

Why would you need to eliminate those variables?

*Where is it located, how many meters up is there CO2, is it equal between all the layers?*

CO2 is everywhere in the atmosphere.
*
is the temperature of the CO2 molecule the same at each location?*

No


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Is CO2 heavier than air?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Gases - Densities


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

yep what?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> yep what?


yep what, what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> yep what?



I think he's trying to claim that CO2 doesn't slow the escape of infrared radiation because it's denser than air.
Or maybe it doesn't radiate toward the ground because it's denser than air.

Or some other idiocy.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > yep what?
> ...


or heavier than air and that gravity would come into play since heavy objects have a tendency to fall to the ground. How else do plants photosynthesize the CO2 if it were in the atmosphere miles up? Or the oceans absorb CO2?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas....because gravity?


----------



## IanC (Aug 18, 2016)

Holy Fuck! Is jc stupid, or what?

The concentration of CO2 is one of the basic tenets of AGW. It is empirical data that has been measured. At all heights of the atmosphere. 

As per usual, he has taken one minor factor and excluded the others to convince himself that the atmosphere should be totally stratified by molecular weight in our gravity field. Moronic.

Of course there are similarities to the warmer's position that CO2 is the main factor in temperature control, while ignoring the other factors and pathways.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

If someone says "main factor", does that not clearly and unequivocally imply that they accept the existence of other factors?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> Holy Fuck! Is jc stupid, or what?
> 
> The concentration of CO2 is one of the basic tenets of AGW. It is empirical data that has been measured. At all heights of the atmosphere.
> 
> ...


so you don't believe in conduction? Is that what you're saying?  That CO2 is worth 33C to the surface?  Really? 0.04% of the atmosphere?  hahahaahahahahahaaha.  It's why you can't prove it, support it or whatever it.  As I've stated over and over in here, there is no greenhouse effect that holds us to that 33C to the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas cause there is no such a thing.  A greenhouse is not one because of CO2 gases.  It is a greenhouse because of loss of conduction.  wow!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas cause there is no such a thing.
*
Does CO2 absorb IR?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

IR is a very small part of the spectrum.

Given the shape of atoms and molecules, different atoms and molecules absorb different wavelengths.  CO2 has the hots for IR, but just IR, and the sun is a lot more than just IR, meaning NO there is no magic gas that would warm everything while being well under 1 percent of an atmosphere...

Greenhouse Gas = BULLSHIT


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure it does, but does it heat anything?  Been my question to you for over months now and you still haven't answered it.  Is CO2 even in the atmosphere since it is heavier than air?  Is  CO2 in the oceans?  Seems it is since people are complaining about ph levels.  So is CO2 even in the atmosphere?  Can you prove that? Hey Tod, look up conduction. Perhaps you could move into what truly warms the planet after the sunlight hits the surface.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

Wow, that's some hard-assed science there, that was.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wow, that's some hard-assed science there, that was.


ten times yours. you should learn how to use the internet outside parroting leftist documents.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> IR is a very small part of the spectrum.
> 
> Given the shape of atoms and molecules, different atoms and molecules absorb different wavelengths.  CO2 has the hots for IR, but just IR, and the sun is a lot more than just IR, meaning NO there is no magic gas that would warm everything while being well under 1 percent of an atmosphere...
> 
> Greenhouse Gas = BULLSHIT


they think it's worth 33C of heat.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

That's why the highly correlated satellite and balloon data was fudged = the truth that increased CO2 in the atmosphere did NOT warm anything is FATAL to the FRAUD, and the FRAUD bilking the US taxpayer...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wow, that's some hard-assed science there, that was.




If you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and those two measures produce highly correlated data, why would there be a need to "correct" that data, or even challenge it???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
sure it does, but does it heat anything?
*
Yes. IR emitted by CO2 heats whatever absorbs the IR.
*
Is CO2 even in the atmosphere since it is heavier than air?*

Yes.
*
Is  CO2 in the oceans?*

Yes.

*So is CO2 even in the atmosphere?*

Yes.

*Can you prove that?*

Yes.

*Hey Tod, look up conduction.*

Greenhouses heat up because of reduced conduction? DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Greenhouses heat up because of reduced conduction? DERP!*

Now that is the true DERP!!!

Look it up bubba.  gawd you're one lazy ass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Greenhouses heat up because of reduced conduction? DERP!*

Now that is the true DERP!!!*

You are truly a moron.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> That's why the highly correlated satellite and balloon data was fudged = the truth that increased CO2 in the atmosphere did NOT warm anything is FATAL to the FRAUD, and the FRAUD bilking the US taxpayer...



What increased taxes do you pay?


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that's some hard-assed science there, that was.
> ...



When are we going to actually SEE this "highly correlated balloon and satellite data"?  Do you have an article that talks about it?  Do you know where it actually is?  Do you know who recorded it?  Whose balloons?  Whose satellites?  Anything beyond "highly correlated data"?  You're starting to sound like Donald Trump.

Have you considered the difference between area coverage from a balloon and that from a satellite?  Matching the coverage of a satellite would take tens of thousands of balloon launches daily.  It that what you've got?  And satellite microwave data has shown repeatedly to require significant calibration adjustments over time.  Was that done to your data?  Didn't you say your data were raw?

Eh?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that's some hard-assed science there, that was.
> ...


Ah yes, those goddamned leftist documents called Physics texts that they have been publishing for a hundred years or so, with information concerning the absorption spectra of various gases. jc, between you, LaDumbkopf, and Silly Billy, we get free humor every day.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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


We enjoy sharing actual facts. And like you, I lose a nut a day laughing at your stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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




What they haven't been publishing is that absorption and emission equals warming...that is your fantasy...not that of physics.


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2016)

Really?  You don't think peer reviewed descriptions of the greenhouse effect exist?


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2016)

Like this:

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] 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."

Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.

E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.

A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L., eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. ... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling).

And so forth

Material above from the References section of Wikipedia's article on "The Greenhouse Effect"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Like this:
> 
> A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] 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."
> 
> ...



Clear enough......even for idiots like jc and ssdd.


----------



## Dante (Aug 19, 2016)

cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed



The Hubble photo isn't influenced by politics.
The photo doesn't want us to spend $10 trillion on windmills and carbon taxes.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Like this:
> 
> A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] 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."
> 
> ...



I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works...a description of a hypothetical effect without observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claimed workings is not science...that is pseudoscience...or fiction...either way, it's the same.

And it isn't really surprising to me that you believe that is the same as observed, measured, quantified data...a person would really have to have no idea what such data even looks like if they presented the IPCC description of the greenhouse effect as answer to a challenge to provide observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

And I can't really help but note that the way they claim it works doesn't really jibe with the way you claim it works...they claim that the radiation is sent back to earth where the surface is further warmed...you claim that so called greenhouse gasses slow down the exit of IR from the atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

Billy Bob said:
			
		

> The ocean rise is bull shit... Temperature rise manufactured.. Their science is failed models they tout as fact... At least EXXON used real science and quantifiable, observed, evidence to support their positions.. everything you tout as fact has been manufactured and no empirical evidence exists... Fantasy vs facts..



Exxon's position is that human GHG emissions are causing global warming.

Your CONTINUED position that there is no empirical evidence is a fantasy and an insane and ignorant one a that.  The fact is that there are mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

I begin to worry about your well being.  How's life treating you Billy?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Exxon's position is that human GHG emissions are causing global warming.



Sorry guy...but that isn't observed, measured, quantified evidence of anything other than that exxon wants to get in on the AGW gravy train as well and scarf up some of that grant money.



Crick said:


> Your CONTINUED position that there is no empirical evidence is a fantasy and an insane and ignorant one a that.  The fact is that there are mountains of evidence supporting AGW.



And yet, you don't seem to be able to find the first bit of such empirical evidence...now you are claiming that the fact that exxon wants to scarf up some grant money is apparently such evidence...do you even know what the terms observed, measured, quantified and empirical mean?


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works...a description of a hypothetical effect without observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claimed workings is not science...that is pseudoscience...or fiction...either way, it's the same.



No empirical data?  That's what you notice?



SSDD said:


> And it isn't really surprising to me that you believe that is the same as observed, measured, quantified data...a person would really have to have no idea what such data even looks like if they presented the IPCC description of the greenhouse effect as answer to a challenge to provide observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.



The rise in temperature supports AGW. The rise in CO2 supports AGW. The cooling of the lower stratosphere supports AGW.  The increase in radiative imbalance at the ToA supports AGW.



SSDD said:


> And I can't really help but note that the way they claim it works doesn't really jibe with the way you claim it works...they claim that the radiation is sent back to earth where the surface is further warmed...you claim that so called greenhouse gasses slow down the exit of IR from the atmosphere.



Are you really that desperate?  Of course you are. The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the overview description states "_To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space._" Was that over your head?  Of course it was.

And then there's your propensity to lie about the facts.


----------



## xband (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Exxon's position is that human GHG emissions are causing global warming.
> ...



The opposite of skeptical is gullible. Thanks for my first chuckle of the day because I never heard that before.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works...a description of a hypothetical effect without observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claimed workings is not science...that is pseudoscience...or fiction...either way, it's the same.
> ...



You just have to be dishonest don't you crick...it is your only out.....I asked for observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...you could tell me your body temperature and be giving me empirical data...but it would not support the A in AGW....so yes, I can't help but notice that there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support how they claim that the greenhouse effect works.



Crick said:


> The rise in temperature supports AGW. The rise in CO2 supports AGW. The cooling of the lower stratosphere supports AGW.  The increase in radiative imbalance at the ToA supports AGW.



No...the rise in temperature supports the claim of a rise in temperature...and the rise in temperature is unclear at this point because of how heavily the actual record has been altered...the fact that temperatures rose without the benefit of more CO2 in the past calls into question the idea that the rise in temperature is due to CO2 this time...if temperatures had never risen without a rise in CO2...or if ice cores didn't show that a rise in CO2 usually follows a rise in temperature, then perhaps you would have an argument for correlation...but history paints a different picture.  There isn't the fist bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.



Crick said:


> Are you really that desperate?  Of course you are. The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the overview description states "_To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space._" Was that over your head?  Of course it was.



So now you are claiming that back radiation from so called greenhouse gasses actually warm the surface of the earth beyond the warmth provided by the sun?  I am quite sure that I can go back and pull quotes from you claiming that CO2 slows the escape of IR from the atmosphere which is a different thing (although still not happening) from actually further warming the surface of the earth.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

xband said:


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



You are welcome...feel free to use it as much as you like.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed
> ...


So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science? Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point

Cafeteria style science on display


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...as there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence which supports the A in AGW.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD


SSDD said:


> Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...



Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


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



Are you trying to argue that climate science isn't highly politicized...and very often cited in political policy discussion?  If there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the climate, upon what do you suppose the consensus, and people's choice of sides on the issue is decided?



Dante said:


> I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?



I disbelieve climate science because there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that man and his CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.  I distrust politics because they are talking about regulation based on pseudoscientific claims that are backed up by exactly zero observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence.

Show me some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions and my position on the subject will change as the preponderance of the evidence grows to support the claim.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ...



SSDD SAID:
Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

DANTE REPLIED:
Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

SSDD POSTS:
1) Are you trying to argue that climate science isn't highly politicized...

2) I disbelieve climate science because...

2) Show me some...

WHY did you SSDD answer the way you did? First (1), you ignore that Dante mentioned the politicization by the anti-regulation crowd, which came after the science. You ask a question that reveals you are unable to engage in serious discussion. 

You then (2), Avoid the question of when you started to, in your words 'disbelieve' the science. Then you start to ask me something that totally takes the discussion off to a side issue -- a side issue put forth by those who attack the science because of fears of proposed regulations


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...





Dante said:


> SSDD
> 
> Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?
> 
> I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Like this:
> ...



*...they claim that the radiation is sent back to earth where the surface is further warmed...*

Any surface that absorbs photons from any source is warmed.
Why would the Earth's surface and a photon from the atmosphere be any different?
*
...you claim that so called greenhouse gasses slow down the exit of IR from the atmosphere*

Well, duh!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> WHY did you SSDD answer the way you did? First (1), you ignore that Dante mentioned the politicization by the anti-regulation crowd, which came after the science. You ask a question that reveals you are unable to engage in serious discussion.



I am not one of the anti regulation crowd and can't answer for them....I think regulation is necessary so long as it is rational and firmly evidence based...and has a demonstrable cost benefit ratio.



Dante said:


> You then (2), Avoid the question of when you started to, in your words 'disbelieve' the science. Then you start to ask me something that totally takes the discussion off to a side issue -- a side issue put forth by those who attack the science because of fears of proposed regulations



Having been around for a good long time....I can honestly say that I stopped believing what CLIMATE SCIENCE had to say when they switched from dire warnings of global cooling to global warming...I became even more skeptical when warming didn't pan out and they started calling it climate change then climate disruption then whatever the name du jour is today....it didn't help their case when the phrase settled science came into vogue when the fact was, and is, that climate science is still in its infancy and we don't know far more than what we do know about the climate and what drives it...all along I have been looking for observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claims and none ever seems to be forthcoming.

And asking for observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis goes straight to the heart of any discussion on climate science, climate change, and the politics surrounding the issue.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Having been around for a good long time....I can honestly say that I stopped believing what CLIMATE SCIENCE had to say when...



So you stopped believing in science after the ant-regulation people started attacking the science? Would that not make your belief in science dependent upon ideology and politics?


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> when they switched from dire warnings of global cooling to global warming


btw who 'switched' warnings and why?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > when they switched from dire warnings of global cooling to global warming
> ...



Climate science of course...and the why is obvious....the projected cooling never happened which was the first indicator that they really had no idea what factors drove the climate on planet earth and to what degree, and how those factors effected each other and to what degree....basic knowledge required if one is to understand and predict what is going to happen within the climate....basic factors that climate science is still only scratching the surface of with regard to having anything like a real understanding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


*
So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science?*

No, but I'm not blind to the political uses of science. Or the political twisting of science.

*Very big of you to admit it and validate Dante's point*

Dante's point was, "Look at the cool picture, now you have to believe everything I say"


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> when they switched from dire warnings of global cooling to global warming





Dante said:


> btw who 'switched' warnings and why?





SSDD said:


> Climate science of course...and the why is obvious....the projected cooling never happened which was the first indicator that they really had no idea what factors drove the climate on planet earth and to what degree, and how those factors effected each other and to what degree....basic knowledge required if one is to understand and predict what is going to happen within the climate....basic factors that climate science is still only scratching the surface of with regard to having anything like a real understanding.


Science changes with new information, unlike religion or faith or anti-regulation agendas.

You still have not answered "WHO" switched. Care to name the people you must have been following all of these years? 

I believe you decided you didn't like the science after you became convinced it would bring on new regulations. That is an ideologically based view of science


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> So you use your politics to decide when to believe the science?*
> 
> No, but I'm not blind to the political uses of science. Or the political twisting of science.
> ...



cafeteria style science on display: Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Having been around for a good long time....I can honestly say that I stopped believing what CLIMATE SCIENCE had to say when...
> ...



As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...so I can't speak for them...I stopped believing what climate science had to say when they started making claims, and issuing warnings regarding the climate that they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support.

If you are able to read for comprehension...then you should grasp that I am basing my disbelief in climate science on their abject lack of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of their claims, warnings, and proclamations.  Which part of what I have said would lead you to think that I said anything else?


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

Why not be honest and just admit you don't like the science and you believe regulation is unwarranted? Do this instead of parroting the anti-reg forces, and trying to attack the science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved*

Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> Science changes with new information, unlike religion or faith or anti-regulation agendas.



Of course it does...which leads me to wonder why, when the plethora of predictions that climate science has made over the decades failed to materialize, the hypothesis which was the basis of those claims and predictions was not scrapped and a new hypothesis with better predictive capacity was not put forward.



Dante said:


> You still have not answered "WHO" switched. Care to name the people you must have been following all of these years?



Does climate science have a king, or a president who makes proclamations?  I've not seen any such individual.  In the 70's there were warnings from the climate science establishment...community...academia....whatever you care to call it which did not come to pass...then the claim became one of warming when the temperature ticked up a couple of tenths of a degree.



Dante said:


> I believe you decided you didn't like the science after you became convinced it would bring on new regulations. That is an ideologically based view of science



What you believe is irrelevant.  I am asking for observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate...since there is no such evidence to be found...anywhere....the reason for my position on the topic is perfectly clear and unavailable.  Now, if you could produce the sort of evidence I have been asking for then you could reasonably suspect that my reasons for holding my position were other than those I claim.  Care to prove me wrong by producing said evidence?


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...


you can state whatever your heart wants you to. But the facts are you stopped believing in the science when it became an issue of regulation. Throw as many words at it as you can, but the history of the 'debates' over climate change started with anti-regulation $$$ funding opposition science. Some of the same people doing opposition science as shilled for Big Tobacco 

Just be honest


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved*
> 
> Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?


They don't and no one claims they do. 

But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA. That is unless you are also more of an expert than NASA scientists on space an cosmology, as much as you are more of an expert than NASA scientists on climate change?

When I say "we believe them because they are NASA" I say this with the knowledge that there claims are fact checked and a consensus is built around their claims


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Of course it does...which leads me to wonder why, when the plethora of predictions that climate science has made over the decades failed to materialize, the hypothesis which was the basis of those claims and predictions was not scrapped and a new hypothesis with better predictive capacity was not put forward.


You haven't been following your own posts as well as the science. You posted the science first backed theories of colling and later the climate science put forth revised claims (scrapped the old ones) of warming. As the science has changed, you evidently have not.

Your argument is not with the 'cooling' or 'warming' claims, it is with the science. Why? Regulation and financial costs, as you have noted

I was unaware the science made 'predictions.' I always thought the science claimed possible scenarios into the future if nothing was done to address the issues. Now if YOU are talking about individuals who made predictions...you are not arguing about the science, are you?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...
> ...



Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community and resulting position and therefore must invent a position to argue against...or can you just not read?

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science and it is due to a complete lack of observe, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the prevailing hypothesis...if you can't argue against that position...I completely understand why....since there is no counter argument to be made without providing the very observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence I have asked for and it simply does not exist.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed
> ...


Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes, and the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit, and we are all gaining energy from those mills. 

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

You thought you might never hear it, but wind power is becoming a formidable price competitor with fossil fuels in Texas, and Austin’s public utility is revamping its programs to suit.

In the year 2000, Austin Energy unrolled a program giving consumers the option to fund wind energy development and the city became a recognized leader in energy innovation.

The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power and buy directly from wind farms, hoping to finance and encourage development.

It worked so well that, by 2009, it was in trouble, and the program was scaled back. Texans in Austin and beyond were demanding more wind energy than power lines could carry, and clogged transmission infrastructure sent prices skyrocketing.

When GreenChoice premiered, consumers opting for wind energy could lock into a ten-year fixed price just six cents per kilowatt-hour more than the standard cost at the time. By 2009 the difference had risen to $2.05, due largely to transmission overload.

The revamped program reflects the new reality of wind power in Texas. How much more per kilowatt-hour are GreenChoice customers asked to pay today? Just one cent.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > cafeteria style science. Some of the very same people who are wowed! when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The very same science that put that telescope up there has observed the effect of the burning of fossil fuels on the climate. You put 43% more CO2 and 250% more CH4 in the atmosphere, you are going to warm the atmosphere. So it is time use another energy source. One that does not put GHGs into the atmosphere.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community...



Your reasons for inferring NASA is lying?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> You haven't been following your own posts as well as the science. You posted the science first backed theories of colling and later the climate science put forth revised claims (scrapped the old ones) of warming. As the science has changed, you evidently have not.



Actually,  you haven't been following....I never said that I believed climate science when they predicted a sharp cooling trend....the science they based those predictions on was clearly flawed...

And no...I have not changed...my positions change, but my fundamental nature has not and does not.  I am an evidence based person...show me observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence for a thing and that will be the basis for my position...if the evidence changes, then my position changes with the evidence.  



Dante said:


> Your argument is not with the 'cooling' or 'warming' claims, it is with the science. Why? Regulation and financial costs, as you have noted



My argument is with the lack of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis....sorry you can't argue against that position...no warmer can...so you must invent a position that you feel you can argue against whether it is actually my position or not...typical of warmers.



Dante said:


> I was unaware the science made 'predictions.' I always thought the science claimed possible scenarios into the future if nothing was done to address the issues. Now if YOU are talking about individuals who made predictions...you are not arguing about the science, are you?



You apparently are unaware of much.....in fact, predictions are part and parcel of science...Here, let me help you out with the scientific process...

first you develop a hypothesis...a hypothesis is a statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

After you have gathered enough observed, measured, quantified, empirical data....usually via experimentation, to support the hypothesis, it then becomes theory.  

A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Climate science has made many predictions about the climate.  Beginning with the prediction of cooling...in the 1970s it was predicted that by 1990, the average mean global temperature would be 4 degrees colder than it was at the time and 11 degrees colder by the year 2000.

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe effected by increasing sea level, hurricanes, and desertifaction as a result of global warming.

I am sure you have heard this one....In March 2000, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. _Independent_ that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

In 2007, 2008, and 2009 predictions were made that the arctic would be ice free by 2013

Then there were the predictions that warming would cause massive melting of antarctic ice which has been growing at record levels...

The landscape is littered with failed predictions made by climate science....actual evidenced based science can make all manner of predictions....predictions of chemical reactions...predictions of physical reactions and on and on...that happen with predictability because the basics are well understood and therefore reactions are predictable...climate science on the other hand.....

And science is made up of individuals....when a climate scientist makes a prediction....and  and the prediction is well distributed among the public....
climate scientists remain quiet and don't disclaim the prediction...they then, by their silence accept the prediction.  

There are, however predictions made by the AGW hypothesis itself which have failed to materialize, such as the tropospheric hot spot....the hot spot was to be the very signature...the smoking gun supporting the hypothesis....a million + radiosondes have failed to detect it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Except it isn't happening....warming has been flat for over 2 decades now and the only increase you can find is the result of data manipulation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved*
> ...



*But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA.*

Yes, their claims about Hubble photos are very believable. About AGW, not so much.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science...



I am talking about the scientists who have total confidence in the climate science.

Question: Why would any rational human being take your arguments seriously, when there exists a 'consensus' on the climate science, within the scientific community? Your argument is that your reasonings are just as valid as those of the scientific community. I'm sorry to tell you, that sounds a bit  Maybe even more than a bit


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community...
> ...



Seriously?  The climate science community has just stated...with a straight face, that they will require a 23 TRILLION dollar investment.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA.*
> 
> Yes, their claims about Hubble photos are very believable. About AGW, not so much.


They are to an overwhelming majority of real scientists, as opposed to people like you, forming a 'consensus' within the scientific community.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


You are simply a damned liar. It has been provided for you time and time. The fact that we have a warming world has been established. The melting of the Arctic Sea Ice has been and is being observed. The last three years records, the three warmest years on record, right in a row. 

One has only to look and listen to the videos of the lectures at the annual AGU meeting in San Francisco to see and hear the scientists present evidence and observations you falsely claim does not exist.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


In what context? Worldwide? Over decades? What? 

You disbelieve NASA because you claim it is "The climate science community" asking for a "23 TRILLION dollar investment?" Or saying a "23 TRILLION dollar investment" would be needed 'if' certain things are not addressed, or are addressed wrongly?

In what context? But more seriously, it is the cost somebody mentions that makes you disbelieve 'science'???


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

I wonder if the deniers would believe the science if the climate scientists came out and said fixing things would cost nothing. 

But I am being purposefully disingenuous here. No climate scientists are the ones making claims of what things would cost. That would be policy makers, not the scientists doing the science. And there is one huge hole or flaw, in SSDD 's claims to being honest or informed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


*
Well, I have yet to pay a cent in carbon taxes,*

Are you sure?

*the people spending the money on the windmills are making a profit*

On the power, or on the taxpayer subsidies?

Price of Wind Energy Goes Down in Texas

Less reliable energy is worth less, that's true.
*
The GreenChoice program let homes and businesses pay slightly more for their power*

LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science...
> ...



You have no idea of what level their confidence actually is...unsubstantiated guesses...part and parcel of the warming cult.



Dante said:


> Question: Why would any rational human being take your arguments seriously, when there exists a 'consensus' on the climate science, within the scientific community?



Scientific consensus suggests the presence of a set of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that is so strong that one simply could not argue against it...and even then, it is very difficult to get a room full of actual scientists to actually agree across the board.  Skepticism is the very life blood of science and scientists...skepticism is the fuel for scientific advancement.

So when I ask for just a little bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...and none can be found....I would ask, why would any rational human being take the claims of climate science seriously?



Dante said:


> Your argument is that your reasonings are just as valid as those of the scientific community. I'm sorry to tell you, that sounds a bit  Maybe even more than a bit



My argument is that neither you, nor the entire climate science community can produce any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.   My position is due to that exact abject lack of such evidence....so tell me, since there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW....exactly what is that consensus based on?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> I wonder if the deniers would believe the science if the climate scientists came out and said fixing things would cost nothing.



Fixing what?   What is there to be fixed.....what is happening within the present climate that is outside the boundaries of natural variability?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



*You put 43% more CO2 and 250% more CH4 in the atmosphere, you are going to warm the atmosphere.*

Yup.

*So it is time use another energy source.*

Reliable energy sources. 

*One that does not put GHGs into the atmosphere.*

Only if warmer is worse. If warmer is better, more GHGs would be okay.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Yes, slightly more right now. Wind and solar are continuing to decline in price, while the cost of fossil fuel is continuing to go up.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


America was built on subsidizing emerging industries, big business concerns, and picking winners

what a dope you are


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA.*
> ...



Yes, I disagree with their consensus about spending trillions.


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


okay, you're back to regurgitating talking points

see you later ali-benghazi


----------



## Dante (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, I disagree with their consensus about spending trillions.


Whose consensus on spending trillions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Feel free to subsidize unreliable "green energy" with your own funds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I disagree with their consensus about spending trillions.
> ...



Warmers don't want to spend trillions? That's a relief.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> You are simply a damned liar. It has been provided for you time and time. The fact that we have a warming world has been established. The melting of the Arctic Sea Ice has been and is being observed. The last three years records, the three warmest years on record, right in a row.



You are a liar rocks...but we all know that already...no such evidence has ever been provided because none exists...but feel free to post it here if you think it does....all you have done so far, by what you have posted, is prove beyond doubt that you have no idea what observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW might look like...there isn't the first bit of observed evidence proving that absorption and emission equals warming...so keep trying if you like.



Old Rocks said:


> One has only to look and listen to the videos of the lectures at the annual AGU meeting in San Francisco to see and hear the scientists present evidence and observations you falsely claim does not exist.



You are welcome to post it right here and prove me wrong if you think it exists....but we both know that you won't.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


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



14 years as if that mattered....



Old Rocks said:


> You disbelieve NASA because you claim it is "The climate science community" asking for a "23 TRILLION dollar investment?" Or saying a "23 TRILLION dollar investment" would be needed 'if' certain things are not addressed, or are addressed wrongly?



No...my reasons for disbelieving them is that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support their claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....the money is the reason I believe they are prepared to lie.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, slightly more right now. Wind and solar are continuing to decline in price, while the cost of fossil fuel is continuing to go up.




Bullshit.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Dante said:


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



Run away...run away....we are to the point where observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence talks and bullshit walks...run away...run away...run away...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The subsidies are from taxpayer funds. The people in charge of the government, our elected officials, decide how that money is to be spent. The majority elected those officials. So how they spend those funds reflects the will of the majority. 

You don't like that, work to change the will of the majority and elect your own people. Good luck with getting Trump elected.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




Run away yourself, you lying little cocksuck. There is the evidence from the past.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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



OK...rather than listen to that entire steaming pile of shit....you tell me the minute marker where you believe that he presents some observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the A in AGW...


By the way...haven't you noticed that the trend among warmers is now to move away from the ludicrous idea that CO2 is the control knob of the climate...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, slightly more right now. Wind and solar are continuing to decline in price, while the cost of fossil fuel is continuing to go up.
> ...


Advanced technology, improved siting techniques, and learning across all sectors as the industry scales up have all influenced the cost of wind energy over time.  The Department of Energy, below, depicts the cost reduction in wind energy alongside U.S. wind energy deployment, showing a decrease in cost of more than 90% since the early 1980's. [4]







The Cost of Wind Energy in the U.S.

*Read it and weep, silly ass.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


There you have it, folks. A sad sack of willfully ignorant bullshit. "Ah ain't gonna listen to any of them thar shittly pointy headed librul scientists. What the hell do they know". 

No use even arguing with such limp dicks, nothing is going to affect their belief in nonsense.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, slightly more right now. Wind and solar are continuing to decline in price, while the cost of fossil fuel is continuing to go up.



At the rate of decline the private sector is going to fix the problem for us....Wind and solar are kicking serious ass. The right wants to stop it through other means but that will make them anti-free market and we better be pointing that out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



*The subsidies are from taxpayer funds. The people in charge of the government, our elected officials, decide how that money is to be spent. The majority elected those officials. So how they spend those funds reflects the will of the majority.*

Yes. Yes. Yes. I disagree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, slightly more right now. Wind and solar are continuing to decline in price, while the cost of fossil fuel is continuing to go up.
> ...


*
At the rate of decline the private sector is going to fix the problem for us....*

So we can tax wind and solar, instead of spending taxpayer funds on them?
Excellent. Let's start today! And eliminate any mandates.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 20, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Wind and solar are kicking serious ass




Those two heavily government subsidized power sources are what percent of total power consumption in the US today???


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

The pertinent question would be how much has their share of worldwide power production increased in the last, say 10 years.

Between 2003 and 2013, solar, wind, bio, geo and hydro power increased 400%.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I am just laughing at you for believing such tripe.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Talk to crick...he says that people who send you off to look at something hoping that you will find the data you are looking for are just talking out of their asses...you idiots are always anxious to send people off to look for the data you can't find....I'm not doing.  You claim to have watched the video...then you should know where the sort of data I am looking for is....where is it and I will gladly go and watch....if it is typical of the crap you link to, then it is indeed just a bunch of hysterics and no actual data.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 20, 2016)

400% of nothing is still nothing....

That's the same as saying "the melting/warming is accelerating" from nothing to nothing...


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You and the facts of the universe have a poor relationship SID.  You need to work on that.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 400% of nothing is still nothing....



400% of nothing would be nothing.  I remember learning that in the third grade.  But, in this case, it was a 400% increase on 38 billion BTUs.




LaDexter said:


> That's the same as saying "the melting/warming is accelerating" from nothing to nothing...



Only if you're *stupid* enough to believe the world really isn't warming and the world's ice and snow really aren't melting.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Who wants to bet that most of these skeptics are fundies and think science is evil?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



A smart photon taught him all he knows.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Ah yes, the same university inside our hollow moon that Frankie Boi attended.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> You and the facts of the universe have a poor relationship SID.  You need to work on that.



And you are a f'ing congenital liar...but I doubt any amount of work on your part will help with something that is so deeply ingrained.  You lie even when you would gain more by telling the truth.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Who wants to bet that most of these skeptics are fundies and think science is evil?




Such hysterics matthew...evil? Such melodrama.... Promoting uncertainty as certainty isn't evil...it is just stupid because it always catches up to you....then you end up just looking more stupid...like the 50+ excuses for the pause....among other things.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You lie even when you would gain more by telling the truth.



That should tip you off to something SID.  

I don't lie. 

If I make a mistake, I admit it.  But I don't lie.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You lie even when you would gain more by telling the truth.
> ...




You don't admit mistakes and you lie like a rug....and you lie when the truth would benefit you more...you have proven it over and over on this board.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

You've descended to  pure ad hominem.  Goodbye SID.

PS, you lie.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> You've descended to  pure ad hominem.  Goodbye SID.
> 
> PS, you lie.



We both know what you are the liar...but what else is new.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Who wants to bet that most of these skeptics are fundies and think science is evil?




Science outs truth.

Truth outs evil.

CO2 based "climate change" is 100% fraud, it took REAL SCIENCE to prove that, and FRAUD is evil, as is every single life form cheering fraud and bilking the US taxpayer in the process.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

Here we go with that "life form" bit.  Did you fall asleep with the ScFi channel on or something?  

So, who committed this fraud Dex?  And what "REAL SCIENCE" proved that it was fraud?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 21, 2016)

Our planet is warming and will continue to warm. It is mostly caused by co2 and methane.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Our planet is warming and will continue to warm. It is mostly caused by co2 and methane.




Is CO2 also causing the rapid temperature decline in the north atlantic?  The earth has been warming for 14K years matthew...nothing new...nothing unusual...it will continue to warm till it begins cooling...CO2 nor any other so called greenhouse gas has any power to alter the global temperatures.


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Science outs truth.



I'm not certain what YOU meant by that phrase, but I would certainly say that science gets us closer to the truth.



LaDexter said:


> Truth outs evil.



Now you're getting a bit philosophical and you're lacking the underpinnings.  What, for instance, is evil?  And, of course, what does it mean to "out" it? Truth is not a active independent agent.  PEOPLE can use the truth to do all manner of things.



LaDexter said:


> CO2 based "climate change" is 100% fraud



You keep saying that (over and over and over again) but you've yet to give anyone here the slightest reason to believe it.  Convince us, if you can.  Try logic, reason and EVIDENCE.



LaDexter said:


> it took REAL SCIENCE to prove that



Ahhh... but there you slip.  Science DOESN'T PROVE things.  It investigates, theorizes and provides evidence.  Proof is for mathematicians and logicians... perhaps for lawyers and judges.  It's not for science.



LaDexter said:


> and FRAUD is evil



Then you'd best get hot and show us some fraud. Cause so far, all we have is your word and your word ain't shit.

But, I have to wonder.  If I defraud the welfare system or a store or a charity to get food and medical care for a dying baby, have I done evil?  If I defraud a mugger and thus save the lives of his intended victims, have I done evil?  If I defraud a Hitler invading some innocent nation and prevent horror and bloodshed, have I done evil?



LaDexter said:


> as is every single life form cheering fraud and bilking the US taxpayer in the process.



I've been trying to figure out why you're using the term "life form" when, obviously, the only life forms you're talking about is people.  The two terms are not interchangeable Dex, they're not synonyms.  Are you trying to appear dramatic?  Forceful?  Inclusive?  Pedantic?  Are you, by chance, attempting to state it in a way that will make it sound more like some universal truth your propounding?

Good god are you stupid.

*Mod Edit -- fixed quotes --- you're welcome. *


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really?  You don't think peer reviewed descriptions of the greenhouse effect exist?


sure there have been peer review descriptions.  None tested.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Like this:
> ...


except it's never been tested as such.  

Just post one of those experiments.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well again, all you have to do is post the empirical evidence.  Why don't you?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


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


well son, just present the empirical evidence and say na, na,na,na,na,na to us.  sounds simple doesn't it?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


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



Thanks Dante,


and a note for everyone........notice no empirical evidence supplied in his response. If what he says is sooooooo true, then why is it so difficult to just post one of these volumes of thousands of support.  Peer review none the less.  

Dante, just post up the science, that empirical experimental evidence that shows you're correct?  Why are you so afraid to post that material?  Is it perhaps you have no idea where it is?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...
> ...


no it was the paying for carbon credits.  A program initiated as a result of unproven science.  Meaning money from citizens.  Like some judgement against mankind for existing.  Poor people love heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer.  They don't have the funds to pay for accelerated costs based on a lie.  See I care about mankind, you..........not so much.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved*
> ...




did you really just write this?---'They don't and no one claims they do.'

son, that is too special.  watch out for the water as your back pedaling there.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it does...which leads me to wonder why, when the plethora of predictions that climate science has made over the decades failed to materialize, the hypothesis which was the basis of those claims and predictions was not scrapped and a new hypothesis with better predictive capacity was not put forward.
> ...


his and my science is about actual science.  the kind that is tested in a lab and results collected and distributed for review.  Do you have those? See, that is what has been consistent since cooling (not colling) and warmers have been changing their minds.  They sir follow the money.

I and SSDD follow the science and would like to see the empirical evidence.  post it if it's soo available that you post in here about it.  What has you convinced?  show us.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2016)

Isn't "peer reviewed" just another way of saying, "We have  no lab work to back up our pseudo-science"?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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


ah.............nope!!!!

BTW, give me some search criteria for in here and i'll take the time and go looking.  What should I search on?  and anyone one poster who did the posting.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Isn't "peer reviewed" just another way of saying, "We have  no lab work to back up our pseudo-science"?


exactly!!!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA.*
> ...


they are?  name some of these nasa scientists that you believe.  got any?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


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


it is the cost on a subject that isn't proven.  if money is needed to correct something, fine, but name what needs correcting.  What say you? Do you know what the 23 trillion is for and what it supposedly fixes? perhaps you could post the solution.  Better yet, perhaps you could merely post what is the problem to solve.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*except it's never been tested as such.*

Absorption and emission spectrums of CO2 have never been measured? Are you sure?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


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


*
his and my science is about actual science*

Any examples proving the actual science of "smart photons"?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what were the temperature readings?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


nope, you all have never posted up your experiment with observed empirical evidence.  He and I have been waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You have observed empirical evidence of "smart photons"? Sweet.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I have?  As I stated in that previous post you and yours haven't submitted the evidence yet. So I'm still waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I have?*

You don't? Maybe because SSDD's moronic claim is ......moronic.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I haven't.  still waiting on your evidence of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I haven't.*

Don't tell SSDD, you'll make his smart photons cry.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'm not worried about SSDDs photons, I'm curious to yours.  the ones that heat up the surface.  where is your evidence? If this were jeopardy, you'd have lost.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I'm not worried about SSDDs photons, I'm curious to yours.*

I don't believe in smart photons. I believe in actual science.

*where is your evidence?*

You want evidence that photons heat things up?
When you get thru 6th grade science, get back to me. I'll use small words.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*You want evidence that photons heat things up?*

why isn't there any information on the internet for such a thing?  I mean, the internet does have information on many many things, but that CO2 gets warmer than it's surrounding ain't one.  Nor that it can make an object around it warmer than the surrounding.  So you're the one with magic photon's.  So post up that there internet 6th grade document your convinced exists.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You want evidence that photons heat things up?
*
why isn't there any information on the internet for such a thing?*

There is. Try this......
_
How exactly does light transform into heat

Tom Zepf of the physics department at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., notes that "Sunlight heats a material such as water or a brick primarily because the long wavelength, or infrared, portion of the sun's radiation resonates well with molecules in the material, thereby setting them into motion. So the energy transfer that causes the temperature of the substance to rise takes place at the molecular rather than the electronic level."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-exactly-does-light-tr/_


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



now show me one with CO2.  Good job.

BTW, different materials like water and whatever, steel, asphalt, sand, they heat differently


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*now show me one with CO2. Good job.*

IR from CO2 is somehow different? How exactly?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


exactly, so if other materials heat at different temperatures from IR so to will CO2.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Those damned cave men! Just as soon as they hit the scene they melted the ice age away. Killing all sorts of mega fauna, and changing the climate! Those sons of birches are just waaaay to powerful and influential. They can literally change the climate of an entire planet!
> ...



His point is rather clear.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*so if other materials heat at different temperatures from IR so to will CO2*

Different materials absorb and heat up differently.
Photons heat materials that absorb them.
Photons are not smart.

Congrats, you now understand much more than SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I trust he has this knowledge and like me wonders if CO2 has the heating capability of asphalt or bricks.  What we are so amazed about, is not one scientist has tested the actual temperature of CO2 absorbed.  Why?  people have tested other materials. So how warm is one PPM of CO2 when it absorbs IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I trust he has this knowledge*

Based on his posting history, he does not.
*
and like me wonders if CO2 has the heating capability of asphalt or bricks*

The capability to heat asphalt or bricks? Or does it emit exactly like asphalt or bricks?
*
What we are so amazed about, is not one scientist has tested the actual temperature of CO2 absorbed.* 

Unclear what you're saying here.
*
So how warm is one PPM of CO2 when it absorbs IR?*

Nonsensical question.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*So how warm is one PPM of CO2 when it absorbs IR?*

Nonsensical question

And there you have it.  No knowledge of how warmer CO2 can make its surrounding.  

*The capability to heat asphalt or bricks? Or does it emit exactly like asphalt or bricks?*
does its absorption capabilities equal asphalt or bricks.
exactly, does it?


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
And there you have it.*

Yes. It was nonsensical.

*No knowledge of how warmer CO2 can make its surrounding.* 

When CO2 emits a photon, anything that photon is absorbed by will gain energy.

*does its absorption capabilities equal asphalt or bricks.*

Of course not. Different materials absorb and emit differently.

Here's some info on CO2.





If you have similar info on asphalt or bricks that would somehow add to the discussion, feel free to share.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Of course not. Different materials absorb and emit differently.*

yep.  And still no test results of how warmer CO2 will make the surrounding air.  

Yet asphalt and brick you can.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*And still no test results of how warmer CO2 will make the surrounding air. *

That is a nonsensical question.

*Yet asphalt and brick you can.*

Really?

How warmer asphalt and brick will make the surrounding air?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As a population center grows, it tends to expand its area and increase its average temperature. The less-used term *heat island* refers to any area, populated or not, which is consistently hotter than the surrounding area"

Now post up one with CO2 in it.


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

jc is too stupid to realize that both the brick and the CO2 are matter, and it is the photons absorbed and emitted by each that are the energy transfer.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc is too stupid to realize that both the brick and the CO2 are matter, and it is the photons absorbed and emitted by each that are the energy transfer.


but the amount they absorb is what matters. It seems you don't understand that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, warmer. You asked "how warmer"? You didn't answer the question.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf

"The question then is, in what quantity is the atmosphere absorbing and emitting
black body radiation. The emissivity of nitrogen and oxygen gasses should be closed
to 100%, since they do not reflect IR significantly. But the larger question is how
does the quantity of black body absorption compare to the fingerprint absorption of
CO2. Actual measurements and numbers do not seem to exist. So promoters use
computer models to divide up the heat of the atmosphere between pollutants such
as CO2 and everything else. They then pull such numbers out of the hat which say
increases in CO2 levels will create a global temperature increase of about 6 deg. This
is about 20% of the 33 deg. which the atmosphere is said to contribute to the
temperature of the globe."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf
> 
> "The question then is, in what quantity is the atmosphere absorbing and emitting
> black body radiation. The emissivity of nitrogen and oxygen gasses should be closed
> ...



*The emissivity of nitrogen and oxygen gasses should be closed to 100%,*

Is that like "close to"?
*
since they do not reflect IR significantly*

Reflect? LOL!
*
pollutants such as CO2*

Pollutant?

*They then pull such numbers out of the hat which say increases in CO2 levels will create a global temperature increase of about 6 deg.*

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Not sure such an amateurish link is in any way helpful.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I didn't ask that question


Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf
> ...


that again, i've presented material and you have not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I didn't ask that question

You did, here.....
_"And still no test results of how warmer CO2 will make the surrounding air._

_Yet asphalt and brick you can"
_
*i've presented material and you have not.*

Yes. You presented jumbled garbage from an amateur.
What did it prove?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you have nothing?  yep I'm going with that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







I'm happy to explain what this shows......


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's a picture derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



With actual useful info. Not like that hack site you linked.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that shows a picture,


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

for everyone, nice input here:

Fudge Factor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, it seems that even pictures are too complicated for you to understand.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


because a picture without an explanation is just a picture.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Emission Spectra


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up. 

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


> I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.
> 
> Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.
> 
> I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).



*Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres.*

That would slow the escape of IR from the atmosphere.
JC said that doesn't happen. I hate it when he posts a link that refutes his claims.


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Ira has lots of interesting articles on this and related subjects. I fear jc lacks sufficient brainpower to understand or learn from them though. He wants simple answers to his questions but a certain amount of basic scientific knowledge is necessary to understand them. He is unwilling, or more likely, unable to attain it.


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.
> ...




He learned that stupid pet trick from crick. They are more interested in posting a link than reading or understanding it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


> I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.
> 
> Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.
> 
> I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).



*I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information*

I keep getting an error message on his link.


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.
> ...




Does your phone do PDFs?


----------



## Divine Wind (Aug 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
> 
> ...


While I fully accept the data published by NASA on this issue, the fact remains that the LW fucked themselves, as usual, by doing the two things they do best:
1) Over emotionalizing a topic rather than basing it entirely on fact and reason.

2) Politicizing a science issue.


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


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


Why do you hate science?


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> ...




Yup. It only sounds like science. The conclusions are political.


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Dante, just post up the science


You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


> Yup. It only sounds like science. The conclusions are political.


And you claim NASA backs the science for political reasons. All those scientists involved, hundreds maybe thousands. And tis is only with NASA. Then there are scientists all over the world.

You know you sound crazy?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


I love science.  I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante, just post up the science
> ...


well first show me how consensus fits into science.  Then let's talk.


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I love science.  I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.


Now the overwhelming majority of scientists would be concerned with a few grants, rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science, and winning accolades for exposing fraud?

Something illogical with your mind


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


> I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.
> 
> Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.
> 
> I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).


so funny I post what I feel is a good source of data and you think I automatically believe everything posted in it.  I believe some of it and question other parts.  I'd say I'm consistent with most science professionals.  You're right, there are many good parts there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I love science.  I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.
> ...


*
Now the overwhelming majority of scientists would be concerned with a few grants, rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science*

How about that Nobel Prize Michael Mann received?


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.
> ...



How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. It only sounds like science. The conclusions are political.
> ...




NASA has lots of departments. GISS and some of the climate specific sections are often contradicted by other reports produced elsewhere by NASA.

I am neither crazy or scientifically illiterate. The case for AGW, and especially CAGW, is much weaker than is presented to laypersons. Often it leaves the realm of science and turns into advocacy.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I love science.  I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.
> ...


yep, especially when fraud wins you one like ol Gore did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


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


 
If I can't get it on my PC, I'm reluctant to try on my phone.


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How about that Nobel Prize Michael Mann received?


even Wikipedia laughs at you

At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data.[37][41] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct

*Defamation lawsuit[edit]*
Attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, and Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libeled. In July 2012,[52] Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger Rand Simberg accused Mann of "deception" and "engaging in data manipulation" and alleged that the Penn State investigation that had cleared Mann was a "cover-up and whitewash" comparable to the recent Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, "except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data." The CEI blog editor then removed the sentence as "inappropriate", but a _National Review_ blog post by Mark Steyn cited it and alleged that Mann's hockey stick graph was "fraudulent".[53][54]

Mann asked CEI and _National Review_ to remove the allegations and apologize, or he would take action.[52] The CEI published further insults, and_National Review_ editor Rich Lowry responded in an article headed "Get Lost" with a declaration that, should Mann sue, the discovery process would be used to reveal and publish Mann's emails. Mann's lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit in October 2012.[53]

Before the case could go to discovery, CEI and _National Review_ filed a court motion to dismiss it under anti-SLAPP legislation, with the claim that they had merely been using exaggerated language which was acceptable against a public figure. In July 2013 the judge ruled against this motion,[55][56] and when the defendants took this to appeal a new judge also denied their motion to dismiss, in January 2014. The _National Review_changed its lawyers, and Steyn decided to represent himself in court.[52][57] Journalist Seth Shulman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, welcomed the judge's statement that accusations of fraud "go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable."[58]

The defendants again appealed the decision, and on 11 August 2014 the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press with 26 other organisations filed an amicus brief arguing that the comments at issue were constitutionally protected as opinion.[59][60] Steyn chose to be represented by attorney Daniel J. Kornstein.[61]


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> yep, especially when fraud wins you one like ol Gore did.


Who is AL Gore and why would I care?


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

Goofballs on the web or NASA?

tough choice. I guess I'll go with NASA


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How about that Nobel Prize Michael Mann received?
> ...



*even Wikipedia laughs at you*

Why would Wikipedia laugh at Michael Mann?


----------



## Dante (Aug 22, 2016)

*NASA*


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...




Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > yep, especially when fraud wins you one like ol Gore did.
> ...




Al Gore received an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his film A Inconvenient Truth. He was highly influential ten years ago but know it seems no one wants to acknowledge him anymore.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I love science.  I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.
> ...


*
rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science*

Like Michael Mann won for 'real' climate science?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.



Same could be said of you Ian...continuing to believe in a hypothesis that has failed multiple predictions...when in real science a single failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap yard....no tropospheric hot spot...and you keep moving it downwards in an attempt to keep the zombie hypothesis moving...now you have the hot spot at ground level...except it isn't warming there either...is it...except within the heavily massaged and altered data sets....why not put some time into self examination and tell us why you still believe when the scientific method demands that you drop the silly hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.
> 
> Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.
> 
> I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).




Look at the past few posts you have made Ian...the resemblance between your posts and crick's is remarkable...is that your tactic now?  No actual answers to the questions being posed to you...and continued belief in the hypothesis even though it has clearly failed so you attempt public humiliation as if that were valid argument.

CO2 has no effect on temperature...face it...accept it, and move on rather than this incessant belief in the magic...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Believing the the magic is weaker than your more zealous brethren believe is not skepticism Ian...looking at the fact that the hypothesis has failed...and recognizing that there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data after all the thousands of billions of dollars that have been flushed on the subject and rejecting it outright as flawed and useless is skepticism...you are a believer...not a skeptic and none of those who believe with you that the magic isn't as strong as climate science claims are skeptics either...you are believers who just lack the courage of your convictions.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I think it includes the idea that warming is a threat with which we need to deal.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


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



What warming?...these hottest year evah records that are a hundredth of a degree warmer than the previous hottest year evah.....that are entirely the result of data manipulation?....warm is the norm on earth crick...not cool as we are living with now.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.



I disagree.  If the folks gathered here are any indication, the majority of them believe that CO2 has no effect on temperature and that the observed warming is purely the product of data manipulation by various government agencies.  A centrist such as yourself, Ian, is a very rare bird on the side of the table at which you've chosen to sit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.
> ...



Until you post the repeatable lab experiments, I'll remain skeptical of the link between temperature and an additional 120ppm of CO2


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

You've told us that before. I don't think anyone minds.  Revel in your "skepticism".


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.
> ...


What I'm reading from all of the leftist and others in here is CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air.  So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth?  Let's put the pedal to the metal here. Explain once and for all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air*

Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.

*So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth?* 

Without the Sun adding heat, IR escaping into space would tend to reduce night time temps.

*Let's put the pedal to the metal here.*

Until you put your brain in gear, you'll make no progress with your pedal.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.*

And yet matter and its properties absorb differently and therefore emit differently.  so again, why do you need the sun if your version of CO2 emits hotter than the air?

And the pedal is still to the metal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
And yet matter and its properties absorb differently and therefore emit differently*

Yes. And?

*so again, why do you need the sun if your version of CO2 emits hotter than the air?*

You need the sun because 3 K is pretty cold.
Same temperature, same emission (basically).


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Curious if you can explain how it is possible for the arctic to warm up and lose ice in the winter due to CO2?


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Dealing with 'people like you' on this level is akin to dealing with the 9/11 Truthers or other conspiracists.

Getting stuck in the weeds with circular arguments, and debating the minutiae without any possibility of a resolution? No thanks. 

Neither of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.

You are attacking the scientific community. Fine. You are saying scientists are on the take for grants, and are all unethical and corrupt. Fine. You demand to be taken seriously. Fine.

What is even finer, is I do not have to respect any of your harebrained opinions, in order to show respect to the principle that; you are entitled to have opinions, no matter how wrongheaded or harebrained they be.


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Who is AL Gore and why would I care?
> ...


"Al Gore received an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his film?" 

Why should I be surprised you would misrepresent the truth about that, when you do so with most everything else?

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. _"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"_

*I fail to see how you could claim it was awarded for a single movie. As if all AL Gore did in that are was make a movie

You are not to be taken seriously*


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ...


Global Analysis - May 2016 | State of the Climate |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

"as the study suggests, future temperatures may not rise _as quickly as predicted_."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...rm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies

"Scientists, who agree that CO2 and other gases from human activities are warming Earth, disagree widely about how sensitive the planet's climate is to these changes."

*This is what those evil scientists with 'science' are doing:* "The researchers are currently working toward more precise estimates of how the newly discovered process affects predictions of the Earth's future climate."


Global Analysis - May 2016 | State of the Climate |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.
> ...




You disagree? How can you make an opinion on the skeptics' position when you refuse to even read it? You don't read McIntyre or Watts or Pielke, etc. You read strawman versions put out by Slandering Sue or Tamino. I read both sides. 

Do you honestly believe wackos like jc and SSDD are representative of skeptics? You prefer to argue with extremists because it is easier. You ignore my legitimate concerns by lumping me in with the crazies. Likewise you ignore Flac.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> "as the study suggests, future temperatures may not rise _as quickly as predicted_."
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...rm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies
> 
> ...


Dante,

for me personally, the claim is that more CO2 means hotter air.  I merely want to see the experiment that confirms that claim.  Have you found one?  I'm no scientist so I'm looking for their experiment so I can understand the claim.  But for the four years I've been looking, I haven't found one.  Not one.  I find that very unscientific especially since the government wants carbon credits.  That implies diminishing CO2 because of a threat.  A threat that has never been shown to the american people.  That sir is why you have us in here looking for the experiments.

Post one up if you have it.


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Dante,
> 
> for me personally, the claim is that more CO2 means hotter air.  I merely want to see the experiment that confirms that claim.  Have you found one?  I'm no scientist so I'm looking for their experiment so I can understand the claim.  But for the four years I've been looking, I haven't found one.  Not one.  I find that very unscientific especially since the government wants carbon credits.  That implies diminishing CO2 because of a threat.  A threat that has never been shown to the american people.  That sir is why you have us in here looking for the experiments.
> 
> Post one up if you have it.


I don't argue the science itself. Never really have. Why? I don't play a scientist on the web or in real life.

I posted facts: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...rm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies

"Scientists, who agree that CO2 and other gases from human activities are warming Earth, disagree widely about how sensitive the planet's climate is to these changes."

I do not see any quotes about "means hotter air" I do not believe the science on _a warming Earth_ is only about the 'air' around us.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


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


Ian,

Do you have a link with an experiment that shows  that more CO2 means hotter air. You can't cause it doesn't exist.  Mythbusters tried and dropped a doogie. All of the other experiments posted over the years couldn't show the temperatures, and instead told us that it was hotter in the container.  never showed the thermometer with the readings.  Why?  science 101 I was told.  Stuff taught in schools and yet not one flippin experiment. So excuse me if i challenge a very unproven subject.  And one, I may add, that you can't explain either. So stupid jc is stupid cause there isn't any verification of the subject.  Ice in the Arctic melts cause of CO2.  RIGHT?

Ice in the Antarctic grows cause of CO2.  RIGHT?

Floods are caused by CO2. RIGHT?

See, I'm merely smarter than you all. I don't fall for fools lies. I expect confirmation before I buy in.  And right now, all of you have zip.

The earth has not warmed in almost 20 years now.  CO2 went up 20 PPM in that time frame.


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?

*"Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?"*


"Global warming is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  This carbon overload is caused mainly when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas or cut down and burn forests. There are many heat-trapping gases (from methane to water vapor), but CO2 puts us at the greatest risk of irreversible changes if it continues to accumulate unabated in the atmosphere. There are two key reasons why."

I cannot believe putting all of that stuff into the atmosphere is not a bad thing for the health of our planet. I remember the _acid rain_ debates of decades ago. The sterile lakes. Pollution is a problem. The anti regulation agenda is short sighted. It's primary purpose is to challenge the science in oder to fight off regulation. It is not about scientific truths or methods.


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

*Climate change: How do we know?*
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

*Scientific Consensus*

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

*Sea level rise*

*Global temperature rise*

*Warming oceans*

*Shrinking ice sheets

Declining Arctic sea ice

Glacial retreat

Extreme events

Ocean acidification

Decreased snow cover


References

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.


In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.


National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.


Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.


Global Climate Change Indicators |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Temperature data (HadCRUT4, CRUTEM4) Climatic Research Unit global temperature

Data.GISS:  GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.


I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm


Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).


L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

State of the Cryosphere | SOTC: Sea Ice | National Snow and Ice Data Center


National Snow and Ice Data Center

World Glacier Monitoring Service


U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI): Introduction | Extremes |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


What is Ocean Acidification?


Ocean Acidification


C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371


Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.


National Snow and Ice Data Center

C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504

State of the Cryosphere | SOTC: Northern Hemisphere Snow | National Snow and Ice Data Center

Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.



*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante,
> ...


well when 23 trillions of dollars comes into play because of the farce, then people need to speak out.  I have one sounding board and it's here.  therefore, here I am.  And I will challenge all of the posts that suggest something that isn't, is.  And right now, that is what we have.  When scientist have to fudge data sets to make the earth warmer, I call bullshit as well.  Well, that's me my man. I call bullshit when I see it.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?
> 
> *"Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?"*
> 
> ...


well, do you want to discuss pollution or CO2.  CO2 has never been proven a heating source.  ever.  I suggest looking on the internet.  you'll end up with a great big goose egg.

CO2 is good for the earth, and that is proven.  So????? Why do you wish to harm the earth by removing it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



CO2 slows the loss of heat from the Earth's surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


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



*You are attacking the scientific community.*

As long as he doesn't attack Nobel Prize winning scientist Michael Mann, eh?

*and are all unethical and corrupt.*

You mean besides Michael Mann?


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> well when 23 trillions of dollars comes into play...


23 trillion dollars came into play? When? Where?

Maybe you are confused?

*Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars*
A report from America’s 3rd-largest bank asks why we’re not transitioning to a low-carbon economy


Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars | Dana Nuccitelli


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> *Climate change: How do we know?*
> Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
> 
> *Scientific Consensus*
> ...


sea level rise, another great one.  Where is the excess water coming from?  Do you know?  I certainly don't.  Greenland still has ice and the Antarctic is gaining ice.  So, explain to me why you believe the sea is rising and where the extra water comes from?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


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


*
The earth has not warmed in almost 20 years now. CO2 went up 120 PPM in that time frame.*

Ummmmmm.....link? About the CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well when 23 trillions of dollars comes into play...
> ...


Oh, you haven't heard about that one eh?  go look on line.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> *Climate change: How do we know?*
> Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
> 
> *Scientific Consensus*
> ...




*Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities*

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very impressive.


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ...


go play

Friends of Science | Providing Insight into Climate Change


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


ok, good catch, it should have been only 20 PPM.  I hit the one with the two.  I corrected it.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well when 23 trillions of dollars comes into play...
> ...


"$23 Trillion to Meet New Climate Targets in Time" - Fraser Coast Chronicle (Hervey Bay, Australia), December 15, 2015 | Online Research Library: Questia
"THE world will need to spend more than $23 trillion over the next 15 years to have any chance of meeting the hugely ambitious climate change targets agreed in Paris over the weekend, according to new figures."

I guess you missed that coming out of the Paris talks this past spring.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why doesn't it work in the desert then?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



CO2 slows the loss of heat, even in the desert.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


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



Is that Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann's website?


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CO2 is good for the earth, and that is proven.


so is arsenic. I suggest you stay away from it


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why is it colder there in the desert than anywhere else at night besides the two poles?


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CO2 slows the loss of heat, even in the desert.


CITIBANK is in on the conspiracy!!!

Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars | Dana Nuccitelli


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> CITIBANK is in on the conspiracy!!!




CITIBANK = Zionism


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is good for the earth, and that is proven.
> ...


so you were insincere with your previous post. you don't wish to know anything.  You just wish to come in here and spout the continued lies that cover the board with bad CO2 bullshit.  Plants love CO2, without plants you die. You should become educated.


----------



## Dante (Aug 23, 2016)

the end

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> the end
> 
> Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says


what is it I'm looking for?  Is there an experiment in there?  nope, been there many a time.  nothing.  Again, without CO2 you die.


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2016)

Dante said:


> the end
> 
> Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says







Yes SS is full of poo.  We all know this.  If they are all you have then you are not arguing from science, you are arguing from science fiction and politics and nothing more.


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




You have heard my position on CO2 experiments before. Realistically sized changes of CO2 would produce such small changes in temperature that no one would release them because it would 'dilute the message'. But there would still be an increase, as per the laws of physics.

As far as CO2 causing floods, melting ice, etc I don't know anyone who is claiming that except your counterpart wackos on the other side. CO2 is being used as a proxy for temperature increase, and increased temperature is being blamed for those things. The IPCC investigated and found little to no evidence that could connect supposed extreme weather to CO2.

I wish you would quote my words rather than saddle me with bizarre statements proposed by the other side.

Edit- CO2 adds a warming influence, there is no reason why other natural factors could not slow or even reverse the trend. The solar maximum of the last century has faded away. I am not sure why the warmers haven't used it as an excuse, except that they would have to recant their position that the Sun is not an important factor in climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Less water vapor in the desert to slow down the loss of heat.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

No one is denying the role of the sun in the long term, but the magnitude of changes seen in TSI throughout the Holocene at least, are grossly overwhelmed by the magnitude of the greenhouse warming we've added to the planet in the last 150 years..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Since we don't believe in the magic...even a little...we are the skeptics...those who believe in the magic but to a lesser degree...aren't skeptics..they are simply having a crisis of faith.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well when 23 trillions of dollars comes into play...
> ...



Got any evidence of that beyond what a bank says?  What is the optimum temperature for life on earth?  Any idea?  Any actual evidence to support the claim...and since we are unsure as to what the optimum temperature for life is here on earth..any claim that warming will cost or save money is nothing more than unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion...and yet, you believe....why?  When someone makes obviously unsubstantiated claims and voices unsupported opinion...why do you believe them?...because they are supposedly better educated than yourself?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> No one is denying the role of the sun in the long term, but the magnitude of changes seen in TSI throughout the Holocene at least, are grossly overwhelmed by the magnitude of the greenhouse warming we've added to the planet in the last 150 years..



Sorry crick... there isn't a single proxy reconstruction that would support that claim...just more bullshit from one of the biggest liars on the board.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > the end
> ...




And what is it YOU'VE got?  WUWT, Watts, Monckton, Soon, Bailunas and a half dozen senile evangelical nut jobs.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Still waiting on the name of the proxy reconstruction with sufficient resolution to support the claims you have been making regarding the rate of warming...without such data, then it is clear that you are not arguing from science...you are arguing from science fiction and politics...nothing more.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

Westwall, show us one single item from Skeptical Science that you've ACTUALLY refuted.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Westwall, show us one single item from Skeptical Science that you've ACTUALLY refuted.


Show us one proxy reconstruction which would support your claims regarding the rate of warming....or better yet...show us one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the A in AGW....


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Westwall, show us one single item from Skeptical Science that you've ACTUALLY refuted.









Show us anything from SS that is not based on science fiction.


----------



## hauke (Aug 24, 2016)

i think its a fail to argue with people bought by fossile fuel about climate  change.
these people are paied to denie the truth science proves, they lie and disort facts.

to argue with them gives them more power then they deserve.

their moral values are in the pits they only care about the money they cash in their accounts, truth does not matter

just don t argue with liars


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 24, 2016)

hauke said:


> i think its a fail to argue with people bought by fossile fuel about climate  change.
> these people are paied to denie the truth science proves, they lie and disort facts.
> 
> to argue with them gives them more power then they deserve.
> ...



Right, just show us the lab work and we'll take a look at it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2016)

hauke said:


> i think its a fail to argue with people bought by fossile fuel about climate  change.
> these people are paied to denie the truth science proves, they lie and disort facts.
> 
> to argue with them gives them more power then they deserve.
> ...



You should definitely spend your money on unreliable "green energy".

It's the moral thing to do.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2016)

hauke said:


> i think its a fail to argue with people bought by fossile fuel about climate  change.
> these people are paied to denie the truth science proves, they lie and disort facts.
> 
> to argue with them gives them more power then they deserve.
> ...









That's funny when it is you and yours who are the liars.  Is everyone on your planet this delusional?


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

Just you.

When you take a position that is rejected by almost 100% of the experts, it becomes extremely difficult to accept your criticism of other's science or your accusations that others are delusional.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Just you.
> 
> When you take a position that is rejected by almost 100% of the experts, it becomes extremely difficult to accept your criticism of other's science or your accusations that others are delusional.









When the experts get 100% of their funding by supporting fraud, they lose all credibility.  That's why Appeals to Authority are classified as logic fails.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> When you take a position that is rejected by almost 100% of the experts




Crick's life philosophy:

Parrot "the experts"
Parrot "the experts"
Parrot "the experts"
Parrot "the experts"
Parrot "the experts"



Who are "The Experts?"

Whoever is LEFT WING and TAXPAYER FUNDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hauke (Aug 24, 2016)

as i said they are liars without any respect to science, only theire lies matter

point : do those people ever give any evidence to theire lies ?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

We went to court in 2007, so there was an exhibit of "your evidence vs. mine..."

How'd your FRAUD side do there???

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’


And what are those inaccuracies?


The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was *misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years*.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
*The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.*
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.




That's 90% of Earth ice INCREASING.... and your "evidence" is???

LOL!!

that *YOUR SIDE WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL THE VERDICT!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## hauke (Aug 24, 2016)

your using a propaganda film as a dispute to science, that film was not science

whatever, your not accesible to reason anyway


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

What was disputed in the court room WAS SCIENCE, your side LOST and WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL.


90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is GROWING.  

Deal with it...


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2016)

hauke said:


> as i said they are liars without any respect to science, only theire lies matter
> 
> point : do those people ever give any evidence to theire lies ?









You are correct.  It is YOU who are ignoring the science.  YOU rely on people who have concocted computer models that are so poor that they always show warming no matter what numbers you plug into them.  YOU rely on "studies" that use zero empirical data.  YOU listen to people who have violated the Scientific Method at every turn.  You are a propagandist with no regard for science or the scientific method.  You are a fraud.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2016)

hauke said:


> your using a propaganda film as a dispute to science, that film was not science
> 
> whatever, your not accesible to reason anyway







I bet you think that Al Gore "An Inconvenient Truth" is the height of quality, even though it has ELEVEN PROVEN lies in it.


----------



## hauke (Aug 24, 2016)

please prove your claim that the ice in the antarctic is growing,

your claim isn t a scientific prove

its just hot air


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

hauke said:


> please prove your claim that the ice in the antarctic is growing,
> 
> your claim isn t a scientific prove
> 
> its just hot air




Two sides disagree.

Two sides go to court.

The court rules.

The side that lost does not appeal.


That is the reality of the debate on Antarctic ice - court ruled it is growing because that is what the data always said, and the "warmer" fudge got "baked"
 and then chickened out from appealing.... and here we still have the same noise "I'm parroting, so I'm right, because I am the birdbrain who is parroting"



2007 = court certified

2016 - NASA certified...

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

 the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.


----------



## hauke (Aug 24, 2016)

whats the nummbers for 2009 to 2016 ?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

That article doesn't say, but the thing grows every year.  So groweth the AA sea ice, with 5 all time record highs since O took office.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2016)

hauke said:


> please prove your claim that the ice in the antarctic is growing,
> 
> your claim isn t a scientific prove
> 
> its just hot air









Here you go.  No problem at all.


"Last week a study was published in the Journal of Glaciology by a group of NASA researchers reporting that satellite data shows that, as a whole, Antarctica h*as been gaining—rather than losing—ice mass during the past two or more decades*."



What's Going on in Antarctica? Is the Ice Melting or Growing?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

hauke said:


> i think its a fail to argue with people bought by fossile fuel about climate  change.
> these people are paied to denie the truth science proves, they lie and disort facts.
> 
> to argue with them gives them more power then they deserve.
> ...



You think that people bought by a whole lot more government, and green special interest money are somehow more honorable?  We are asking for evidence to support the claims of warmers and the warmers can't deliver...show me one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...I know that you can't do it because none exists....and yet, you still believe those bought by government and environmental special interests....why might that be?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> Just you.
> 
> When you take a position that is rejected by almost 100% of the experts, it becomes extremely difficult to accept your criticism of other's science or your accusations that others are delusional.



Show us some of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supposedly convinced that 97%...by now, we all know that you can't produce...so upon what is that claimed consensus based?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

hauke said:


> your using a propaganda film as a dispute to science, that film was not science
> 
> whatever, your not accesible to reason anyway



Can you provide any evidence at all that anyone at all in mainstream climate science stepped up to the microphone and said that algore's film was a propaganda film?...we both know that you can't...In law, silence implies consent so it is clear that so long as the film was making headlines, climate science was just fine with it....that is the nature of climate science and their supporters in the press.....now that it has been shown to be a crock of $h!t...you guys call it a propaganda film...why didn't you call it such before it was shown to be nothing but baseless alarmism.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2016)

hauke said:


> as i said they are liars without any respect to science, only theire lies matter
> 
> point : do those people ever give any evidence to theire lies ?


nope and what I've been saying for four years here. the warmers just can't produce.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 25, 2016)

Dante said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I love science.  I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.
> ...




Let us know when a scientist wins a Nobel for proving AGW as a fact.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 25, 2016)

Dante said:


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




*Niether of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.*

You don't have to be a climate scientist if you have been following it since the 1970s

Also, people in these forums have their specialtys , like mine is in plastic manufacturing and I have 30 years of expertise using temperature monitoring equipment, I know the history of it and I know how people pencil whip data.

No way in hell can you compare temperature data of the 1900s to today's ultra modern ultra accurate data and say the earth warmed up .04 degree in a 100 years with a straight face.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

bear513 said:


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



Interesting how willing these people are to acknowledge their abject ignorance and dependence upon someone else to tell them what to think...sad really, since climate science is at best a soft science...certainly not in the same league as molecular biology or any of the hard sciences....guess they depend on the weather channel to tell them what it is like outside before they go and pick up the paper.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


*
Interesting how willing these people are to acknowledge their abject ignorance*

Considering your "smart photons", that's hilarious!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2016)

It never fails to amuse me how some of you wackos believe that a theoretical particle...or any particle for that matter must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics....do you think electrons must possess some sort of intelligence to know which direction they must move along a wire?

It is particularly funny that you are willing to follow old rocks into his fantasy...of all the people to look to as a role model.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> It never fails to amuse me how some of you wackos believe that a theoretical particle...or any particle for that matter must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics....do you think electrons must possess some sort of intelligence to know which direction they must move along a wire?
> 
> It is particularly funny that you are willing to follow old rocks into his fantasy...of all the people to look to as a role model.



It's even funnier that some think matter "knows" when to emit and stops emitting if something warmer, thousands of light years away, will come "into view" in the future.

Those photons are smart and they can predict the future!!! Who needs physics....SSDD has magic!!!


----------



## hauke (Aug 26, 2016)

i set of data isn t prove.

do you have more then 1 dataset ?

1 dataset would make a hyphosis not a theorie


----------



## hauke (Aug 26, 2016)

oh why do i even argue with neolithic mentality


----------



## hauke (Aug 26, 2016)

btw no human being can produce as much nonsense as toddsterpatriot, so its obviouse that a nummber of people use that alias


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

hauke said:


> btw no human being can produce as much nonsense as toddsterpatriot, so its obviouse that a nummber of people use that alias



Tell me more.

List some of my nonsense.


----------



## hauke (Aug 26, 2016)

toddsterpatriot has been identified as a propaganda tool for big oil and coal

that account isn t a real person its a mouthpiece for admen from chicago

but they fucked up, no single human can post that much

no single human can post 24 hours a day for years


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 26, 2016)

No, toddster thinks 757s can fly 8 feet off the ground while their engines are in the ground....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> No, toddster thinks 757s can fly 8 feet off the ground while their engines are in the ground....



How did that cruise missile knock down those street lights? Wide wingspan, eh?
And why did the witnesses driving nearby say they saw a jumbo jet close to the ground moments before it hit?
Unless you think the missile was the size of a jumbo jet?


----------



## hauke (Aug 26, 2016)

No way in hell can you compare temperature data of the 1900s to today's ultra modern ultra accurate data and say the earth warmed up .04 degree in a 100 years with a straight face.[/QUOTE]

no claim of .04 degrees, its a solid 2+ degrees

the same thermometers show 2 degrees higher, no matter how accurate absolute they are they are 2 degrees higher

and iff you think people who made thermometers 150 years ago couldn t hit a degree, your just dumb

ill elucitate your an idiot you have no clue about science, your just dumb


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2016)

Ultra modern?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> It never fails to amuse me how some of you wackos believe that a theoretical particle...or any particle for that matter must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics....do you think electrons must possess some sort of intelligence to know which direction they must move along a wire?
> 
> It is particularly funny that you are willing to follow old rocks into his fantasy...of all the people to look to as a role model.




Just had to take the shot. Since we're onto electric impulses. that stuff that is the core of MOST human brains. .

"""""".do you think electrons must possess some sort of intelligence to know which direction they must move along a wire?""""""" 

Actually in MOST people -- those electrons are what builds intelligence. And I did say --- "in most people". 

Laws of physics DESCRIBE particle behavior. Not that particles are programmed to follow the laws of physics.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How did that cruise missile knock down those street lights?




The air "wake" sucked them out.  Several have no "dent" or "bend," as if your phantom 757 wing knocked it down but left no mark...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

hauke said:


> the same thermometers show 2 degrees higher, no matter how accurate absolute they are they are 2 degrees higher




The weather balloon thermometers showed no warming in the atmosphere, and your heroes had to FUDGE the data to "correct" that.

The "warming" is all from the surface of growing urban areas.  There is on warming in the atmosphere, the oceans, or undeveloped land.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How did that cruise missile knock down those street lights?
> ...



You'll have to show how strong the "air wake" of a cruise missile (about 550 mph) is.
And why those drivers said it was a jumbo jet, not a less than 9 foot wingspan missile.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

That the forces of Zionism have many lying is what Zionism has always been about, starting with "meeting God" on top of Mt. Sinai, a synonym for being killed and replaced with a levite who needed 40 days to grow a beard.

Yes, it is Moses

No it isn't....  levite swords out...  nobody left saying it isn't Moses, so it must be...


I am not an expert on cruise missiles, but I have talked to some from the Navy and they told me the "air wake" would pick you up and throw you like Willie Mays used to throw a baseball.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> That the forces of Zionism have many lying is what Zionism has always been about, starting with "meeting God" on top of Mt. Sinai, a synonym for being killed and replaced with a levite who needed 40 days to grow a beard.
> 
> Yes, it is Moses
> 
> ...



*they told me the "air wake" would pick you up and throw you like Willie Mays used to throw a baseball.*

At what distance?
A mile?
10 miles?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

no distance specified beyond Willie, which could be several hundred feet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> no distance specified beyond Willie, which could be several hundred feet.



Or it could be 5 feet. Much less than the distance between the poles that were knocked down by the plane.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 27, 2016)

hauke said:


> No way in hell can you compare temperature data of the 1900s to today's ultra modern ultra accurate data and say the earth warmed up .04 degree in a 100 years with a straight face.



no claim of .04 degrees, its a solid 2+ degrees

the same thermometers show 2 degrees higher, no matter how accurate absolute they are they are 2 degrees higher

and iff you think people who made thermometers 150 years ago couldn t hit a degree, your just dumb

ill elucitate your an idiot you have no clue about science, your just dumb[/QUOTE]


You have no idea of human psychology do you super shit for brains?


Again only a moron would take thermometer data plus sattelte data and think They have something over 100 years.

Again dumbo kraut 99.9% of the temperature data in the 1900s is from the northern hemisphere..


Nothing , zip, no data from the southern hemisphere in the 1900s ass hole.

Also with Michael Mann's tree ring data that fuck head got those specimens from Siberia.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Why do those "downed" poles have NO DENTS and NO BEND?

If a plane traveling at 400 mph clipped those with its wings, they would be dented and bent galore.  They are NOT DENTED OR BENT, because no plane wing clipped them...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2016)

*Moderation Note:

There's an off-topic undercurrent here that belongs somewhere else. 
If you want this thread to remain open -- stay close to the topic and the forum.*


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> That the forces of Zionism have many lying is what Zionism has always been about, starting with "meeting God" on top of Mt. Sinai, a synonym for being killed and replaced with a levite who needed 40 days to grow a beard.
> 
> Yes, it is Moses
> 
> ...



I am with the Navy and you're full of shit, in every which way you can be.

The science says:

The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years at a pace not seen in the history of human civilization and beyond.

That warming is being caused by increased CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.

Those increased CO2 levels are decreasing the ocean's pH, affecting aragonite solubility and the life cycles of all carbonate-fixing organism (coral, molluscs) and causing biochemical effects on the reproductive cycles of numerous other species.

The source of that increased CO2 is the human combustion of fossil fuels and human deforestation of the planet.

That's what the science says.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> The science says:




Let's just get one thing straight = YOU are not "the science"

You are a bigoted left wing parrot and blowhard who hates the truth I post.




Crick said:


> The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years



WRONG - the surface of growing urban areas has.  The oceans, the atmosphere, and the non-urban land have not warmed at all.




Crick said:


> That warming is being caused by increased CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.



Laughable, since the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere





Crick said:


> Those increased CO2 levels are decreasing the ocean's pH, affecting aragonite solubility and the life cycles of all carbonate-fixing organism (coral, molluscs) and causing biochemical effects on the reproductive cycles of numerous other species.



BULLSHIT





Crick said:


> That's what the science says.




No, that is what a pathetic excuse of a human parrot endlessly parrots here at the expense of the US taxpayer.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> The science says:





LaDexter said:


> Let's just get one thing straight = YOU are not "the science"



I never said I was.  My entire OP in this thread is a series of quotes from the IPCC's AR5



LaDexter said:


> You are a bigoted left wing parrot and blowhard who hates the truth I post.



Despite your choice to call it "parroting", I am not in the least embarrassed to quote mainstream science here and I will continue to do so.  I should think it would be embarrassing to try to uphold YOUR position - that all science is bad and that no one should make reference to it.  That is the position of an insane person.

I am a liberal democrat but the only reason it's visible here is the frequent charges from deniers that AGW is a hoax of the left.

Where you get the idea that I am a bigot I haven't the faintest idea. 

I do hate what you post, but not because it has the slightest inkling of "truth" in it.




Crick said:


> The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years





LaDexter said:


> WRONG - the surface of growing urban areas has.  The oceans, the atmosphere, and the non-urban land have not warmed at all.



So you've said.  But so you've failed to demonstrate.  You've provided ZERO actual data to support this oft-repeated claim.  ZERO.  Guess what claims with ZERO data are worth?  Guess.  Go on, guess?

ZERO.



Crick said:


> That warming is being caused by increased CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.





LaDexter said:


> Laughable, since the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere



So you've said.  But so you've failed to demonstrate.  You've provided ZERO actual data to support this oft-repeated claim.  ZERO.  Guess what claims with ZERO data are worth?  Guess.  Go on, guess?

ZERO.



Crick said:


> Those increased CO2 levels are decreasing the ocean's pH, affecting aragonite solubility and the life cycles of all carbonate-fixing organism (coral, molluscs) and causing biochemical effects on the reproductive cycles of numerous other species.





LaDexter said:


> BULLSHIT



Why do you say that?  Do you reject the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere?  Do you reject the effect on pH of dissolving CO2 in water?  Do you reject the effect of increased aragonite solubility on carbonate fixing organisms?



Crick said:


> That's what the science says.





LaDexter said:


> No, that is what a pathetic excuse of a human parrot endlessly parrots here at the expense of the US taxpayer.



Climate research is being done all over the world.  The idea you've put out here over and over again that this is an entirely US issue is quite uninformed.  The amount being spent by the US government on climate research is a pittance compared to the amounts spent on military research, on automobile development, on the search for more oil and gas, on a thousand other things that - it could be argued - are of less real worth to the human species at the moment.  Here, from an opponent of climate change research (The Big Winners in the Climate Change Money Game | OilPrice.com), are the numbers for 2011 through 2015.






Total: $2.4811 billion.

Forbes magazine, another opponents of climate change research, says:

_According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share.  Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”_

Now, for comparison purposes, let's look at US government spending lat year:

ACTUAL total expenditures: $3.688 trillion.  Climate change research made up 0.006437% of that amount. For every thousand dollars you paid in income taxes, six-tenths of one cent went to climate change research.  Yeah... "the expense of the US taxpayer".


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> a series of quotes from the IPCC




The Clinton Foundation would be a more "credible" source...




Crick said:


> I am not in the least embarrassed to quote mainstream science here



Quote = mindlessly repeat while never questioning = PARROTING




Crick said:


> that all science is bad



Where did I ever say that, left wing liar???

Science is what I used to bust FRAUD, and FRAUD is not science....




Crick said:


> I am a liberal democrat



a taxpayer funded one, no doubt....




Crick said:


> I do hate what you post,



... because it is the TRUTH, it outs the Left as being engaged in FRAUD to BILK the TAXPAYER, and as a "liberal democrat" there is nothing you support more than FRAUD to BILK the TAXPAYER as long as YOUR GOVERNMENT CHECK goes UP because of it...






Crick said:


> According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to* $106.7 billion* over that period.




That's over a hundred billion that was completely wasted on nothing that actually helped the real environment.  If we had spent half of that on desalination, we would not have any problems with fresh water in CA and other areas, and wildlife would be thriving, not burning...

YOUR FRAUD harms the REAL ENVIRONMENT by intentionally misdiagnosing real problems and hence preventing solutions like massive desalination


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Note his quote in my sig line...he isn't interested in debating facts...there is "consensus"...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

That's the whole anti-American rant = the "settled" science, which isn't even science, it is a combination of cherry picking, fudging, and fraud.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> That's the whole anti-American rant = the "settled" science, which isn't even science, it is a combination of cherry picking, fudging, and fraud.




It is what he has and he is sticking with it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The science says:
> ...



$2.5 B...and they still can't point to one single lab experiment testing their failed hypothesis.

Amazing

I know exactly where President Trump can save $2.5B on day 1


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I know exactly where President Trump can save $2.5B on day 1




He needs Congress to cut off funding.

HE would be wise to fire Mr. Comey as his first act, and then ask the FBI for both the "climate" file and the 911 file...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Interesting also that the US Standard Atmosphere predicts the temperature without even the mention of a greenhouse effect....and that it remains the gold standard today and hasn't changed by even a fraction of a degree even with almost a half a century of so called greenhouse emissions.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

If it hasn't changed by even a fraction of a degree, then it is not accurately predicting temperature, is it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> If it hasn't changed by even a fraction of a degree, then it is not accurately predicting temperature, is it.




What it didn't predict is how much data manipulation would go on in the future.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2016)

The observed warming is not the result of data manipulation.  Data manipulation would not melt the Arctic.  Data manipulation would not melt the world's glaciers.  Data manipulation would not be altering seasonal timings all over the planet.  Data manipulation would not be increased floods, droughts and weather severity.

And the idea that every one of the world's climate scientists are in on a huge, perfectly conducted conspiracy is the most ignorant, insanely paranoid argument ever made.

Good fucking god are your stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> The observed warming is not the result of data manipulation.  Data manipulation would not melt the Arctic.  Data manipulation would not melt the world's glaciers.  Data manipulation would not be altering seasonal timings all over the planet.  Data manipulation would not be increased floods, droughts and weather severity.
> 
> And the idea that every one of the world's climate scientists are in on a huge, perfectly conducted conspiracy is the most ignorant, insanely paranoid argument ever made.
> 
> Good fucking god are your stupid.


neither would CO2.  next.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> The observed warming is not the result of data manipulation.  Data manipulation would not melt the Arctic.  Data manipulation would not melt the world's glaciers.  Data manipulation would not be altering seasonal timings all over the planet.  Data manipulation would not be increased floods, droughts and weather severity.
> 
> And the idea that every one of the world's climate scientists are in on a huge, perfectly conducted conspiracy is the most ignorant, insanely paranoid argument ever made.
> 
> Good fucking god are your stupid.



I'm afraid crick..that once again...it is you who is the stupid one..melting arctic ice and melting glaciers aren't anything new...that started a long time ago...  you have no historical context so you live in a constant state of being duped.  I could go on practically forever with news articles from the past proclaiming the very same things that you are worried about today....you just don't seem to be able to grasp that inso far as the climate on planet earth goes...what we are seeing today is just business as usual...and idiots like you who can't be bothered to see what the climate used to look like are the ones who are most hopelessly duped.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> The observed warming is not the result of data manipulation.




It is ALL data "manipulation."  The Tippys have been caught doctoring even surface ground, where they just count urban areas (which show warming) and discard undeveloped areas (showing no warming).  The Surface Ground is the only series showing any warming in the raw data, really just urban areas on land.




Crick said:


> Data manipulation would not melt the Arctic




There you go again CHERRY PICKING.  The Antarctic ice and sea ice are both growing, and they are more than 90% of Earth's total ice.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> Data manipulation would not be increased floods, droughts and weather severity.




Global "warming" causes droughts.... and floods.

Global "warming" causes sea ice shrinkage.... and growth

Global "warming" causes less snow... and record snow in Philly, NYC, and DC

Global "warming" is melting the Arctic... and increasing ice in the Antarctic


at some point, the people need to notice what an OBVIOUS FRAUD this is...




Crick said:


> every one of the world's climate scientists are in on a huge, perfectly conducted conspiracy is




... the nature of the FAR LEFT, which will DO ANYTHING to STEAL STEAL STEAL the taxpayer's money


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2016)

They're having no problem noticing what an ignorant fraud you are.

Do you really believe that every climate scientist on Earth is on the "FAR LEFT"?  Really?

What a buffoon.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you really believe that every climate scientist on Earth is on the "FAR LEFT"? Really?





They are weeded out and groomed (brainwashed).  They know a taxpayer funded "study" that does not conclude "warming" concludes with your funding TERMINATION.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 31, 2016)

Know how they "Prove" Manmade Global Warming?

Just turn on the Weather Channel!  Right there! Top Story = Manmade Global Warming!!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 31, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Know how they "Prove" Manmade Global Warming?
> 
> Just turn on the Weather Channel!  Right there! Top Story = Manmade Global Warming!!


although the top weather channel guy is now a skeptic and hated.  I love it.  every conversion ends up as another hated skeptic. got love warmers. they haven't met a good skeptic that they couldn't insult or belittle.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 31, 2016)

Jim Cantore, to my knowledge, has never chimed in with Stephanie Abrams and the rest of the warmers at TWC


----------



## jc456 (Aug 31, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Jim Cantore, to my knowledge, has never chimed in with Stephanie Abrams and the rest of the warmers at TWC


don't forget John Coleman, the dude I was referring to.  Co-Founder of the TWC.


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really believe that every climate scientist on Earth is on the "FAR LEFT"? Really?
> ...



And when did that become the case?  The consensus on warming among climate scientists did not appear worldwide overnight.  It developed as more and more research findings supported the idea.  Those initial researchers were under no pressure to support warming.  In fact, they were upsetting the status quo and put themselves at some risk suggesting something new.

How can the lot of you be sufficiently stupid to believe the grand conspiracy crap?  It's right up there with a colony of space aliens living inside the hollow Earth.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 1, 2016)

Ocean Acidification: Your Chance To Help Kill This Dodgy Scam Once And For All!


lol.........check this out. These meathead frauds promote *this acid acidification* bs as science!!!


Laughable


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

No response?  I suppose when you choose to back an idea as stupid as a perfect worldwide conspiracy by thousands of scientists, it can be hard to come up with a response to the obvious criticism.  

What the world's scientists say, based on the evidence their studies have produced, is that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the primary cause of that warming is increased CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere caused almost entirely by human activities.  That warming poses several risks. Ignoring it all, as deniers want to do, is dangerously stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> No response?  I suppose when you choose to back an idea as stupid as a perfect worldwide conspiracy by thousands of scientists, it can be hard to come up with a response to the obvious criticism.
> 
> What the world's scientists say, based on the evidence their studies have produced, is that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the primary cause of that warming is increased CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere caused almost entirely by human activities.  That warming poses several risks. Ignoring it all, as deniers want to do, is dangerously stupid.



Since the AGW Cult can't show a single experiment, we conclude that $2.5Billion annually buys an awful lot of consensus


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Sep 2, 2016)

I'd believe in the Toof Fairy for $2.5 Bil!


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> No response?  I suppose when you choose to back an idea as stupid as a perfect worldwide conspiracy by thousands of scientists, it can be hard to come up with a response to the obvious criticism.
> 
> What the world's scientists say, based on the evidence their studies have produced, is that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the primary cause of that warming is increased CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere caused almost entirely by human activities.  That warming poses several risks. Ignoring it all, as deniers want to do, is dangerously stupid.





CrusaderFrank said:


> Since the AGW Cult can't show a single experiment, we conclude that $2.5Billion annually buys an awful lot of consensus



So, the world's climate scientists are all lying to make money from research grants that don't give them any.

It doesn't matter what their politics or religion or personal ethics might be - they're all on it.  Right?  And none of them have ever confessed to the conspiracy.  The conspiracy is perfect.  Got it.

Fool.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Sep 2, 2016)

Not all of them are lying. Others are probably licking al the boots they can, to obtain the peer reviews it takes to get into the big clique.

At this point, it's all political.


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

The evidence says quite clearly that you are incorrect.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Sep 2, 2016)

There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never *ever* been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.

Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "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."


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never *ever* been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.
> 
> Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "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."


as did the AR5 document explaining it as 'excess heat' in the oceans. Frank posted it awhile ago:


CrusaderFrank said:


> The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"
> 
> "Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.
> 
> ...


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Sep 2, 2016)

The ocean ate muh globull warmie!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 2, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never *ever* been predictive



The models have been excellent. All the real scientists know that. All the informed people know that. Hence, that big whopper you just told is only going to fool your fellow cultists. Everyone else knows you're just making up nonsense.



> Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.



True. You deniers have failed hard with your "ice age just around the corner!" for over 40 years now. In contrast, all the real scientist have been correctly predicting warming all that time.

That is, your cult is completely incompetent. Own it.



> Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "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."



Trenberth was referring to how the lack of instrumentation to measure the warming was a travesty. He was certainly not saying there was no warming, and only liars pretend he did.

So, since you repeated that big lie so loudly and proudly, why should anyone trust you in the future?

We do understand. You didn't know you were lying. Your cult tells you things, so you repeat them without thinking. You're not the first cult parrot we've seen, and you won't be the last. Just try to understand that you've been brainwashed, and everyone outside of your cult can see that clearly. Whether you can overcome your brainwashing is up to you. All we can do is continue to point out your really suckass science.

Oh, I suggest you not run back to your cult blogs to get some denier cult fudged data to cut-and-paste, like cultists usually do at this point. We've seen it hundreds of times before.


----------



## hauke (Sep 2, 2016)

the current science says :
the climate is changing

its getting hotter

humans are responsible

thats what science says


----------



## hauke (Sep 2, 2016)

science says the human race is changing the climate, humans ha´ve the posibility to change climate so much that earth will become uninhabitable.
meaning that if we keep up fucking earth we will destroy all life on earth.

humanity can kill all life on earth


----------



## hauke (Sep 2, 2016)

but it won t be humanity it will be 10 000 people who own earth it will be 10 000 arseholes


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

hauke said:


> but it won t be humanity it will be 10 000 people who own earth it will be 10 000 arseholes



We'll miss you. Moron.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No response?  I suppose when you choose to back an idea as stupid as a perfect worldwide conspiracy by thousands of scientists, it can be hard to come up with a response to the obvious criticism.
> ...



The AGW Cult is 97% in on the fraud.

Yes.

Absolutely


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never *ever* been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.
> 
> Or, as Archbishop Keven Trenberth famously said; "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."



So, you don't know what you're talking about or you choose to lie


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


> AnCap'n_Murica said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence. Just jimmied computer models that have never *ever* been predictive. Then the predictable moving of the goalposts when those dire predictions don't pan out.
> ...



I'm curious jc, what is there about the IPCC statement that you find... enlightening and why do you choose to once again empahasize your general ignorance in this manner?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > AnCap'n_Murica said:
> ...



Crick, remember when you said "excess heat" was a made up concept with no scientific relevance?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > AnCap'n_Murica said:
> ...


the fact that they didn't find any warming that matched any model and then claimed the oceans ate it.  how about that? I've posted that excerpt many different times in here.  Oh, and during the time, CO2 increased.  Look, it's very simple, either you can provide the piece you feel supports observed empirical evidence to your claim or not.  you just writing down IPCC so there, doesn't cut the mustard big fella!!  So why don't you post up the observed empirical evidence that supports AGW.  Why are you afraid to post?  Got nothing?


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


> the fact that they didn't find any warming that matched any model and then claimed the oceans ate it.  how about that?



The oceans will always "eat" more than 90% of any excess heat (yes, I used the term) available in the Earth's climate system.  Warm water WAS driven deep during that period but Trenberth and Balmaseda both said that it wasn't enough.  That was found when Karl improved the polar temperature records.



jc456 said:


> I've posted that excerpt many different times in here.  Oh, and during the time, CO2 increased.



CO2 has't stopped increasing since the Keeling curves were started.



jc456 said:


> Look, it's very simple, either you can provide the piece you feel supports observed empirical evidence to your claim or not.  you just writing down IPCC so there, doesn't cut the mustard big fella!!  So why don't you post up the observed empirical evidence that supports AGW.  Why are you afraid to post?  Got nothing?



Sorry, that's all you get.  If you want to see what's there, you'll have to do some reading. If you don't or - as seems most likely - you don't care, feel free to post your ignorance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Your first sentence stated the consensus. That the earth is warming, that GHGs produced by man are a factor, and probably the major factor, in that warming. And there are many on this board that deny that, and people like Inhofe also deny that.

As for how far the temperature will rise by 2100, 3C is considered a possibility. A meter rise in the sea level is also possible. I would hope that those numbers are wrong. But there is the possibility that they may be underestimates. We saw that with the estimates for the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap. The Northwest Passage was predicted to open by the latter part of the 21st century in Dr. James Hansen's 1981 paper. It opened in 2007. What other surprises does the warming have for us?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


And I call bullshit on you. You are claiming that scientists from all over the world, from every culture and political system are all conspiring to commit scientific fraud. And you are so stupid, you don't even have any idea of what that means in the academic world. Stock up on tinfoil for your little tin hats.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate change: How do we know?*
> ...


It is when that is the number of publishing Climatologists in the US is 77. However, many scientists that are not Climatologists are providing evidence for the rapid warming. Geologists, glacialogists, biologists, and those involved in agriculture science, just to name a few. They are not included in that survey, and the vast majority of them absolutely state that AGW is real.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Why are you such a dumb shit that you cannot look that up? And there is no use in answering that with the information, because a week from now, you will ask the same stupid question.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > CITIBANK is in on the conspiracy!!!
> ...


LaDumbkopf = bigoted fascist. How about sticking to the subject, rather than posting your ignorant bigotries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



*It is when that is the number of publishing Climatologists in the US is 77.*

Is that the number publishing? Link?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> > i think its a fail to argue with people bought by fossile fuel about climate  change.
> ...


No, it is the economical thing to do. Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuel fired generation. And with grid scale storage coming on line, we will see more and more wind and solar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Just you.
> ...


So, everybody at the AGU and GSA conventions are frauds. Only ol' Westwall knows the truth. Nobody to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > hauke said:
> ...


*
No, it is the economical thing to do.
*
No, it isn't.
*
Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuel fired generation.*

Is that why electricity is cheaper in Germany than in the US?
*
And with grid scale storage coming on line, we will see more and more wind and solar.*

Unless green mandates and subsidies end. Then we'd see less.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

*There you go.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


_
A poll performed by __Peter Doran__ and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at __University of Illinois at Chicago__ received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization._* 76 out of 79 *

I love it!
"We sent a poll to 10,257 scientists and had to reduce our data set to 79 in order to come up with 97%"

Just what we've come to expect from the warmers.
And you wonder why no one trusts them anymore.


----------



## Dante (Sep 2, 2016)

*In a nutshell:*

What the science says versus what a bunch of imbeciles and lunatics on the world wide web say


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

Dante said:


> *In a nutshell:*
> 
> What the science says versus what a bunch of imbeciles and lunatics on the world wide web say



How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills so that "Climate Change" stops happening?
How will we know when we can stop?
Will hurricanes cease? No floods? No droughts?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

Less trillions for the same amount of power than would have been spent on fossil fuel plants to power our societies. No, we are in for more affects for at least the next 30 years, more likely 50 years, even were we to switch over to completely non-fossil fuel in a decade. I cannot see that happening, so there will be increasing effects through 2100, in my estimation. And even then, probably another several centuries feeling the effects of our increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere.


----------



## anotherlife (Sep 2, 2016)

Commodity traders will prohibit any movement away from fossil fuels, because every commodity has its highest price when there is the least of it available, especially the last drop of it. 

Also, science is decimated by propaganda against basic sciences and their non for profit nature, so even if traders allowed it, people would have no know how to switch away.


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









Sooooo, what you're telling us is that 74 out of 10,257 scientists agree with the "theory" of AGW.   That about cover it?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 3, 2016)

Most scientist believe that co2 and methane are green house gases...To say otherwise makes you look foolish.


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Most scientist believe that co2 and methane are green house gases...To say otherwise makes you look foolish.








Never denied they weren't.  Their effect is what is being argued and thus far there is ZERO empirical evidence that CO2, in the incredibly trace amount that it exists in OUR atmosphere, can have the slightest effect.  The fact that you continuously misrepresent what we are saying, makes you look like an ass.


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2016)

If you believe they have zero effect, you believe they are not greenhouse gases.  Matthew has not misrepresented what you've said.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


Why would I wear a tin hat, I'm not afraid of the end of the world like you warmers?  All, I repeat, all I'm looking for is your supposed science that backs that claim. In science, experiments are done to validate a hypothetical idea. Four years and there's been zip. So foil is all yours as you dodge CO2.


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

you wear a tin hat to make sure you don t have to encounter reality
physics is a dangerouse science to you because its about reality

physics can t be real because its in opposition to your belives
chemestry can t be real because its in opposition of your belives
climate science can t be real because its in opposition to your belives

and your belives is the only thing that counts


science doesent matter


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

hauke said:


> you wear a tin hat to make sure you don t have to encounter reality
> physics is a dangerouse science to you because its about reality
> 
> physics can t be real because its in opposition to your belives
> ...


Except my belief doesn't include doomsday scenarios so it's all your foil pup!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




good point 

and that is absolutely hilarious


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

doomesday scenarios are whats making the USA depardment of defense anciouse, and the NSA  and NASA thinks its a problem too

your tinfoil hat keeps you from seeing reality


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

the Army the Navy the Airforce and Marine Corps are worried, but you got a tin foil hat


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

hauke said:


> doomesday scenarios are whats making the USA depardment of defense anciouse, and the NSA  and NASA thinks its a problem too
> 
> your tinfoil hat keeps you from seeing reality


That isn't what one wears tin foil hats for, you wear them to ward off CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

hauke said:


> the Army the Navy the Airforce and Marine Corps are worried, but you got a tin foil hat


How do they protect you against CO2?


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

when bangladesh, whose average about 1.2 meters above sea level gets swamped, how is india who has been builduing a wall at its border to bangladesh is going to react when 300 million bangladeshi try to escape death ? whats the usa response going to be when india is going to let 300 million bangladeshi drown ?

donald trump said hes going to build a wall to mexico.

india has been builduing a wall to bangladesh

india doesen t have the ability to safe 300 million bangladeshi


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

India isn t a muslim country, the closest muslim countrys to bangladesh are : malaisia, indonesia,pakistan,iran irak saudi arabia oman jemen egypt


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

i mean that when bangladesh is obliterated by the climate catastrophe

its the job of these muslim countrys to save the bangladeshi, india ain t going to do it

india can t afford to do it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Most scientist believe that co2 and methane are green house gases...To say otherwise makes you look foolish.



Of course they are.
Only idiots who believe in smart photons and don't understand the laws of thermodynamics say otherwise.


----------



## hauke (Sep 3, 2016)

toddsterpastriot your so fucking insane anyone knows your crazy

you acctually saying co2 and methane are not greenhouse gases ?

thats so insane your obviousely a crazy person


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

hauke said:


> toddsterpastriot your so fucking insane anyone knows your crazy
> 
> you acctually saying co2 and methane are not greenhouse gases ?
> 
> thats so insane your obviousely a crazy person



I  know English is not your first language, but read my post again.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Most scientist believe that co2 and methane are green house gases...To say otherwise makes you look foolish.
> ...


And something never validated.  The atmosphere would be warm if there was heat there. Hmmmmm no observed empirical evidence exists. Hmmmmm squared

Conducting and convection. Why we have wind.

And why we have cool nights in a desert.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



*And something never validated.
*
We've never seen CO2 and methane absorb and emit energy?

*The atmosphere would be warm if there was heat there.*

The atmosphere is at 0K?

*And why we have cool nights in a desert.*

Did you forget water is also a greenhouse gas?
Do you have the same brain injury as Hillary?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




They should have offered Grant money to the 7,111 that didn't reply 



.


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you believe they have zero effect, you believe they are not greenhouse gases.  Matthew has not misrepresented what you've said.







As always you resort to misrepresenting what was said, whiiiiiich makes you look like a dummy.  I stated that in the incredibly small amounts with which they exist in OUR atmosphere, they are not capable of increasing temperature in a measurable way.  And, empirical data supports my statement.  Not yours.


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

hauke said:


> i mean that when bangladesh is obliterated by the climate catastrophe
> 
> its the job of these muslim countrys to save the bangladeshi, india ain t going to do it
> 
> india can t afford to do it









So, the Maldives are even lower than Bangladesh and they were among the first to go under water.  So how is it that they were able to find some fool to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into four new international airports to bring tourists to a place that will supposedly be under water long before that investment could ever be recouped?  Hmmm?  Riddle us that batman.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I see my point is made. No observed empirical evidence as I stated will be posted


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*No observed empirical evidence as I stated will be posted*

You need to see evidence of CO2 and methane absorption spectrums? Again?
What will you say after I post it?
Do you need to see it for water as well? Will you understand why that's a factor in desert temps at night?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope, pretty pictures. I'd like to see CO2 with temperatures


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Proof that CO2, methane and water vapor absorb energy isn't good empirical evidence?

Why is that?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Cause it's not what I asked for.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You said, "no observed empirical evidence exists".....that methane and CO2 are greenhouse gases.

Were you lying? Or just confused?


----------



## IanC (Sep 3, 2016)

Let's examine a particular fallacy that has been repeated extensively by the usual suspects.

"Absorption and emission does not equal warming"

We know by measurement surface temperature and the type of IR it radiates. Now focus on the particular band that only CO2 absorbs. We also know by measurement what kind of IR leaves the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 specific leaving the atmosphere is much less than the amount the surface puts into it.

(While there would still be warming even if the IR on both sides was equal), because we know much of the CO2 specific IR absorbed by the atmosphere does not come out the other side, then that energy has been added to the cohort of the atmosphere's energy and everything else being equal that means an increase in temperature.

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy is conserved. The Slayers need to improve their explanation beyond "absorption and emission do not equal warming". Where does the energy go, and how does it fail to increase temperature at all?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2016)

westwall said:


> As always you resort to misrepresenting what was said, whiiiiiich makes you look like a dummy.  I stated that in the incredibly small amounts with which they exist in OUR atmosphere, they are not capable of increasing temperature in a measurable way.



Which makes you a greenhouse effect denier, which puts you in the same category as flat earthers.



> And, empirical data supports my statement.  Not yours.



Yet you've never presented any such "empirical data". But go on, try presenting it now, for the first time.

It's easy to refute your pseudoscience. Backradiation is directly measurable, in large quantities, and it has the spectral emission signature of greenhouse gases. Boom, strong greenhouse effect proven by direct observation.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It wasn't my question it's what you want to answer though. So show me CO2 with temperatures


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> Let's examine a particular fallacy that has been repeated extensively by the usual suspects.
> 
> "Absorption and emission does not equal warming"
> 
> ...


Well Ian, if IR warms, then why doesn't the atmosphere get warmer. And you guys are confused either it warms or it slows down release. Which is it?


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > As always you resort to misrepresenting what was said, whiiiiiich makes you look like a dummy.  I stated that in the incredibly small amounts with which they exist in OUR atmosphere, they are not capable of increasing temperature in a measurable way.
> ...








Nope.  Little liar, I fully acknowledge the greenhouse effect.  What I do not acknowledge is that in the vanishingly small amounts that those gasses exist in OUR atmosphere do they have an effect.  See how that works?  Simple English.  Which you liars always twist.


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Let's examine a particular fallacy that has been repeated extensively by the usual suspects.
> ...






It doesn't warm because the long wave IR can't penetrate beyond the skin of the oceans, which are the heat engines of this planet.  CO2 does all of the things claimed.  In a perfect lab experiment it can be shown to do all of the claimed things.  However, when you introduce CO2 in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere its effect is simply swamped by the effect caused by water vapor.  Were there no water vapor the CO2 would have a small effect on temp.  But with the water vapor whatever signal it has is completely overwhelmed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



*Hmmmmm no observed empirical evidence exists.*

See, it was your question, right here.....Derp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
So show me CO2 with temperatures*

Could you frame that as an intelligent question?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yep, that is the question. Show the observed empirical evidence CO2 affects temperature. Still zip bubba. Your deflections only show you can't. Go ahead, try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Show the observed empirical evidence CO2 affects temperature.*

First things first. Do you agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why, has nothing to do with my question. Either you can or can't  show the evidence


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Because it will be part of my answer.

Do you agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Do you need to see its absorption spectrum?
Do you know what an absorption spectrum is?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I want observed empirical evidence. Do you even know what observed is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I want observed empirical evidence.*

Great. Answer my questions and I'll be happy to start.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Hahahaha answer mine since it was first deflector.

Again, thanks for showing there isn't any.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



But there is. I can't help you if you're too stupid to understand it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yeah, right, the word is observed and you ain't got it. Thanks for the validation


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



When children ask a science question, I have to estimate the base of knowledge they possess, before I answer.
If I overestimate their base, I end up talking over their head, and they remain as ignorant of the topic as before.
I'm always happen to validate your ignorance.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sure...when adults avoid answering direct questions, I win!..ssdd and billy, here it is, zippola with excuses


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2016)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No, you silly ass. Here are the American Geophysical Union's and Geological Society of America's statements. They represent a lot more than just ten thousand scientists.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Now that represents the views of a vast majority of each Societies membership. You claim to be a Phd Geologist. Yet you seem to state that all these geologists are engaged in fraud.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And yet no observed empirical evidence


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe they have zero effect, you believe they are not greenhouse gases.  Matthew has not misrepresented what you've said.
> ...


Damn, what a lying fuck you are, Westwall. Every physics and chemistry text written states that without the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen to the equator. The empirical data was examined in 1896 by Arrhenius, and no one has refuted his work in over one hundred years. Even at 180 ppm, at the depths of the ice age, CO2 provided enough effect to keep that from happening. At 280 ppm, we have the warm interglacials such as the present one. At 400 + ppm, well, we are going to find out what we have in the coming decades. And, if the amount continues to increase, our grandchildren are going to see some major negative effects.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...









Really?  Show us one please.  Water vapor is totally irrelevant eh?   Do tell.  Please, show us one of these textbooks please.


----------



## Dante (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > *In a nutshell:*
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > *In a nutshell:*
> ...


try listening for a change, instead of flapping your lips like an imbecilic know-it-all

Saving Science

The Future Of Scientific Discovery


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And there it is the charts. Hahahaha I rest my case


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Really?  Show us one please.  Water vapor is totally irrelevant eh?   Do tell.  Please, show us one of these textbooks please.



But there are other, related fallacies which even some physicists and climate scientists get wrong, such as the “surface budget fallacy”. *BTW, the best textbook I know which explains all this is Ray Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate, great for his mathematical and detailed explanations, his perspective of how this works on other solid bodies besides Earth, and his excellent set of Python code which can be used both to do his problem sets and do climate experiments yourself.* I’ll quote from him (pages 413-414) on this, but I’d recommend getting the context, too. I have also inserted some words in square brackets to provide a bit more explanation.

A common fallacy in thinking about the effect of doubled CO2 on climate is to assume that the additional greenhouse gas warms the surface by leaving the atmospheric temperature unchanged, but increasing the downward radiation into the surface by making the atmosphere a better infrared emitter. A corollary of this fallacy would be that increasing CO2 would not increase temperature of the lower atmosphere if the lower atmosphere is already essentially opaque in the infrared, as is nearly the case in the tropics today, owning to the high water vapor content of the boundary layer. This reasoning is faulty because increasing the CO2 concentration while holding the atmospheric temperature fixed reduces the OLR [“Outgoing Longwave Radiation”]. This throws the top-of-atmosphere budget out of balance, and the atmosphere must warm-up in order to restore [radiative] balance [due to the Blackbody Law]. The increased temperature of the whole troposphere increases all the energy fluxes into the surface, not just the radiative fluxes. Further, if one is in a regime where the surface fluxes tightly couple the surface temperatures to the overlying air temperature, there is no need to explicitly consider the surface balance in determining how much the surface warms. Surface and overlying atmosphere simply warm in concert, and the trop-of-atmosphere balance rules the roost.

Doubling CO2  and basic physics


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2016)

And

Textbook of Toxicology  Sec 13.31


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2016)

And  "Environmental Chemistry"  Textbook of Environmental Chemistry


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> And  "Enviornmental Chemistry  Textbook of Environmental Chemistry



How do you say "excess heat" in Norwegian


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Show us one please.  Water vapor is totally irrelevant eh?   Do tell.  Please, show us one of these textbooks please.
> ...








I don't see a single reference to water vapor and it's influence on heat retention.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I know. Empirical evidence is wasted on an ignorant child. I rest my case.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Yeah, imbecilic know-it-alls are annoying, but enough about neo-luddite warmers.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Nope.  Little liar, I fully acknowledge the greenhouse effect.



You "acknowledge" it, and then immediately spin around and deny it.



> What I do not acknowledge is that in the vanishingly small amounts that those gasses exist in OUR atmosphere do they have an effect.



Having an effect _is_ the greenhouse effect. You just said you don't acknowledge it. Hence, you are a greenhouse effect denier.

Now, let's get back to what you're avoiding.

What is this "empirical data" which you claim to have that says greenhouse gases don't warm the atmosphere?

If the greenhouse effect was wrong, backradiation should have its strongest spectral components at the emission lines for N2, O2 and Ar2, as those are the most common gases in the atmosphere. But that's not the case. Backradiation has its strongest spectral components at the emission lines for H2O, CO2, CH4 and O3, the primary greenhouse gases. even though they're only a trace of the atmosphere. Greenhouse effect, proven.

Let's make it simpler. If the greenhouse effect is wrong, why does the lack of a trace of water vapor make deserts very cold at night? if those trace gases have no effect, the lack of water vapor should have no effect, right?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> It doesn't warm because the long wave IR can't penetrate beyond the skin of the oceans, which are the heat engines of this planet.



Using that train of logic, it would be impossible for sunlight to warm a rock, because sunlight can't penetrate beyond the skin of the rock.



> CO2 does all of the things claimed.  In a perfect lab experiment it can be shown to do all of the claimed things.  However, when you introduce CO2 in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere its effect is simply swamped by the effect caused by water vapor.  Were there no water vapor the CO2 would have a small effect on temp.  But with the water vapor whatever signal it has is completely overwhelmed.



CO2 plugs different spectral windows than water vapor does. Try to get familiar with the basics.


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't warm because the long wave IR can't penetrate beyond the skin of the oceans, which are the heat engines of this planet.
> ...








You're not very bright so I will help you here.  The oceans retain, and regulate heat.  We KNOW this because it is warmer near the cost when it is winter and cooler when it is summer.  Rocks get warmed up very fast by the Sun, but then at night they very rapidly radiate that heat away into the atmosphere.  If you are in a dry area, the desert for instance, you will experience a very warm day followed by a very, very cold night, why is that?  I've given you some clues now trot off to the library and see if you can figure it out.


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.  Little liar, I fully acknowledge the greenhouse effect.
> ...







No, you dumbshit, i state that in the very small amounts that CO2 exists in the EARTH's atmosphere, it is drowned out completely by the effect of water vapor.  Learn to read you halfwit.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Observed?  I think not! Thanks for playing


----------



## mamooth (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> You're not very bright so I will help you here.



Hey, I'm not the one rejecting the law conservation of energy.

According to your theory, the IR energy hits the ocean, and then it simply vanishes.

However, for your groundbreaking new energy-vanishing theory to be accepted, you'll need to expand upon it a bit, and take it beyond the "because I say so!" stage.

Now, according to mainstream theory, the IR energy hits the ocean, and is absorbed by the ocean. That energy input doesn't warm the oceans, but it does slow down the rate of cooling, so it's potato-potahto. The point is that conservation of energy is satisfied, and it matches the observed data.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> No, you dumbshit, i state that in the very small amounts that CO2 exists in the EARTH's atmosphere, it is drowned out completely by the effect of water vapor.  Learn to read you halfwit.



Again, you're ignoring the fact that the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 cover different spectral windows.

If my house has 10 windows and 8 are shut, making the closed windows better insulators (adding more water vapor) won't affect temperature much. Shutting a ninth window (adding CO2) will.

And we're still waiting for your "empirical data" that proves the greenhouse effect is insignificant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Right. They didn't observe the absorbed spectrum. DERP!
You're welcome. Always glad to highlight your idiocy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

Dante said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I hope you're posting with windmill power, planet killer!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Except like providing observed CO2 affects on temperatures, the only highlight is mine. Thanks for playing


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, you dumbshit, i state that in the very small amounts that CO2 exists in the EARTH's atmosphere, it is drowned out completely by the effect of water vapor.  Learn to read you halfwit.
> ...








No, they don't.  CO2 has a tiny bit of the spectrum where water vapor doesn't already take over, but a very small part of the emission spectrum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The question concerned empirical proof that CO2 and methane were greenhouse gases.
Again, glad to show your idiocy.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Wrong again batman. That's the question you wish I asked! Funny


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_you acctually saying co2 and methane are not greenhouse gases ?_

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15200469/

Of course they are.
Only idiots who believe in smart photons and don't understand the laws of thermodynamics say otherwise.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15200389/

_And something never validated.<~~~~~_Ignorant child comment

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15200612/





^Here's the validation
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15204496/


_Observed? I think not!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15209080/
_
It is observed. You don't think_._
DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I asked a fairly simple question. Can you answer or not? ObservedCO2 to temperature. Got something or not batman?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





They will respond to your question like old rocks 1000s of scientist agree that to approve of man made global warming gets you funds.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Mars atmosphere has 95% C02

You screwed up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Please explain further.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Your position is challenged and you keep posting modeled shit not observed. Any millennium eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



*Your position is challenged*

Which position of mine is being challenged?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Its a known fact.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Observed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



You'll have to be more specific.
How does the fact that the atmosphere of Mars is almost 96% CO2 mean that I screwed up?
I screwed up what? Where did I screw it up?

Please explain further. Be specific.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Observed what?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Its not like Venus...which atmosphere is made up of almost 99% C02


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Right. Mars is not like Venus.
Mars and Venus are not like Earth.

So how did I screw up?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What common sense and logic blows your mind?

A titanium space craft don't stand a chance landing on venus for more then a few seconds..which atmosphere is made up of almost 99% C02


Earth has like what .0002 % C02?

Mars atmosphere is made up of 95% C02

And ballons survive in that atmosphere...


Its the density of the C02..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



*What common sense and logic blows your mind?*

No, common sense and logic don't blow my mind.

*Earth has like what .0002 % C02?
*
More like 0.04%
*
Its the density of the C02*

Okay. Back to your original claim.
Where did I screw up?
Be specific.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



wtf?

You said C02 was a green house gas



Then I produced 3 planets...

We could therotically change mars atmosphere for human life..
No way in hell for venus.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



*You said C02 was a green house gas*

Yes, CO2 is a green house gas.

*Then I produced 3 planets...*

Okay.

*We could therotically change mars atmosphere for human life..*

Yeah, that'd be cool.

*No way in hell for venus*

Probably not.

So, are you going to explain where I screwed up?
Sometime this century maybe?


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The density of the atmosphere on Venus puts about 911 times as many CO2 molecules per cubic volume in front of a ray of light as does the atmosphere of Mars.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*Damn. You are just plain stupid. The atmosphere of Mars is a near vacuum.*

Atmosphere of Mars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The *atmosphere of Mars* is the layer of gases surrounding Mars. It is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi; 6.0 mbar), about 0.6% of Earth's mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi; 1.013 bar). It ranges from a low of 30 pascals (0.0044 psi; 0.30 mbar) on Olympus Mons's peak to over 1,155 pascals (0.1675 psi; 11.55 mbar) in the depths of Hellas Planitia. This pressure is well below the Armstrong limit for the unprotected human body. Mars's atmospheric mass of 25 teratonnes compares to Earth's 5148 teratonnes with a scale height of about 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) versus Earth's 7 kilometres (4.3 mi).

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Pressure and thickness*
Main article: Atmospheric pressure
The average atmospheric pressure at sea level is defined by the International Standard Atmosphere as 101325 pascals (760.00 Torr; 14.6959 psi; 760.00 mmHg). This is sometimes referred to as a unit of standard atmospheres (atm). Total atmospheric mass is 5.1480×1018 kg (1.135×1019 lb),[25] about 2.5% less than would be inferred from the average sea level pressure and Earth's area of 51007.2 megahectares, this portion being displaced by Earth's mountainous terrain. Atmospheric pressure is the total weight of the air above unit area at the point where the pressure is measured. Thus air pressure varies with location and weather.

*At sea level, the atmospheric pressure on Earth is about 14 1/2 psi. On Mars, average is about 0.087 psi. That is not far from a hard vacuum. That is why Mars is a very cold planet.*


----------



## jc456 (Sep 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








Exactly.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?

This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You all crack me up, can't produce one observed CO2 affects temperature. Thanks

Maybe you can post that chart again, the one that has nothing to do with observed temperatures


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



You don't understand the absorption spectrum I posted?
Well, that's certainly a shocker!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


And you can't post observed temperatures affected by CO2. So big deal!

And that indeed is derp!


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2016)

jc, do you actually not understand that graphic?  Your response is always that you want temperature data.  You can get some from Arrhenius experiment over a century back.  That graphic is a measure of the energy from solar radiation that CO2 absorbs versus the frequency of that radiation.  It shows that CO2 absorbs a large chunk of infrared light (radiant heat) that is not absorbed by any other gases in the atmosphere (like water vapor, methane and others).  Please tell us whether or not your understand that point.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc, do you actually not understand that graphic?  Your response is always that you want temperature data.  You can get some from Arrhenius experiment over a century back.  That graphic is a measure of the energy from solar radiation that CO2 absorbs versus the frequency of that radiation.  It shows that CO2 absorbs a large chunk of infrared light (radiant heat) that is not absorbed by any other gases in the atmosphere (like water vapor, methane and others).  Please tell us whether or not your understand that point.


I want a post of captured CO2 and the temperature.  Here's the temperature with 280 and here's the temperature with 400.  The added 120 PPM.  How much warmer does 120 PPM of CO2 make the surface from your nonsense belief.  Zippola bubba. Zippola.  It's called observed temperature increase.  Where is it?  Got any?  If you don't, why not bite the bullet and just say you ain't got it?  Why is that so hard for you?  I recall you posting up just the link for IPCC AR5 report.  You know, the one that doesn't have any of that there?  come now s0n, post it up for me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*And you can't post observed temperatures affected by CO2.*

Feel free to ask a warmer for that.
I'm just glad I could get you to understand what "greenhouse gas" means.
Or not.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude, no such thing, just remember that.  It's either 'A' or 'B'.  You can't seem to explain it or prove it. Greenhouses create humidity and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.  I look up at the sky and I don't see a dome.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*dude, no such thing,*

Absorption spectrum still over your head?
Is that because CO2 doesn't absorb IR?
Or it does, but magically only re-emits to space, because...smart photons?

*Greenhouses create humidity*

Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".
*
and that warms the greenhouse with the plastic or glass enclosure.* 

Why would humidity "warm the greenhouse"?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Greenhouses are glass or plastic. They don't "create humidity".*

I'll go with this one:

Greenhouse Humidity Control | Relative Humidity Control | Cropking
"Plants not only contain a large proportion of water, they move large volumes of water through their tissues. Although water is used in photosynthesis, most of the water taken in by a plant is used in transpiration. That is, the water is taken in by the roots and evaporated through the leaves into the air. This process cools the plant. The relative humidity in the air can affect the flow of water through the plant: the higher the relative humidity, the more slowly transpiration occurs. If environmental changes that affect the transpiration rate are rapid enough, plant tissue damage can occur."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Congratulations! Now that you learned that greenhouses don't "create humidity", let's discuss your
ignorance of absorption spectrums and greenhouse gases.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure they do, you just haven't figured out what a greenhouse is supposed to do.  And that is to grow plants. The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity. But hey, you go on thinking it's CO2 and I'll keep laughing at you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
The plants which pump moisture into the air, held in by that plastic and glass creating an air atmosphere of humidity*

Excellent! The greenhouse doesn't "create humidity", it keeps water vapor from escaping!

You're at about the first grade level now. Big improvement!!!

Now, back to your ignorance of greenhouse gases and absorption spectrums.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove.  I like that you admit by posting up zip.

By the way, the structure is the greenhouse, and it holds the water vapor therefore creating the environment for humidity.  Creating big word for you fella.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*yeah that darn greenhouse gases thingy that you can't prove.*

Absorption spectrum over your head? 

*I like that you admit by posting up zip.*

You mean besides the absorption spectrum?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2016)

Where is the thread that the odds of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon are about 1,000,000,000 -1?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not the discussion, greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy.  I'm still waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
greenhouse gas is, and you have no evidence of such a thingy.*

I've already posted evidence of greenhouse gases....not my fault you don't understand absorption.


----------



## IanC (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance.

I gave you a novel way of considering the radiation budget of the atmosphere. It is closely analogous to CO2's role. And yet you ignore the concepts and simply repeat a stupid statement for the nth time that adds little to nothing to the discussion.

Do you disagree that adding a substance that absorbs the 10 micron radiation which currently escapes directly to space would warm the atmosphere?

If you disagree, where would the energy go?

If you agree, why do you think the 15 micron band is any different, except that there actually is a substance in the atmosphere which is absorbing it?

Perhaps you mean to say that although CO2 originally had an effect, the recent increase doesn't cause a meaningful difference. While that may be close to being true, the denial of any effect by CO2 is obviously false.

I don't actually expect an adult response from you. I don't think you have the required intelligence necessary to be curious about how things work.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


convection and conduction based on heat from the sun.  Thermal.  What part of that has you confused?  See, you can't prove any of your radiative bull crap.  You can't.  The more I read, the more I find that line as bullshit.  More and more.  If it were so apparent, it could be captured in an experiment as I've always pointed out.  It, is untested.  CO2 absorbs good for it, put it in a tube and it doesn't get any hotter than the air around it.  It also doesn't heat the air around it.  It also hasn't been tested to hold the heat for any extended time.  NO ONE has completed that experiment.  It simply mumbo jumbo.

hey an experiment for you, put an ice cube out on a table top and time how long it will take to melt from the warmth of the room.  Now put two ice cubes next to each other and see if it takes a longer melt time, or is a shorter melt time, or the same melt time.  Then talk to me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Should be easy for you to post the lab work showing the temperature differential cause by changing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM.

Where is it?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


it's like they don't get it. For folks who act like they're smarter than all get out, can't figure out you and I aren't going to stop asking for that evidence.  You know, the evidence that's so bountiful that there are thousands of pieces of this evidence.  And yet, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Just wow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
convection and conduction based on heat from the sun.*

The Sun heats the Earth by convection and conduction? DERP!


----------



## IanC (Sep 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




The Mythbuster's experiment showed an increase of temperature from a massive increase in CO2. We all laughed at Crick for saying it was representative of the change from 280-400 ppm. 

But it did increase. Are you saying that increase from 280-400 would be very small? I agree. But if you are saying it doesn't exist AT ALL, then I have to disagree with you because it is a logical fallacy. The effect of CO2 is there, even if it is swamped by other factors.

So what do you believe? Little effect or no effect? There is a huge difference between the two choices.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


It's obvious you don't understand it isn't observed. Thanks


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Sun heats the planet, obviously you don't thanks


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It does it holds in moisture creating humidity which i stated, thanks


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It's not my fault you don't understand observed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







This wasn't observed? Did they just make it up?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Sun heats the planet,*

How does it do that? Explain your feelings.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yep


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
It does it holds in moisture*

Yes it does. So why is it warmer in a greenhouse?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why would they do that? How do you know it's not from observations?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope, not until you post something observed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Besides the absorption spectrum that you don't understand?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It's not observed with temperatures that I requested. I can't help your lack of knowledge


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That would depend entirely on whether or not you injected enough of the so called GHG into the atmosphere to substantially alter its weight...the greenhouse hypothesis is a failure...let me ask again...how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc, do you actually not understand that graphic?  Your response is always that you want temperature data.  You can get some from Arrhenius experiment over a century back.  That graphic is a measure of the energy from solar radiation that CO2 absorbs versus the frequency of that radiation.  It shows that CO2 absorbs a large chunk of infrared light (radiant heat) that is not absorbed by any other gases in the atmosphere (like water vapor, methane and others).  Please tell us whether or not your understand that point.



Can you show any evidence that absorption and emission equals warming?...no..of course you can't because none exists...you just believe.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..



And I have always been bewildered by the pride you take in your belief in the magical properties of so called greenhouse gasses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..
> ...



*your belief in the magical properties*

Is it the smart photons that throw you off?


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I must admit that I am bewildered by the pride you take in wallowing in ignorance..
> ...




Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation. Measurements confirm it.

Science predicts the quantity and quality of surface radiation that will be absorbed by the atmosphere. Measurements confirm it.

If all the 400w/m2 radiated from the surface escaped directly to space it would quickly and dramatically cool. 

You say gas laws estimate temperature gradients and I agree somewhat. What you don't seem to grasp is that atmosphere heights and temperatures are connected to energy inputs and outputs plus the amount of stored energy. More total energy equals higher and warmer. Less total energy equals lower and cooler. Measurements show that the atmosphere fluffs up during daylight and relaxes again during nighttime.


----------



## polarbear (Sep 7, 2016)

IanC said:


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


IanC,  measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.
Well according to the NOAA data it has not :




_Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window.  Last month shown: October 2010. Last diagram update: 13 February 2011._


_  Click here  to download the entire series of  NOAA monthly OLR-values since June 1974. Choose first 'OLR' then 'Select field'._


----------



## mamooth (Sep 7, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC,  measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.



No, that's wrong.

Total OLR should be rather stable, being energy in and energy out have to equalize. It's only in the GHG bands that OLR should be down. In the other bands, it will go up a bit to compensate.

Now, there will be a very small decrease as, bout 0.6 W/M^2, but that's too small to show up in the very noisy plot you showed, and most of it happened before the start of the plot.


----------



## polarbear (Sep 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC,  measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.
> ...


Oh really according to your favorite site "skeptical science" the temperature increase did not happen before the start of the plot as you put it but smack during the time of the NOAA ORL graph:
Global Warming in a Nutshell
*Global Warming in a Nutshell*





Take a look what it shows for 1980 to 2000+


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2016)

polarbear said:


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




Polar Bear - I think you forgot to read the caption,  even though you took the time to post it. That graph is for the atmospheric window not CO2 specific bands.

The pre-1980 portion looks to be more uncertain because there is a continuity break where the next satellite did not overlap with the one it was replacing. 

The graph shows about 2w increase from 1980-2010. Temps rose about 1/2C. S-B says 5 or 6w increase for 1C if I remember correctly. The AW occupies the fat part of the curve. So I don't see how this graph proves or disproves anything. What were you expecting me to see?


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2016)

is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?

it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2016)

The CERES Calculated Surface Datasets

Willis does a check on CERES calculations using TAO data.

(dont tell jc and SSDD, it got downwelling longwave measurements in it)


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2016)

Willis pokes holes in the IPCC explanation for the Pause. and fleshes out many of the ideas I have posted here on why runaway warming cannot happen.

CO2 and CERES


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2016)

IanC said:


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



And CO2 plays precisely no part in any of it....it isn't a coincidence that the US standard atmosphere predicts the temperature here without greenhouse gasses or magical fudge factors.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC,  measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.
> ...



What happened old woman...finally got through to you that OLR was in fact, not decreasing as you have claimed for years and now have invented some other story?  Go ahead and deny that you claimed that OLR was decreasing so I can bring forward some posts from you saying that it was to show what a liar you are.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



IF, and i reiterate IF, that gas was the only exit path for that bandwidth of energy I would most likely agree with you but like CO2 water is another path to escape. in simple terms water, in its various forms kills the hypothesis dead in our atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Where is the thread that the odds of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon are about 1,000,000,000 -1?


distribution is another problem they fail to understand.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> What happened old woman..



Will you please stop hitting on me? You know I'm a guy. It's creepy as hell when some old predatory queer fag-stalks me.



> finally got through to you that OLR was in fact, not decreasing as you have claimed for years and now have invented some other story?



Why are you lying about someone saying OLR should have been steadily decreasing for years?



> Go ahead and deny that you claimed that OLR was decreasing so I can bring forward some posts from you saying that it was to show what a liar you are.



Please proceed. I'm calling your bluff, liar. This should be funny, watching you now twist and squirm.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Please proceed. I'm calling your bluff, liar. This should be funny, watching you now twist and squirm.



One doesn't even have to break a sweat to prove that you are a liar old woman...

from:    http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/13572255/



> Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing....



from :  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9248420/



> According to your theory, OLR should be increasing, but we see it decreasing.[/quote\
> 
> from:   http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/13726355/
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 8, 2016)

Yep, I got lazy a few times, and left out "in the GHG bands." You know, like I specifically said in this post, and in many others.

By not mentioning that, you deliberately lied by omisson. It's what you constantly do on every topic. All the facts say you're a cult kook, and you're too much of mewling wuss to admit it, so you just leave out every fact that shoots down your dishonest kook world view.

So see you around, my sweet little cultist loser. After all, we both know I'm going to enjoy humiliating your dishonest candy ass for years to come, little liar.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> All the facts say you're a cult kook




LOL!!!

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


90% of Earth ice gains at least 80 billion tons of ice every year - who is the "kook" now???


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?
> 
> it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.



That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent.  In short...it is bullshit.  There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?
> ...




the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.

not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?

pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.

I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

IanC said:


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


me personally, I like the back radiation one the best.  you know that something that has never been proven exists.

I will say however, that if the sun is in a minimum cycle, then I would expect that OLR would decrease some.  Cause I would expect the Incoming radiation to be down.  so not unexpected in my world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*
me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.




*


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2016)

I suspect, however, a fair number of the readership here will not discern your actual message.


----------



## IanC (Sep 10, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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









as you can see by the diagram, there is little absorption by water in the atmospheric window. if you closed it down with a GHG that did absorb then very litlle radiation would escape directly.

if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere then there would be another chunk of radiation that escaped directly, obviously changing the steady state surface temperature as cooling.

I really dont know how you guys can convince yourselves that CO2 has no influence on surface temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2016)

Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.




absorbs and emits? then the amount of radiation going into the atmosphere from the surface then comes out the other side. right?

hahahaha. of course it doesnt. explain!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.



*CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...*

Smart photons!


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.
> ...



The effect of absorption and emission is zero and every observation ever made supports that fact.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Smart photons




What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Smart photons
> ...



High enough to violate the laws of physics.
SSDD can explain further.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist.  D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions?  Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?  Seems you have it covered there.  But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis.  D'OH squared.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Going from cooler to warmer, as you propose, clearly violates Newton's Second Law


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
> 
> ...



How about we take all the money from the Space program (NASA) and use it to fix the planet we have now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*still isn't observed,*

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

*Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?* 

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2016)

Bonzi said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
> ...


Quite the dumbest thing posted in quite a while. It is through the space program that we can see what is happening here on Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...



Photons don't measure the temperature of their surroundings before "deciding to be emitted".
That would violate the laws of physics.


----------



## Bonzi (Sep 12, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Perhaps, but there is a lot of time spent looking at other planets.... maybe just cut back


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...







Slower.  Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall?  In the desert when the Sun go's down the temp plummets.  What is lacking?  Humidity.  The humidity is very low, and there is no large body of water to mitigate the cooling.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If what you say is true, then photons have an only a 50% probability of radiating away from the Sun.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 12, 2016)

Bonzi said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



We can cut out the funding for Global Warming "Research" since they only use that money to pay people for "Consensus" and Internet outreach


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up. 

And, that is not observed back radiation.  LOL.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

westwall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall?*

Very quick loss of IR from the surface of the Moon when the Sun sets.
What is the difference?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


pressure system, oceans, convection, did I say oceans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



_The high-energy __photons__ (__gamma rays__) released in fusion reactions take indirect paths to the Sun's surface. According to current models, random scattering from free electrons in the solar radiative zone (the zone within 75% of the solar radius, where heat transfer is by radiation) sets the photon diffusion time scale (or "photon travel time") from the core to the outer edge of the radiative zone at about 170,000 years. From there they cross into the convective zone (the remaining 25% of distance from the Sun's center), where the dominant transfer process changes to convection, and the speed at which heat moves outward becomes considerably faster.__[12]_

Solar core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up.*

When a photon is absorbed by CO2,  the CO2 heats up.

*And, that is not observed back radiation.*

The measured incoming long wave radiation after the sun sets is observed.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*The measured incoming long wave radiation after the sun sets is observed*
no it isn't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Without an atmosphere, would an ocean on the Moon slow the cooling of the surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Your inability to read the chart doesn't change the facts.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


If there was an ocean, there'd be stored heat, evaporation, clouds forming rain, all sorts of weather.  I don't know of any need for CO2.  You still haven't produced that observed piece yet.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...







Without an atmosphere the ocean would boil off into space.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What point were you trying to make?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Atmosphere can significantly slow the escape of photons to space.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so again, where's the earth hot spot in the atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Ask someone who gives a shit.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I know you don't.  Cause you can't back up your math chart with empirical evidence.  You have two positions and neither can be proved.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The chart was based on instrument measurements of downward long wave radiation.

I'm sorry you only understand every third word.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What does that have to do with your "photons move randomly without regard to hear differential" theory


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Photons released in the Sun's core, moving randomly, take over 170,000 years to get to the radiative zone of the Sun.

Just as photons emitted by the Earth's surface, that would take a tiny fraction of a second to reach space, absent a greenhouse gas to absorb and re-emit them, take much longer to finally leave the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure it was.  How?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Radiometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Dude, you can post that until hell freezes over. It can't capture downwelling signals, it measures heat and not IR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
it measures heat and not IR*

What's the difference?
Why can't it measure IR?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Cause it doesn't measure IR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Cause it doesn't measure IR*

*Radiometer, *_ instrument for detecting or measuring radiant energy. The term is applied in particular to devices used to measure infrared radiation._

radiometer | instrument

DERP!


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When a photon is absorbed by CO2,  the CO2 heats up.



By how much...what temperature does it reach...and how hot would it have to get in order to effect the temperature of the 900,600 other molecules that happen to be surrounding it?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Atmosphere can significantly slow the escape of photons to space.



So theoretical photons travel at less than the speed of light in the atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The chart was based on instrument measurements of downward long wave radiation.



The instrument doing the measuring was cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...therefore it wasn't measuring back radiation...it was just measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Photons released in the Sun's core, moving randomly, take over 170,000 years to get to the radiative zone of the Sun.



Really?...According to Ian, photons cease to exist when they contact matter and impart their energy to it...how might a photon move around in the interior of the sun for 170,000 years and not contact any matter



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Just as photons emitted by the Earth's surface, that would take a tiny fraction of a second to reach space, absent a greenhouse gas to absorb and re-emit them, take much longer to finally leave the atmosphere.



They take just a tiny fraction of a second with an atmosphere as well...the atmosphere does not slow the theoretical particles to a speed less than the speed of light.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When a photon is absorbed by CO2,  the CO2 heats up.
> ...



*By how much...what temperature does it reach*

That would depend on the temperature it started at and the energy of the photon it absorbed.
Do we agree that it would "heat up"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Atmosphere can significantly slow the escape of photons to space.
> ...



Why would you feel that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The chart was based on instrument measurements of downward long wave radiation.
> ...



*The instrument doing the measuring was cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...therefore it wasn't measuring back radiation*

What is your definition of back radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Photons released in the Sun's core, moving randomly, take over 170,000 years to get to the radiative zone of the Sun.
> ...



*According to Ian, photons cease to exist when they contact matter and impart their energy to it*

Sounds good to me. Do you disagree?


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When a photon is absorbed by CO2,  the CO2 heats up.
> ...




The atmosphere is a huge reservoir of stored energy. Part of it in kinetic energy, the speed of the molecules; part of it in potential energy, mostly the height of the molecule in the gravity field.

Molecular collisions are constantly redistributing the amount potential/kinetic energy for any one molecule.

Temperature is the measurement of average kinetic speed of the molecules in any one specific volume. Temperature does not measure total energy just the speed.

A CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon increases its potential energy (ignoring the tiny exchange of momentum which is the basis of entropy). This potential energy is added to total energy which is then redistributed via molecular collisions, on average partially to kinetic energy AKA temperature.

SSDD thinks photons measure the temperature of their destination. But that is only a portion of the total energy. How can the photon derive the total energy to make sure it is only going from high energy to lower energy? A slower moving molecule higher up in the gravity field can easily have more total energy than a faster moving but lower one. SSDD is wacko.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

IanC said:


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



So you're also in the "Photons move at random without regard to heat differential" school of physics.  Interesting


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



How do you think photons move?


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




Photons are emitted according to the internal conditions of the emitters. Not outside influences.

Is there any other schools of physics? Link me up.


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


A slight clarification is in order. Photons can be refracted , reflected, etc. They don't have to be absorbed. But any changes to the quality of photons only happens in the presence of matter. Photons have no influence on other photons in the absence of matter.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you're also in the "Photons move at random without regard to heat differential" school of physics.  Interesting



He is quite sure that the whole "neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm" is just a loosely held guideline and not a rigid law of nature....which is what one must believe if one is to buy into the warmist religion.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> A slight clarification is in order. Photons can be refracted , reflected, etc. They don't have to be absorbed. But any changes to the quality of photons only happens in the presence of matter. Photons have no influence on other photons in the absence of matter.



So let me ask you, since you seem to be on a first name basis with these theoretical particles....do you believe as toddster states that a photon can rattle around in the sun for 170,000 years before finally escaping the sun?


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > A slight clarification is in order. Photons can be refracted , reflected, etc. They don't have to be absorbed. But any changes to the quality of photons only happens in the presence of matter. Photons have no influence on other photons in the absence of matter.
> ...




I was under the impression that it was about a million years from reading Gamow as a kid. Presumably there have been refinements since then.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

Not an answer...but then, you have really taken to the shuck and jive wholeheartedly lately...so no actual answer was really expected.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



From warmer to cool.  With respect to much in physics, we're living in Flatlands. There's a lot that happens around us that we don't understand, don't have access to and just assume 97% of it is made of forces we invented to get the numbers to work.


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Not an answer...but then, you have really taken to the shuck and jive wholeheartedly lately...so no actual answer was really expected.




Not an answer? I said 1,000,000 years instead of 170,000 years. But based on old calculations. Still in the same order of magnitude. 

Are you saying less? Or more? Based on what exactly? Gut feelings?


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So you're also in the "Photons move at random without regard to heat differential" school of physics.  Interesting
> ...




Statistical thermodynamics actually explain why the macro features of the SLOT work. Individual atomic interactions are not governed by the Laws of the macroscopic world, the macroscopic Laws are determined by the statistical mechanics of atomic events. There is no mechanism that controls atomic events other than the internal conditions of the individual particles involved.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*From warmer to cool.*

Any backup for your claim?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes. About 50% of the time, the pot of water on the stove cools down the flames that were trying to make it boil, it's annoying  but it's in line with your laws of physics


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*Yes.
*
Excellent. Can't wait for you to post some.
*
*


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Bwahahaah you guys are fucking metaphysics RETARDS!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's funny, coming from the guy who thinks pumped-storage is being used in Iowa wind power systems.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



There are 3 electrical grids in the US and all of them are interconnected.

When Wind energy generation is greater than load to its customers they transmit energy to pumped storage.  The pumped storage isn't *IN IOWA*.

Holocaust Deniers...you guys are so stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



Wind energy in Iowa powers pumped storage somewhere else in the country?

Tell me more!!!

A link would be nice, fucktard.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Holy fuck, are you really this stupid?

Please learn!

Pumped storage provides grid reliability even with net generation loss - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



I know what pumped storage means, moron.

Now prove your claim about wind power in Iowa and the excess being delivered to pumped storage.

Unless you were lying?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'm not sure what you don't understand about Pumped Storage and the Grid.

Do you think energy produced in Iowa cannot be transmitted to pumped storage facilities in West Virginia?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


_
I don't think you understand how wind energy works. Any excess is just delivered to pumped-storage._

_I know more details than you about the Electric Grid.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15271151/
_
Great!
Show us where any excess wind energy generated in Iowa is delivered to pumped-storage....anywhere.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Show us where ANY excess energy is delivered to pumped storage?  It's not easily researched or even public information.

Do you deny pumped storage exists?  Do you deny Wind farms are on the electric grid?

Is there some reason wind energy can't be delivered to pumped storage?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


*
Show us where ANY excess energy is delivered to pumped storage?* 

No. Back up your fucking claim.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


BWAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH....

So you *Do deny that pumped storage exists and is used nationally.*

Wow you're a fucking retard.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



I know you're a communications major, or something equally useless, but try to follow along.

On a thread about the wonderfulness of wind power in Iowa, you said any excess power is
delivered to pumped storage.

You've been unable to show there is pumped storage available in Iowa, so please,  show where any pumped storage facility, anywhere in the fucking world, gets this magical excess wind power from Iowa.

Or admit you lied.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No? the cold water doesn't make the flames cooler? Are you sure?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Excess power is DELIVERED to Pumped Storage.  That's the purpose of Pumped Storage.  The US doesn't break down or release information about the exact deliveries that's corporate information between different corporations.

There doesn't need to be pumped storage in Iowa, the US is 3 grids, all interconnected.

Iowa provides energy to New York and vice versa!

You bozo.

You're super super stupid.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I don't even understand your idiotic statement.  Are you saying fire that is near cold water makes fire colder?  But only 50% of the time?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

Pumped storage stores excess heat...amiright


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Have you been following Todd's and Ian's "heat flows from cool to warm" physics?


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


How does heat flow from cool to warm?  Are you referring to an endothermic reaction maybe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Photons. We're talking about photons.

If you have a source that shows photons somehow measure temperatures of surrounding matter, before they decide which direction to travel, I'll be happy to take a look.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Excess power is DELIVERED to Pumped Storage.  That's the purpose of Pumped Storage.  The US doesn't break down or release information about the exact deliveries that's corporate information between different corporations.
> 
> There doesn't need to be pumped storage in Iowa, the US is 3 grids, all interconnected.
> 
> ...



So you can't prove that excess wind power in Iowa is delivered to pumped storage.

I'm shocked. Truly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



He's a warmer. I don't think he'll be helping you prove SSDD's idiocy.


----------



## Brambo (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Excess power is DELIVERED to Pumped Storage.  That's the purpose of Pumped Storage.  The US doesn't break down or release information about the exact deliveries that's corporate information between different corporations.
> ...


You just denied that ANY energy is diverted to pumped storage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...



Nope. I denied that any excess wind power in Iowa just, automatically, gets sent to pumped storage.
Maybe in West Virginia? LOL!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...


No. The whole heat transference from warm to cold is only based upon statistics, there's no law compelling heat to move from warm to cold. Photons aren't smart enough to distinguish between hot and cold.


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Have you been following Todd's and Ian's "heat flows from cool to warm" physics?




Nope. I doubt Todd said that and I know I never did. Radiation is not 'heat'. 

What we have said is that every object above zero degrees Kelvin radiates, whether it is next to something else that is warmer, cooler or the same temperature. Standard physics.

Where SSDD, and others apparently, make their mistake is by applying properties of matter to photons ( the carrier of energy in radiation). Air coming out of a tire, or electrons in a wire move in the direction of the overwhelming force because matter cannot occupy the same space that is already occupied. Photons have no such restrictions. Radiation flows in both directions and the energy does not 'cancel out' somewhere between emission and absorption.

I feel sorry for those who cannot grasp this concept. It may not be simple but it's not that complicated either.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not an answer...but then, you have really taken to the shuck and jive wholeheartedly lately...so no actual answer was really expected.
> ...



So square that with your belief that when photons contact matter that they impart their energy to it and cease to exist...or do you want to claim that photons are refracted and reflected within the sun for a million years?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 13, 2016)

Brambo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Brambo said:
> ...




Bwahahaha where tard?

Tell us more tell us more


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Maybe Ellen gets pumped storage in California from Iowa on her 3 D battery that power her vibrator?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> Nope. I doubt Todd said that and I know I never did. Radiation is not 'heat'.



You sure about that?...

Radiation and Your Environment: A Guide to Low-Level Radiation for Citizens of Florida - Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute

Clip:  Light is radiation we can see; heat is radiation we can feel

At this point, Ian, there is apparently a dispute as to whether heat is a form of energy in and of itself, or whether heat is just what happens when energy moves from one place to another....in any case, at this point, you can't make the claim that radiation is not heat with anything like actual credibility .

And of course heat is radiation....ever hear of whole heating systems called radiant?....ever wonder why?


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




Fair enough point. It is not the same photon. It has been recycled countless times. The pulse of energy produced by a single carbon cycle in the Sun's core takes a few hundred thousand years to make the journey from core to surface.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> Fair enough point. It is not the same photon. It has been recycled countless times. The pulse of energy produced by a single carbon cycle in the Sun's core takes a few hundred thousand years to make the journey from core to surface.



So now these theoretical particles get recycled?


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. I doubt Todd said that and I know I never did. Radiation is not 'heat'.
> ...




Nope. Taking a context specific inferred definition of heat is not relevant here.


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough point. It is not the same photon. It has been recycled countless times. The pulse of energy produced by a single carbon cycle in the Sun's core takes a few hundred thousand years to make the journey from core to surface.
> ...



Hmmmm. Nitpicking terms now? Absorbed and re-emited, refracted, reflected, any or all of the above.

I am not an expert on super high energy plasma cores in the center's of stars. Are you?

I find it amazing that the actual experts were confident enough in their calculations to predict a massless, neutrally charged particle that didn't react with matter, which was carrying some of the energy away.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 14, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Since these theoretical particles exist at every point along their line of travel from point A to point B...there are no outside influences....the destination is an internal known influence...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 14, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Got any observational evidence to support that claim?.....of course not...but you believe it despite every observation ever made.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 14, 2016)

IanC said:


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



That sounds like duck speak for ignoring anything that doesn't mesh with what you believe...if heat is, in fact, a form of energy it sort of blows your whole line of "reasoning"


----------



## SSDD (Sep 14, 2016)

IanC said:


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



So the fact is that a theoretical photon takes only the smallest portion of a second to escape the sun because it is, in fact, emitted from the surface...and all that million year crap is just that...crap...yet another belief that is ultimately just bullshit.


----------



## IanC (Sep 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




Nope, not at all. You continue to confuse nonspecific terms and use definitions for one type of event as proof of a different type of event.

For example radiant heating. It operates mostly by conduction and convection. Perhaps a better term would be passive heating when compared to the more typical forced air systems.


----------



## IanC (Sep 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




You claim to believe in fundamental laws yet you are happy to drop some laws if it is convenient to you. 

Entropy destroys your case. 

You agree that all things radiate according to their temperature but then change your story if something else is nearby. Apparently you think objects can throttle down their emission of radiation so that the cooler object stops radiating completely AND the warmer object only radiates enough to match what would have been the net radiation if the flow in both directions was added up. You give no mechanism for how  specific particles are chosen not to radiate. Or how their internal conditions are then changed to stop the emission. It's a miracle supposedly.

But to me entropy is the key. Two objects of the same temperature would stop radiating at each other according to you. But they would still be radiating on their other sides. Momentum is imparted when a photon is emitted. With no radiation being allowed between the two equal temperature object but radiation allowed in the other directions, then the net imparted momentum would push the objects together. But that is against the law of entropy!

So we are left with two choices. A world with some sort of deity that keeps track of every particle in the universe, making external choices of which particles can radiate and then altering the internal conditions, while ignoring entropy. Or we can have all objects radiate according to their temperature all the time with no intervention necessary and no violation of entropy laws.

I know my choice.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> .
> 
> You agree that all things radiate according to their temperature but then change your story if something else is nearby..



I am afraid that it is you who picks and chooses what you believe ian....I agree that all things radiate according to their temperature when they are in a vacuum...just as the SB equation states...






But when those objects are not in a vacuum, they radiate according to the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings...again...just as the SB equation states...






One way gross energy flow...nothing within that equation suggests two way net energy movement....it would look entirely different if it did.


----------



## IanC (Sep 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




Same old bullshit. SSDD doesn't believe in mathematics either.

P = kT^4 - kT(cool)^4 . 

If I remember correctly someone even dredged up the original S-B paper to show that was the actual form of the equation that they presented.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

The Distributive Property was fabricated to keep middle school math teachers rich.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Distributive Property was fabricated to keep middle school math teachers rich.




Since the distributive property is employed to simplify an equation...tell me why one would apply the distributive property to an equation that has already been simplified....it is just bad math....and in physics, when one employs a property to an equation describing a physical reality...one must justify the use of the equation just as each component of the equation must be justified...so lets see some justification for applying the distributive property to an equation that has been simplified already.

You claim to be an engineer...and yet you apparently don't know this....its pretty basic stuff...what's the problem?

idiot...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The graphs own information says "Total Scattering and Absorption". Scattering in all directions is not "back radiation". It is the slowing of release through the atmosphere which the water cycle deals with very easily and why the earth has not warmed.  It is also why your so called back radiation can not be measured, it is theorized.

That graph is of band pass measured at TOA.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Scattering in all directions is not "back radiation".
*
Where do you see the word scattering?

*Scattering in all directions is not "back radiation".*

Define back radiation.

*It is the slowing of release through the atmosphere*

How is release slowed?

* It is also why your so called back radiation can not be measured*

It is measured, as shown in the graph.

*That graph is of band pass measured at TOA*

How did they measure radiation over that spot for a 24 hour period?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The Distributive Property was fabricated to keep middle school math teachers rich.
> ...


*
tell me why one would apply the distributive property to an equation that has already been simplified.*

In this case, you could use it to find the energy emitted by both the warmer and the cooler object, instead of simply looking at the net gained by the cooler and lost by the warmer.

Because in the real world, all matter above 0K emits all the time, in all directions.
Photons really don't measure the temperature of their surroundings before deciding if they'll be emitted and in which direction. They really aren't smart.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

Pathetic SID.  Just because you're 7th grade algebra teacher wouldn't like it, doesn't make it FALSE.

Fucking idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Pathetic SID.  Just because you're 7th grade algebra teacher wouldn't like it, doesn't make it FALSE.
> 
> Fucking idiot.




Whats the matter skid mark...were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....or were you unaware that in physics, if one is going to apply an algebraic property to an equation, one must justify the use of the property?....or perhaps both....

The equation describes a physical process....altering the equation alters the physical process being described....unless you can prove that the process being described in the original equation is incorrect, the altered equation is incorrect...if you can prove that the original equation is incorrect...then you need to have the physical law changed to reflect the altered description of the physical process....and collect your nobel afterwards....

guess what....not happening.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Pathetic SID.  Just because you're 7th grade algebra teacher wouldn't like it, doesn't make it FALSE.
> ...



*were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....*

Do you have another example where applying the distributive property gives you an incorrect answer?
Or is this one the only?

*The equation describes a physical process....*

All matter above 0K emits all the time, in all directions.
Unless you have any proof that it doesn't? Do you?

Of course not.

*if you can prove that the original equation is incorrect...*

Both equations are correct.

*then you need to have the physical law changed to reflect the altered description of the physical process....and collect your nobel afterwards....*

If you can prove matter doesn't emit toward warmer matter....you could collect a Nobel.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....*
> 
> Do you have another example where applying the distributive property gives you an incorrect answer?
> Or is this one the only?



The equation is not just looking for a correct answer...it is describing a physical process...one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> All matter above 0K emits all the time, in all directions.
> Unless you have any proof that it doesn't? Do you?



Sure..in a vacuum.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *if you can prove that the original equation is incorrect...*
> 
> Both equations are correct.



No..only one describes the physical law.. the other is altered without justification.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you can prove matter doesn't emit toward warmer matter....you could collect a Nobel.



It has been proven over and over....place an instrument to measure radiation between a cool object and a cooler background and you can measure radiation coming off the object...warm the background to a temperature warmer than the object and you will no longer be able to detect radiation coming from the object unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than than of the object...how much more proof do you need?

All so called measurements of back radiation are made with instruments that are cooler than the object that is radiating.


----------



## Crick (Sep 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The equation is not just looking for a correct answer...it is describing a physical process...one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.



What alteration?  The Distributive Property says that both versions are identical.  They both give the exact same equality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *were you unaware that applying the distributive property to complicate an already simplified equation is just bad math?....*
> ...


*
one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.*

Looking at the equation from each individual object doesn't alter anything.

*Sure..in a vacuum.*

I see, in an atmosphere, photons gain intelligence.
What do they do when they're going from an atmosphere to a vacuum?

*warm the background to a temperature warmer than the object and you will no longer be able to detect radiation coming from the object unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than than of the object*

The radiation is still coming from the object, but you can't detect it. Excellent!
If you had just admitted your original claim, the radiation ceases, was wrong, I wouldn't have continued mocking you all this time.

Thanks for finally admitting your error.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The equation is not just looking for a correct answer...it is describing a physical process...one doesn't alter the equation without justifying the alteration.
> ...




No..the distributive property says that the answer to each equation will be the same...the physical reality was described by SB as follows:






   Not as   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...  While they both arrive at the same answer, the physical processes they describe are quite different.  The first...as notated by SB describes a one way gross flow of energy...the bastardized version describes a two way net flow of energy.....not at all the same thing.  For someone who claims to be an engineer, you sure don't seem to be able to grasp even the basics.  These equations describe a thing that is actually happening...it is a description of a process...if you alter the equation..you alter the process and that matters...even if it doesn't alter the value of P.  It is like saying that you won the lottery and then lost the money vs you won the lottery, funded 3 educational grants in perpetuity and made bad investments and squandered the rest on liquor and cheap women...in either, you end up with no money but the processes by which you ended up with no money are quite different....the zero you end up with is only the final answer and it is the same either way, but the equations by which you ended up at zero are quite different.

The second version of the equation..the bastardized version not formulated by SB describes a different process...if you were an engineer, rather than someone who had just managed to pass a couple of algebra courses, you would know this....since you don't, you once again demonstrate that your claims of being an engineer are just more lies on your part.


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2016)

"The answer to each equation"?  You missed something back in 8th grade Algebra.  An EQUATION, as the name strongly implies, is a statement that two expressions are equal, equivalent, of identical value and properties.  The distributive law tells us that an expression of the form a(b+c) is equivalent to ab+bc.  Thus the two versions of the S-B equation are identical.  There is no change.

That you want to see actual physical processes in the syntax of an equation is, again, your problem. Seriously.  Since the two expressions are identical, any analog they possess with a physical process is unchanged by the variation.  It would be EXACTLY as proper to say one describes the physical process as the other.

The problem here, as it has been all along, is your insane interpretation of radiative heat transfer.  And it is insane.  All matter radiates all the time in a spectrum dependent on its temperature and no matter throttles its emissions dependent on its surroundings.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> "The answer to each equation"?  You missed something back in 8th grade Algebra.  An EQUATION, as the name strongly implies, is a statement that two expressions are equal, equivalent, of identical value and properties.  The distributive law tells us that an expression of the form a(b+c) is equivalent to ab+bc.  Thus the two versions of the S-B equation are identical.  There is no change.



Sorry you apparently didn't get past the 8th grade...back then...you simply solved the equation to get an answer....out in the larger world...in physics especially, equations represent things that are actually happening in the world...and if you don't accurately represent what is happening, the answer is meaningless...the SB equations say that a thing is happening...that thing is gross one way energy transfer...the bastardized equations say a different thing...that being two way net energy transfer...one is accurate, physical, and as stated by the physical law...the other is not.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2016)

How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > "The answer to each equation"?  You missed something back in 8th grade Algebra.  An EQUATION, as the name strongly implies, is a statement that two expressions are equal, equivalent, of identical value and properties.  The distributive law tells us that an expression of the form a(b+c) is equivalent to ab+bc.  Thus the two versions of the S-B equation are identical.  There is no change.
> ...



*that thing is gross one way energy transfer...
*
There's your error.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?



The Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the power radiated by a body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

That means all matter above 0K emits. For SSDD's stupid theory to work, matter would have to "look" to see if matter near it (or even light years away) is warmer or cooler, before deciding it _wouldn't _emit toward that warmer matter. That's what requires a smart photon, or a smart emitter. It doesn't work that way. He's wrong.

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


 so does the cold photon radiate the same as the warm photon?

And is there a temperature differential between the two?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Photons aren't warm or cold.
Ask a question that makes sense, if you'd like an answer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?
> ...



You're describing a Bizzaroland Universe where "matter" leaving the Sun and heading for Earth is just as likely to change direction and head back toward the hotter Sun it left as it is to head from the cooler Earth


----------



## jc456 (Sep 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Frank, i found this article on WUWT:

The Fraud of the AGHE Part 12:  How to Lie with Math

*"Math is True but Words can Lie*
If any of you have been reading the material on Illuminism, you will know that mathematics is the basis of reality, and that this is probably something I agree with given my favorable review and presentation of that material.

However, while mathematics is a Formal language, English and any other verbal language are Natural spoken languages.  And with human languages, the inevitable result is that you can lie with them.  Because mathematics can be complicated and it is readily apparent that even people with PhD’s in science have a hard time understanding it, it is therefore possible to present a totally valid mathematical equation and at the same time totally _misrepresent_ what the equation means.  This is, of course, the purview of sophistry and those who produce it.

What I will do here is give you some simple math, and the correct words and correct descriptions to understand it, and then contrast that to some mental garbage that has instead been presented in order to lie about what the math actually means from some examples that I’ve been personally witness to."

The comments again are truly special.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Photons, not matter.
Why would a photon change direction?

Tell me what basic law you think is violated when matter emits in all directions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Greenhouse effect believers who apparently do not understand physics*

Most of the believers here understand physics, you have the problem.

*although they can do some simple math, have stated that if you *_*fix*_* Q in that equation,*

Why would you "fix Q"?

*and then increase Tcold, then Thot has to increase “in order to keep Q constant”,*

When the colder object warms (and the warmer object cools),  the net rate of heat transfer slows.

*and “therefore cold heats up hot”.*

Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.


----------



## IanC (Sep 28, 2016)

sorry jc, your link is full of....sophistry.

he states the warm wall is "refer to a hot wall with constant temperature". that means an outside source is controlling the temperature. it is somewhat ridiculous to state later in his calculations that " increasing temperature of the cold wall_ does not affect_ the temperature of the independent hot wall".

the second part of the article refers to one of his simplified models-






I am not concerned with his choice of solar input, or the ridiculously foreshortened time to equilibrium BUT it does illustrate an important point which many here dont seem to be able to grasp.

the left half of the graph shows how the object is warming up from solar input. all of the solar input is being used to warm the surface with little energy being released to space. the atmosphere would start to evaporate from the frozen crust on the surface. it would take millions of days or years just to get the atmosphere aloft again, absorbing and retaining most of the solar input. then comes the next big step; warming the ice until it starts to melt. this would take even longer, not just because of the latent heat involved but because by this time a fair amount of the solar input is also being radiated away to space. once the oceans are melted, currents would form to transport heat towards the poles. the amount of energy stored by the atmosphere, oceans, and their currents is totally staggering. 

the stored energy in the atmosphere is the source of the 'backradiation'. any atmosphere will return part of its energy to the surface. an atmosphere with greenhouse gases will return more because it is more efficient at absorbing energy from the surface and hence is warmer.

the actual energy returned as 'backradiation' is both highly diffuse and in the low energy IR band of wavelengths. because of this it cannot perform 'work' on the warmer and more highly ordered surface. sunshine is both highly ordered and of a higher energy density wavelength so it can do work on the surface, like increasing the temperature or causing evaporation, etc.

'backradiation' does not 'warm' the surface directly, it passively changes the conditions whereby solar insulation can effect a greater change of temperature with the same amount of energy input. surface temperature is a function of energy input minus energy output. the temperature goes up by either increasing the input or decreasing the output.

****important point****. the energy 'backradiated' by the atmosphere is happening at the same time as the surface is radiating. radiation does not 'cancel out' somewhere between emission and absorption. the net exchange is the combination of gross flows in either direction.






  is the equation for net exchange






   is the equation showing gross exchanges in both directions, which of course gives exactly the same result as the first equation.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?




According to these wack jobs...the particle or object must be able to read, and understand the law in order to obey it....a rock must be able to grasp that it must fall when dropped in order to do so...it must be explained to a ball that it must roll down the hill instead of up the hill...and on and on..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> is the equation for net exchange



Sorry Ian...that equation...the equation written by SB is describing a gross..one way energy exchange...



IanC said:


> is the equation showing gross exchanges in both directions, which of course gives exactly the same result as the first equation.



That equation...not written by SB describes a two way...net energy exchange...a phenomenon never observed or measured....and the two equations describe different physicality's that happen to have the same result....one is confirmed by every observation and measurement ever made...the other only exists within unobservable, untestable, unprovable mathematical models.


----------



## Crick (Sep 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?
> ...



The dropped rock is responding to a force created by the field in which it finds itself.  You have no such explanation for the behavior you posit.  Your only response is that it is another unknowable.  Tell you what, find us such a thing in one of the those lists of the remaining great mysteries of physics.


----------



## IanC (Sep 28, 2016)

Ontological Mathematics is the Answer to GHE-Based Climate Alarm

link for those who want to delve into SSDD slayer talking points.



> Q’ = A*σ*(Thot4 – Tcool4)
> 
> This _defines_ Q’ as the heat.  There is a hot and cool term, and there is an exchange of energy between them since they are subtracting from one to the other; however, _only that result after subtraction is heat_.  Only Q’ is heat.  _The radiation from the cool object to the hot object is not heat, and only the greater portion of the radiation from the hot object relative to the cool object is heat, and it transfers or flows only in the direction from the hot object to the cool object, from the greater power to the lesser power_.



actually I dont have a big problem with it. depends on how you want to define heat. 

you will notice that it doesnt really match up with what SSDD says. actually it is pretty close to how I have described it. huh


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2016)

Crick said:


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



The emitted photon is also subject to a force


----------



## IanC (Sep 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




really? what kind of force? gravity? only noticeable around black holes. expansion of the universe affects photon wavelength but only after unimaginable distances. 

what kind of photon? radiative, like from a flashlight or an excited CO2 molecule. or a virtual photon that _carries _force in an electric motor or between magnets?

please explain your statement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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


*
The emitted photon is also subject to a force*

Cool. Is there a force from a warmer object that repels the photon from a cooler object?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How does following the basic laws governing their actions make a photon "smart"?
> ...



Have you ever provided a source that explains that emission will cease when a warmer object approaches?

The *Stefan–Boltzmann law* describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.

Where is your version, _The _*Stefan–Boltzmann law*_ describes the power radiated from a __black body__ in terms of its __temperature__......unless a warmer body is nearby?_
DERP


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



A photon exiting the Sun is subject to heat. Isn't heat a force?


----------



## IanC (Sep 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



?????

Not following you. The hydrogen and helium at the Sun's surface are hot and give off photons to get rid of energy. Once the photon is emitted it travels until it interacts with another bit of matter.  What force do you think is acting upon it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2016)

IanC said:


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



You're asking a question that probably has no answer to your satisfaction. Like others here, you seem to know EVERYTHING about energy! Congratulations!  

In your example, in our space-time, the emitted photon will continue to travel to space-time that is cooler than the area it just left.  Again, this is our limited 5 senses version of what we think we're seeing. Traveling at the speed of light, the photon itself does not experience time at all; it's here AND there all at once.  Makes no logical sense to me at all, but I'm sure you understand that completely, because again, you know everything


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


*Nope. The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.*
so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?  You've never explained that.  are those the smart photons you speak of? If the object emits, it emits.  you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.  How?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*so explain how if all the warm object is doing is emitting, how does the colder object slow down it's rate?*

Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.

*you're saying the colder object slows that emitted process.*

SSDD imagines the colder object only absorbs, doesn't emit.
That would require smart photons. In the real world, both objects emit. No smart photons needed.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Because the colder object is also emitting. You know warmer objects can't really shield themselves from photons from colder objects.*

and so?  are you saying they collide?

Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process.


----------



## social philosopher (Sep 28, 2016)

I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe,  and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

social philosopher said:


> I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe,  and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.


*and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet*

Like what?  what is obvious?  Can you point to something?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2016)

social philosopher said:


> I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe,  and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.



Maybe you can help us out.  Can you please post a repeatable lab experiment that shows the temperature difference between an atmosphere with 280PPM of CO2 and 400PPM?

Thanks a bunch!


----------



## social philosopher (Sep 28, 2016)

Just the end of your nose my friend.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
and so? are you saying they collide?*

No.
*
Still doesn't say how it slows the emitted process*
_
The (warming) colder object slows the loss of heat from the (cooling) warmer object.

^_
Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.


----------



## social philosopher (Sep 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> social philosopher said:
> 
> 
> > I recently watched a program on Science Channel. It was about the relationship between several factors such as the atmosphere and solar radiation that helps drive the overall temperature of a planet. The math held up for Earth, Mars and Venus. This program said that these factors were of overall importance in temperature determination. Forgive me if I have forgotten all the details. I encourage you to reference the material for the relevant information. However, that said, I do believe,  and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. You can aptly test this yourself by simply going into a cold room with a number of people and observe what occurs. The same principle exists though to a greater extent when you add in more than just body temperature.
> ...



I'd be happy to help you out. Which way did you come in?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2016)

social philosopher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > social philosopher said:
> ...



In through the Out Door


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



The point is, Ian, that there is no more back radiation than there is back conduction or back convection...from a photon's point of view, it is already in contact with the place it is going....there is no back conduction because the energy is moving from warm towards cool along a constant temperature gradient...the same is true for the photon because from its point of view, it is already at its location...it doesn't need to decide to go to the cooler region any more than energy conducting along the temperature gradient in a heated bar of steel needs to decide to move towards the cooler region...some force is acting upon it...causing it to move towards the cooler region whether we can describe what that force is or not.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

social philosopher said:


> Just the end of your nose my friend.


??????


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

social philosopher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > social philosopher said:
> ...



Hell, I don't even need an experiment showing such a specific result...I would be happy with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....got any?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Slows the loss of heat, doesn't slow the emitting. The emitting does slow as the object cools.*

Edit:  slows the loss of heat?  That is what emitting is?  so you're saying it slows the emitting process, Derp

oh so you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits.  so the warm object emits more, I agree.  And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.  The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.  Or don't you know that?

Ever hear of heat-sink?  Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?  It makes the hotter object cooler.  Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.  It doesn't slow it down, it speeds it up.  So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.  It is the heat-sink.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Edit:slows the loss of heat?*

Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler, but above 0K, object is nearby, than it would with nothing nearby.

*so you're saying it slows the emitting process*

Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.
*
you are now saying that there is a difference between how a warm object emits and a cold object emits*

They emit at different rates. I've always said that.

*And as it cools it emits less, but now it's cooler, so I still don't see how the cooler object affects the warm object.* 

Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.

*The warm object emitting is making it cooler on its own.*

Yup. So?
*
Ever hear of heat-sink?  Do you know the purpose of a heat-sink?*

Yes. Yes.

*It makes the hotter object cooler.  Hmmm cause it helps draw the heat out of the object.* 

Yes. Yes.
*
So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface.*

Nope.
*
It is the heat-sink.*

A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, more efficiently than the air. How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Yes. The warmer object loses heat more slowly if a cooler,  *

Can you prove that? 

Link some experiment where that test was performed.

*than it would with nothing nearby.*

There will always be something nearby unless it was in a blackhole.

*Nope. It emits at the same rate, but receives power back from the cooler object.*

Well emitting is how it cools off, so your response makes no sense.

*They emit at different rates. I've always said that.*

As such, makes the warmer object dominate.  The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object and it is what you’ve never been able to validate.

Hence, no back radiation.

*Because the cooler object is also emitting....toward the warmer object.*

And has no affect.

*Yup. So?*

Yup and so?

_So basically, the cooler atmosphere speeds up the release of heat from the surface._
*
Nope.*

Yep see my response below about lack of moisture.

*A heat-sink, in your computer, for instance, is a piece of metal that conducts heat away, *

How does it do that?  I’ll tell you, it’s cooler and it emits fast.

The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.  Or are you denying warm air moves to cold

*How much heat does the atmosphere conduct away from the Earth's surface?*

 Look at the lapse rate. Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Can you prove that?*

Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago.
*
As such, makes the warmer object dominate.* 

Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object.
That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.

*The photon emitted by the cooler will not affect the warmer object*

Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.

*Hence, no back radiation.*

DERP!
*
How does it do that?*

How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.

*The cold atmosphere draws the heat from the surface.*

Like suction? LOL!
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?

*Look what happens when there is no moisture in the air. It gets cold really quick when the sun goes down.*

No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Look up Stefan-Boltzmann. It was known over 130 years ago*.

Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.


*Yes, the warmer object emits more, that's why it cools, even though it is getting energy from the cooler object. That's how Stefan-Boltzmann works....with no violation of the 2nd Law.*

Why does it emit more just because it is warm?

Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here.  Still no evidence to your point. Still waiting.

*Every photon absorbed by an object affects it.*

Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it.

*DERP!*

Back at ya.
*
How does a conductor conduct? By conduction.
Air is not a very good conductor. You can look it up.*

CO2 is though.

*Like suction?*
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink
*
Is that why the Moon's surface at night is cooler than the Earth's surface?*
no moisture correct.
*
No atmosphere draws heat away even faster than atmosphere?*
huh?

*No water vapor to absorb IR from the surface and re-emit to the surface.*
to hold the heat in by  conduction, convection and gravity.  yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat.  that isn't possible. and you can't validate that either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Why, that isn’t proof. Provide the test that verifies it.*

Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!

*Why does it emit more just because it is warm?*

Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff
*
Yes it would violate the 2nd law, been discussed forever in here.*

Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.
*
Nope, wrong, the temperature from where it came and the fact that it is emitted more than once weakens it*

What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?

*CO2 is though.*

CO2 is a good conductor?

*nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink*

What force is forcing heat upward?

*no moisture correct.*

Water vapor is a green house gas?

*yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't, but it doesn't use the IR to re-emit as heat.* 

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

social philosopher said:


> However, that said, I do believe,  and it should be obvious that human activity is greatly adding to the overall environmental temperature of the planet. .



Got the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is increasing the global temperature?....didn't think so.


----------



## Crick (Sep 28, 2016)

We have tons of observed, measured, quantified, empirical (to use four different terms to indicate the same thing) evidence that man is responsible for the warming we've observed.  You've been shown most of it, but you reject it without valid cause (actually, for the cause of your prejudice).  So, let's not waste our time here.

The world is getting warmer.  That is not the result of some vast conspiracy among those collecting and processing temperature data.   The most likely cause (by a very large margin) is greenhouse warming acting on the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere created by human emissions and deforestation.  You and yours have never found any other cause that survives examination.  You've made a dozen desperate attempts to take this one down, desperate enough to completely ignore a dozen basic scientific facts.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> We have tons of observed, measured, quantified, empirical (to use four different terms to indicate the same thing) evidence that man is responsible for the warming we've observed.  You've been shown most of it, but you reject it without valid cause (actually, for the cause of your prejudice).  So, let's not waste our time here.



Sorry guy..not the first bit and what you have posted as such evidence is only evidence that you are about as stupid as a box of rocks and don't have the first idea what actual evidence might look like.



Crick said:


> The world is getting warmer.



And that is something new.....how?  The world is always getting warmer or cooler...and the changes we are seeing and have been seeing for the past couple of centuries aren't even close to the limits of natural variability.



Crick said:


> The most likely cause (by a very large margin) is greenhouse warming acting on the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere created by human emissions and deforestation.



I believe that is what you believe with as much fervor as any religious zealot could manage...but you have no more actual evidence to support your belief than flat earth's had to support theirs.



Crick said:


> You and yours have never found any other cause that survives examination.  You've made a dozen desperate attempts to take this one down, desperate enough to completely ignore a dozen basic scientific facts.



One does not have to have a proven cause in order to point out that the claimed cause is 100% bullshit.  Hell crick, there isn't even any quantitive, measured evidence of a greenhouse effect...much less a greenhouse effect enhanced by CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > We have tons of observed, measured, quantified, empirical (to use four different terms to indicate the same thing) evidence that man is responsible for the warming we've observed.  You've been shown most of it, but you reject it without valid cause (actually, for the cause of your prejudice).  So, let's not waste our time here.
> ...


*
there isn't even any quantitive, measured evidence of a greenhouse effect...much less a greenhouse effect enhanced by CO2.*

Smart photon iz smart!


----------



## IanC (Sep 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




wow! did not expect such a whiney response from _you. _buck up man

while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.

there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.

the type we have been talking about are radiative photons, that shed energy, have a colour. IR, visible, UV etc. they are created by the internal conditions of the bit of matter that emits them. paid in full at the time of creation.

reactive photons carry the force in electric or magnetic fields. they can be attractive or repulsive. they have no 'colour'. more than just that, they need both an emitter AND a receptor to exist. this is where the no time and no distance reference frame comes into play. a bit of matter that is electrically or magnetically active 'borrows' energy to form a virtual photon capable of carrying the electric or magnetic force. because a photon exists in all space along its trajectory it knows whether it will find a partner to swap force with (and in which direction), and the energy is paid and the photon becomes real. if no partner is found then the virtual photon simply ceases to exist after the incredibly short time interval that The Uncertainty Principle allows the energy to be borrowed for.

is it possible that all types of photons start off as virtual photons and only come into existence if they find a partner? sure. but radiative photons interact with most types of matter and there is no tag that displays temperature on any bit of matter. temperature is a meaningless concept for just one bit of matter. temperature is a description of the average kinetic speed of a large collection of bits of matter, within a proscribed locale. the individual bits in that locale have a wide range of speeds. So....does the photon have to not only pick out the right temperature object to hit, but the particle that is also travelling at the right speed as well?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2016)

IanC said:


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



If it worked as you proposed, that the photon traveled at random without any regards to the temperature, then shouldn't they be taking these random paths and landing on the dark side of Earth and Moon as well. If nothing compels them to move from warmer to cooler, if they're all random, they should change directions and land on the dark sides


----------



## IanC (Sep 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




Now you're just trying to hide by acting stupid.

Everyone knows light travels in a straight line.


----------



## Crick (Sep 29, 2016)

jc, where did you get the idea that photons were "compelled" to travel from warmer to cooler?  Oh, wait, let me guess.

*SSSD*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2016)

IanC said:


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



In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc, where did you get the idea that photons were "compelled" to travel from warmer to cooler?  Oh, wait, let me guess.
> 
> *SSSD*



This is reality, Greg.  That's how our Universe operates


----------



## IanC (Sep 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler



just so I have your position straight.....if I fill a tube with CO2, some of which is is in the excited mode...the CO2 will never emit a photon because the tube and the CO2 are the same temperature?????? for a day, a year, longer even?


hahahahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



*In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler*

Based on what laws of physics?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler
> ...



Is English not your first language?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



The straight line comment was an oversimplification, the warmer to cooler was not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*the warmer to cooler was not.*

What law(s) of physics tells you that photons only go from warmer to cooler?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Newton's Second Law


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Copy and paste the version that you think backs your claim that photons only move from warmer to cooler.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler
> ...


it won't warm the tube.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc, where did you get the idea that photons were "compelled" to travel from warmer to cooler?  Oh, wait, let me guess.
> 
> *SSSD*


they don't? so you indeed have the magic photon.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thought I said Newton's Second Law


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Perform a test that disproves it, you'll be famous!*
Too funny. So you have no evidence, thanks for playing*?*

*Yes, warmer objects emit more. Pretty basic stuff*

It is. 
*
Your feelings are well known, that's why we mock you.*

And you can’t prove me wrong.
*
What is a "weakened photon"? Is that like a smart photon?*

It’s called reemitted.  Look it up.

*CO2 is a good conductor?*

It is.

*What force is forcing heat upward?*

heat

*Water vapor is a green house gas?*

No it isn’t, no such thing. You can’t prove it.

*It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?*

It’s not heat.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...









Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas on this planet.  You need to look that one up dude.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Great.

*Second law*: In an inertial reference frame, the sum of the forces *F* on an object is equal to the mass _m_ of that object multiplied by the acceleration *a* of the object: *F* = _m_*a*.

Is that your final answer?


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 29, 2016)

Woot!  Mankind matters!!!

Carbon dioxide levels cross 400 ppm threshold, likely highest in millions of years
_Carbon dioxide — the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming — reached a significant symbolic milestone in our atmosphere this month, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said.

For the first time, daily and weekly values of carbon dioxide in our planet's atmosphere have remained above 400 parts per million, said Scripps scientist Ralph Keeling, keeper of his father's famed "Keeling Curve," the longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth.

Ralph Keeling and his late father Charles David Keeling have kept CO2 measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since 1958.

"We won’t be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year — or ever again for the indefinite future," Keeling wrote in a recent blog post.

The increase in gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is fueling climate change and making "the planet more dangerous and inhospitable for future generations," the World Meteorological Organization has said.

Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases are enhancing the planet's natural "greenhouse effect."

Based on paleoclimatic evidence, the last time carbon dioxide reached 400 ppm was millions of years ago, according to the journal Nature Geoscience. A 2009 report in the journal found evidence of CO2 levels of 365 ppm to 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago._

_CO2 levels were around 280 ppm prior to the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s, when large amounts of greenhouse gases began to be released by the burning of fossil fuels.

The burning of the oil, gas and coal for energy releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. These gases have caused the Earth's temperature to rise over the past century to levels that cannot be explained by natural variability.

Carbon dioxide is invisible, odorless and colorless, yet it's responsible for 63% of the warming attributable to all greenhouse gases, according to NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

Levels of carbon dioxide go up and down each year, reaching their highest levels in May and then going back down in the fall as plants absorb the gas.

"By November, we will be marching up the rising half of the cycle, pushing toward new highs and perhaps even breaking the 410 ppm barrier," Keeling said._
.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

westwall said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No such thing as greenhouse gas. There is no evidence of such a thing.


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 29, 2016)

If mankind kills himself off, that's his fate.   I won't lose sleep over it.  I'm spending too much time deciding if I want to buy a Ford 250 4X4 8 cyl. gas or a diesel.   Vroom!  Vrooom!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
So you have no evidence, thanks for playing?*

If you have an issue with Stefan-Boltzmann, show your evidence.

*It’s called reemitted.* 

A reemitted photon doesn't affect an object that absorbs it? Why not?
*
nope heat being forced upward to the cold heat-sink*

You'll have to explain this "force acting upon heat".
Sounds like something you made up.
*
heat*

Heat is a force? Why do you feel that?

Water vapor is a green house gas?

*No it isn’t, no such thing. You can’t prove it.
*
But*...yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't
*
^
You admitted it right there. Are you off your meds?

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?

*It’s not heat.*

We're not talking about heat, we're talking about IR.
Don't get (more) mixed up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Woot!  Mankind matters!!!
> 
> Carbon dioxide levels cross 400 ppm threshold, likely highest in millions of years
> _Carbon dioxide — the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming — reached a significant symbolic milestone in our atmosphere this month, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said.
> ...



Excellent! Hopefully that will delay the next ice age.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








Yes, there is, the mechanism of what they do is undefined currently but greenhouse gases are well established.


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent! Hopefully that will delay the next ice age.


It will.  Global warming saves lives. 

Global warming will save millions of lives
_Winter regularly takes many more lives than any heatwave: 25,000 to 50,000 people each year die in Britain from excess cold. Across Europe, there are six times more cold-related deaths than heat-related deaths. We know this from the world's biggest cross-national, peer-reviewed studies under the aegis of Professor William Keatinge of the University of London.

Global warming will mean more frequent heatwaves, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – by 2100, every three years instead of every 20 years. But bitterly cold spells will decrease as quickly, coming once every two decades, rather than every three years.

For the UK, the Keatinge studies show heat-related deaths caused by global warming will increase by 2,000. But cold-related deaths will decrease by 20,000. The only global study suggests that this is true internationally: by 2050, there will be almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths a year, and almost 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths. Warmer temperatures will save 1.4 million lives each year. The number of saved lives will outweigh the increase in heat-related deaths until at least 2200._


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*If you have an issue with Stefan-Boltzmann, show your evidence.*

Yeah  you having no evidence.

*It’s called reemitted.* 

*A reemitted photon doesn't affect an object that absorbs it? Why not?*

You should read.

*Heat is a force? Why do you feel that?*

Helps a rocket take off.

*Water vapor is a green house gas?*

no

But*...yes water will absorb the IR, never said it didn't*

*It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?*

It does, and there is no heat

*We're not talking about heat, we're talking about IR.*
you said it was heat. No it is not. I’m talking about heat. Conduction and convection


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

westwall said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


dude, you have no evidence.  you even admit it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 29, 2016)

Global warming means an endless summer of tube tops and short shorts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you have an issue with Stefan-Boltzmann, show your evidence.*

Yeah you having no evidence.*

I don't need to prove Stefan-Boltzmann, it's widely accepted.
Don't let that stop you from disproving it though.......

*You should read.*

I have. That's why your claim is so ridiculous.

*Helps a rocket take off.*

Heat helps a rocket take off? You are off your meds.

It absorbs IR, why can't it emit IR?
*
It does, and there is no heat*

Water vapor absorbs and emits IR? Excellent!
You've just described a greenhouse gas.

*you said it was heat.*

Stop using heat and IR interchangeably. It makes you sound ignorant.

*I’m talking about heat. Conduction and convection*

The discussion is about IR, not conduction and convection. Try to keep up.
It's no wonder why your answers are all wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Don't let that stop you from disproving it though.......*
you can’t show evidence of it I understand.  Please don’t think that’s going to stop me.


*I have. That's why your claim is so ridiculous.*

I see you have no test evidence I get it.

*Heat helps a rocket take off? You are off your meds.*

I’ve never seen ice under a rocket.  So yeah it does.

You should take some meds.

*You've just described a greenhouse gas.*

No such thing, but keep writing it. Doesn’t it make it so.
*
Stop using heat and IR interchangeably. It makes you sound ignorant.*

You said it not me.
*
The discussion is about IR, not conduction and convection. Try to keep up.*
It’s about how the earth stays heated.  And heat is what keeps the earth heated


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 29, 2016)

Global Warming means billions of dollars saved in transportations costs and lives saved in ice/snow related traffic deaths.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 29, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Global warming means an endless summer of tube tops and short shorts.




Crick and the rest can't figure out warm is good cold sucks...move up to damn Chicago..


.


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







No.  We KNOW that GHG's exist.  To date however, there has been no real lab experiments to actually decipher their operation.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 29, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Global Warming means billions of dollars saved in transportations costs and lives saved in ice/snow related traffic deaths.




Not to mention the economy and school days lost- hey I thought liberals liked education?

What about the rusty cars? 

Damn if I was president I would send all the AGW cult crowd to Antarctica for a year


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

westwall said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


And until that happens, I'm a non believer


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 29, 2016)

Did I already mention the advantages of an endless summer?


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 29, 2016)

God Bless America!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*you can’t show evidence of it I understand.*

Yeah, I'm not interested in proving widely acknowledged facts.

*I’ve never seen ice under a rocket.  So yeah it does.*

What kind of force does heat exert?

*No such thing, but keep writing it.*

You said water vapor absorbs and emits IR. What do you think a greenhouse gas does? LOL!

*You said it not me.*

I never said they were interchangeable. Not even once.

*It’s about how the earth stays heated.*

Pesky greenhouse gasses.
*
And heat is what keeps the earth heated*

Define heat.


----------



## IanC (Sep 30, 2016)

JC456 just keeps getting stupider and stupider. he's not even trying to make sense any more. 

ordinarily I would just find it pathetic but in this case he is besmirching the Skeptical Side's reputation with his lunacy.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Yeah, I'm not interested in proving widely acknowledged facts*.
you can’t show evidence of it I understand.

*What kind of force does heat exert?*
you should watch a rocket take off

*You said water vapor absorbs and emits IR. What do you think a greenhouse gas does? *
A greenhouse doesn’t use gas, so I have no idea your point.
No such thing, but keep writing it.

*I never said they were interchangeable. Not even once.*
I never made that comment either.  I stated you claimed IR was heat. Here’s the quote.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Pesky greenhouse gasses.*
pesky sun, gravity, conduction, convection
*
Define heat...*
Intensity of feeling


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> JC456 just keeps getting stupider and stupider. he's not even trying to make sense any more.
> 
> ordinarily I would just find it pathetic but in this case he is besmirching the Skeptical Side's reputation with his lunacy.


funny you can't show evidence from a lab experiment IR emitting from CO2 and heating anything.


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> funny you can't show evidence from a lab experiment IR emitting from CO2 and heating anything.


CO2, O2, H2O nor any other molecule of which I am aware emits heat by itself.  It can emit heat in the formation of that molecule or, if heat is applied, there are properties that could cause it it reflect or retain heat.

The "greenhouse" effect of a car's glass is evident to anyone who has opened up a car that has been sitting in the sunlight.  It's not the glass causing the heat.  If it was, then it would heat even in shadow.  It's the properties of the light passing through the glass and heating up materials inside.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > funny you can't show evidence from a lab experiment IR emitting from CO2 and heating anything.
> ...


yep, and color of material matter to aggravate that.  yep, I just want to see the test with CO2.  that's all.  four years in this forum and still not one test provided. BTW, the fact that it gets hotter with the windows closed matters as well.  That is a greenhouse effect.


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> yep, and color of material matter to aggravate that.  yep, I just want to see the test with CO2.  that's all.  four years in this forum and still not one test provided. BTW, the fact that it gets hotter with the windows closed matters as well.  That is a greenhouse effect.


Correct about the color of material, which is why different parts of the Earth heat up faster than others.  Why plowed dirt absorbs heat, but snow reflects it.  

It's our atmosphere which keeps us warm.  Venus has a "runaway" greenhouse effect while the atmosphere on Mars is too thin to retain much heat. 

In the past, however, greenhouse gasses did help warm up Mars enough for water to flow....however, not CO2 as this article explains: 

Global Warming Once Made Mars a Very Pleasant Place—Until it Didn't


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > yep, and color of material matter to aggravate that.  yep, I just want to see the test with CO2.  that's all.  four years in this forum and still not one test provided. BTW, the fact that it gets hotter with the windows closed matters as well.  That is a greenhouse effect.
> ...


I get a kick out of the folks in here who think they are skeptic and believe CO2 warms the planet.  it's hilarious.  .04% of anything is like a dot on a flea, and everyone thinks that warms the planet.  And again, no one in here has been capable of posting any tested evidence to support this crazy .04% event.  I do laugh at them though.


----------



## Divine Wind (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I get a kick out of the folks in here who think they are skeptic and believe CO2 warms the planet.  it's hilarious.  .04% of anything is like a dot on a flea, and everyone thinks that warms the planet.  And again, no one in here has been capable of posting any tested evidence to support this crazy .04% event.  I do laugh at them though.


There are 1.6 Billion muslims in the world.  If 0.04% of them are terrorists, that's a lot of fucking terrorists! (640,000)   

CO2 doesn't warm the planet, but a higher concentration of it in the atmosphere will add to the warming of the Earth.  As noted several times above, this has many positive aspects.   Regardless, it's happening.  I doubt we can stop it.  Sure, we can stop making factories and become tree-huggers (impossible for all the world's 7.5 Billion people), but the biggest problem is too many people.  The solution?  A lot less people.   Even then, it could take a century or two.

Personally, I'm a big believer in the Serenity prayer and do my best to avoid worrying about shit I can't change. 

Meanwhile, the advantage of an endless summer:


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I get a kick out of the folks in here who think they are skeptic and believe CO2 warms the planet.  it's hilarious.  .04% of anything is like a dot on a flea, and everyone thinks that warms the planet.  And again, no one in here has been capable of posting any tested evidence to support this crazy .04% event.  I do laugh at them though.
> ...


populate those 640,000 around the globe and you have dots on the surface of the planet.  hell just the 7.5 billion population around the globe is just bigger dots.  analogy doesn't help you.  And the atmosphere is even bigger than the surface, so you're now talking smaller.  When someone can point to a hotspot, I would have to reconsider, until then I don't believe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm not interested in proving widely acknowledged facts.

*you can’t show evidence of it I understand.*

I don't need to show evidence of Stefan-Boltzmann.
If you feel like disproving it, feel free.


What kind of force does heat exert?

*you should watch a rocket take off*

I've watched rockets take off. That's not heat exerting a force. Derp.

You said water vapor absorbs and emits IR. What do you think a greenhouse gas does?
*
A greenhouse doesn’t use gas, *

I've never seen a greenhouse with no gas inside, have you?
*
so I have no idea your point.*

I'll add it to the list of things you have no idea about.
*
I stated you claimed IR was heat. Here’s the quote.*

Thanks, but where did I say IR was heat in that thread?

Define heat...

*Intensity of feeling*

Intensity of feeling helps a rocket take off?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*BTW, the fact that it gets hotter with the windows closed matters as well. That is a greenhouse effect.*

Please explain further. Why does it get hotter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > JC456 just keeps getting stupider and stupider. he's not even trying to make sense any more.
> ...


*
funny you can't show evidence from a lab experiment IR emitting from CO2 and heating anything.*

I'd like to see you prove that IR from CO2 can't heat anything.
You'd win 2 Nobel Prizes for that one!!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


again, you're asking me to prove what you can't, so the mere fact you won't post that experiment, is my evidence that CO2 doesn't do what you claim.  again, feel free to post up that experiment friend.  I told you already that Tyndall's experiment did not prove CO2 warmed up anything.  I looked for it, couldn't find where he ever recorded any temperatures.  feel free to post the one that does.  The fact is you can't.  you know it too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*again, you're asking me to prove what you can't*

I don't need to prove Stefan-Boltzmann.
I don't care if you do either.

*CO2 doesn't do what you claim*

I don't need to prove that CO2 absorbs and emits IR.
I don't need to prove that water vapor absorbs and emits IR.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well then until you can prove stefan boltzmann, you and I aren't in agreement.  accept it then.  Stop responding to my posts with your nonsense that you feel no need to prove.  i really don't care either. 

And CO2 emitting IR doesn't warm shit, just so you understand my position.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*well then until you can prove stefan Boltzmann,*

Why would I have to prove it? It's been accepted for over 130 years.
Believe it, don't believe it, it matters not.
*
you and I aren't in agreement.*

Based on your widespread ignorance of basic science...absolutely.

*And CO2 emitting IR doesn't warm shit*

DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


still waiting for your test that proves CO2 does anything about warming.  jeopardy music please.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








Chart showing incoming long-wave radiation.
That means IR from the surface was absorbed by GHGs and some of that is returned to the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


doesn't make your argument dude.  sorry it isn't a test.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I realize you are incapable of understanding data.
Thanks ok.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I understand you don't get test, I understand that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Proof that GHGs absorb IR and emit toward the surface, disproving your idiocy, makes you sad.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that doesn't prove jack shit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What does incoming long-wave radiation suggest to your feeble mind?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sunlight?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



At night?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why not, doesn't CO2 absorb incoming long-wave radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Not really.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.  again, please present that test and I'll be wrong.

edit, sorry, re-emitted IR emitted from the surface does not warm the surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface.*

Re-emitted IR that travels from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope.  it's why there is no hotspot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



There doesn't need to be a hotspot for IR from cooler air to hit the warmer surface.
You admitted that's what IR does.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


quote my admittance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



"well re-emitted IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface"


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I showed you downward IR from the atmosphere. You thought it was from the Sun.
I told you it wasn't and that it occurs 24 hours a day. You said that downward IR that hits the surface, magically doesn't warm the surface. Either smart photons or hotspots was your reasoning.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 30, 2016)

Or that IR is a particularly weak part of the EM spectrum....


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you claim  back radiation warms the surface. I asked you for a test that proves that there is such a thing as back radiation that warms the surface.  To date, you have yet to provide that. CO2 absorbs, it emits, I asked for you to show it warms its surrounding, you got nothing.  No other discussion is necessary until you can present that experiment.

BTW, then you claimed that CO2 only slows the output from the surface, I asked how, and still nothing.  so right now, you have yet to produce any evidence to support either of your two claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
you claim back radiation warms the surface*

And you claim back radiation doesn't exist.
The chart of incoming long-wave is proof against your claim.

*CO2 absorbs, it emits,*

Because it's a greenhouse gas.

*then you claimed that CO2 only slows the output from the surface*

No, nothing slows output, because output is dependent on temperature.
I said it slows loss of heat....because it sends heat back to the surface.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

Loss of heat from the atmosphere to space.  Loss of heat from the Earth.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler
> ...




Sorry Frank, I must have missed your reply. 

Is my example consistent with your world view that radiation cannot form without a temperature gradient? Do you agree that internal atomic events are controlled by external macroscopic conditions?

Do you have any links from physicists that agree with your bizarre position? Are there any theorized explanations for it? Did you conceive of these proposals by yourself or are you repeating a perhaps poorly understood or mistakenly remembered vision put forward by someone else?

I have taken a lot of physics and read a lot of science history. It baffles me how you guys come up with some of the stuff you believe. And are so CERTAIN about.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How many times now have you been shown spectrums - graphs of radiation - observed coming from the night sky towards the ground?  A dozen?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

This is the spectrum of radiation coming down from the night sky





















All of these graphs were created from measurements looking upwards into the night sky.  THIS is backradiation.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> This is the spectrum of radiation coming down from the night sky
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure it is. How was it measured


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > This is the spectrum of radiation coming down from the night sky
> ...



Hahahaha, very carefully! What is with you guys?

The instruments are designed to be sensitive at specific wavelengths. Why do you think it is impossible?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2016)

IanC said:


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



I'm trying to find where I said that radiation can't former without a temperature gradient.

Can you please find my post


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




It is embedded in your last post...



> ...and always from warmer to cooler...



Are you recinding  that statement?


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> In a straight line and always from warmer to cooler


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2016)

IanC said:


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



No.

I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



What do you feel would prevent that?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> wow! did not expect such a whiney response from _you. _buck up man
> 
> while I am OK with the whole photons having no time or distance in their reference frame, we dont live there and cannot even visit.
> 
> there are two types of photons; paid in advance and cash on delivery virtual ones. radiative or reactive.



Got anything more than a mathematical model in support of actual photons existing...much less the virtual sort?  You crack me up Ian...pretending in your head that you know exactly what is going on and who is doing what when there is not the first bit of observed evidence to support any of it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2016)

westwall said:


> Yes, there is, the mechanism of what they do is undefined currently but greenhouse gases are well established.



I would say that the existence of radiative gasses is well established....but to call them greenhouse gasses is to ascribe to the reality of a greenhouse effect such as described by climate science...and no such effect has ever been measured or quantified outside of a mathematical model.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2016)

westwall said:


> No.  We KNOW that GHG's exist.  To date however, there has been no real lab experiments to actually decipher their operation.



Lets say we know radiative gasses exist....greenhouse?..not so much.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No.
> 
> I could just as easily infer that your theory supposes that the non-excited gas will pop off a photon to its excited neighbors



We have already been through that with him and it is clear that radiation is the smallest bit of the energy movement through the atmosphere...something like 1 in a billion CO2 molecules actually radiates as opposed to the rest transferring energy via collisions.


----------



## IanC (Oct 2, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




Well, yes, that could happen. 

The molecules are constantly colliding with each other. We know the average speed from the temperature but we don't know the speed of any individual molecule precisely unless we measure it, which of course would change the speed.

A molecule that absorbs a photon gains POTENTIAL energy (plus the small amount of momentum that is a fundamental of entropy). During the next molecular collision the excited molecule may or may not give up the potential energy, either to another molecule's potential energy; or more likely ,add that energy to the pool of kinetic energy. Adding to kinetic energy is by definition warming the temperature. AKA thermalization of radiation. 

The opposite also happens. Closer to the top of the atmosphere, collisions excite the CO2 molecules but because there are fewer collisions it is more likely that the molecules will stay excited long enough to re-emit and that the reemission will escape to space. 

Therefore CO2 tends to warm the atmosphere lower down but cool the atmosphere higher up.

Increasing CO2 concentration decreases the height to extinction of certain IR bands radiated by the surface. And raises the height in the upper atmosphere where radiation can escape, which is typically cooler and therefore less radiation.

I am not saying I believe the IPCC consensus position. I am saying that I believe CO2 has a warming influence.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



IDK, maybe its the same reason we use step down transformers so that the smaller current can go back the wrong way and make a bigger current


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why bring current into the discussion?
We're talking about photons and why you feel their emission is dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (not Newton's 2nd Law).


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All energy transfer is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*All energy transfer is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics.*

It's weird that the second law doesn't mention photons.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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



CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all.  You believe in the magic..you just believe it isn't as strong as the off the deep end wackos believe...but belief in magic is belief in magic...even if it is belief in weak magic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere at all.*

Does it absorb IR from the surface? Does it collide with other molecules?


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 2, 2016)

More precisely, the whole "greenhouse gas" thing is bullshit and every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun.  IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum and the reason why increased CO2 hasn't warmed the atmosphere at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> More precisely, the whole "greenhouse gas" thing is bullshit and every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun.  IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum and the reason why increased CO2 hasn't warmed the atmosphere at all.



*every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun.*

We're talking about gasses that absorb IR from the Earth's surface.

*IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum*

Is that the scientific term for IR.....weak?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



About 1 in a billion CO2 molecules absorbs a bit of IR radiation from the surface and then emits it...along a temperature gradient which is always moving from warm to cool...the other nine hundred ninety nine million nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine CO2 molecules pick up a bit of energy via collisions just like O2 and N2 and pass it along via conduction.  CO2 acts as a hole in the blanket allowing some small bit of energy to move on out of the atmosphere at a much quicker rate than does convection and conduction.

And what warms the atmosphere is energy...not CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > More precisely, the whole "greenhouse gas" thing is bullshit and every gas absorbs something from the EM spectrum emitted by the Sun.  IR is a particularly weak portion of that spectrum and the reason why increased CO2 hasn't warmed the atmosphere at all.
> ...



CO2's peak emitting temperature is -80C....how much warming do you really think that could cause?


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2016)

That much







And I'd like an explanation of what you think your "emission peak" statement actually means.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> That much
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL... wheres the temperature axis?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


'
*absorbs a bit of IR radiation from the surface and then emits it...along a temperature gradient which is always moving from warm to cool...*

Why do you feel that?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> That much
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where is the temperature axis of your supposed proof?...

*Radiating Temperature*

(_Tr_), a physical parameter characterizing the total (for all wavelengths) radiant emittance Be of a radiating body. It is equal to the temperature of a black-body at which the blackbody’s emittance 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

The laws of thermal radiation permit the expression 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to be written in the form 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, where ∊_T_ is the emissivity of the body, σ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and _T_ the absolute temperature of the body. If the value of ∊_T_ isknown and the temperature _Tr_ has been measured (with a radiation pyrometer), it is possible to calculate the temperature ofthe body by the relation _T = Tr∊T–¼_ For thermal radiation of all bodies other than a blackbody, ∊_T_ < 1; therefore, _Tr_ < _T_. In thecase of luminescence, however, _Tr_ may be greater than _T_.

So this tells us that the peak radiating temperature of CO2 is -80C....now again....how much warming do you think that causes?


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2016)

SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.

Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?

It means that CO2 specific radiation cannot pass through the atmosphere and escape to space until it reaches a height in the atmosphere where the density of the air is so thin that it is no longer likely to absorb that radiation. How high? The layer that corresponds to -80C. (Yes I know it is a fuzzy boundary)

Until that point any radiation emitted by CO2 is retained by the atmosphere, the Greenhouse Effect.   

The so-called Atmospheric Window allows radiation around 10 microns to escape directly to space. This radiation is not part of the Greenhouse Effect. Where do the satellites 'see' this radiation coming from? The layer coming from a temperature of +15C, the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.
> 
> Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?
> 
> ...


no such thing as a greenhouse gas.  Sorry Ian.  you can't prove it.  I laugh as I see you and others in here now agreeing that the molecules collide.  You even agree with it, that means they don't emit when they collide correct?


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2016)

a graph to go with my comment above. the white areas under the red line indicate how much radiation has been absorbed by the atmosphere. the large bite in the middle is from CO2


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.
> ...




God but you're an idiot.

I couldnt be bothered to explain to you again. Co2 molecules that absorb a photon are likely to pass that energy to the energy pool of the atmosphere via collision. CO2 molecules that do emit a photon are likely to have received the energy for the photon from the energy pool of the atmosphere via collisions


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


hence no back radiation.  thanks!!


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2016)

Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'? 

Of course not.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?
> 
> Of course not.


well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting. I thought you said it properly. shit even thanked yo.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another fact free, illogical declarative statement from jc. Care to explain the missing section before 'hence'?
> ...


*
well if molecules are colliding, they aren't emitting.*

If they aren't emitting, that IR isn't escaping to space.

What did I say earlier about slowing loss of heat? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


well it ain't because of back radiation if it isn't emitting.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.
> 
> Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?
> 
> ...



And "retained by the atmosphere" you mean that the excited CO2 is hotter than it's non-excited neighbor?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't think collisions only reduce the energy in CO2, do you?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.
> 
> Satellites measuring outgoing radiation from the earth 'see' CO2 specific radiation coming from a source that appears to be -80C. So what does that mean?
> 
> ...



No ian..it just moves on via conduction...radiation is such a small part of moving IR to the upper atmosphere that it is nearly irrelevant.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> a graph to go with my comment above. the white areas under the red line indicate how much radiation has been absorbed by the atmosphere. the large bite in the middle is from CO2



Not how much ian...just which frequencies...and again, the IR is absorbed and then emitted on towards a cooler area in the temperature gradient.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



1 in a billion....and even then, the energy moves on to cooler pastures.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Physics!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


like conduction?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > a graph to go with my comment above. the white areas under the red line indicate how much radiation has been absorbed by the atmosphere. the large bite in the middle is from CO2
> ...



*and again, the IR is absorbed and then emitted on towards a cooler area in the temperature gradient.*

Or toward the warmer ground.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, conduction is also physics.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It's also what helps maintain the warm at the surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Great. So what happens when a collision adds energy to CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth ,*

Or emitted toward the ground (shhhh.....that's back radiation.....shhhhh)


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD has as much problems collecting inferred knowledge from graphs as Crick does.
> ...




I am pretty sure we have been through this numerous times.

It takes a lot of stored energy to keep an atmosphere aloft in the gravity field and at its temperature. These two things are interconnected. The first is potential energy, and the second is kinetic energy. You do realize that the kinetic energy portion, the speed of the molecules is what defines the temperature? Every collision rearranges the proportion of kinetic to potential energy.

Next, we have to decide whether molecules absorbing photons is potential or kinetic energy. Either an electron is bumped into a higher energy orbital or the bonds between the constituent elements is changed in fashion that is called vibration. Neither of these changes the speed of the molecules, so it obviously is a change of potential energy. 

To be more complete, there is also an exchange of momentum between the emitters and absorbers. A tiny fraction which drives the two away from each other, and ensures that entropy ensues.

In a collision the two (or more) molecules crash together and the potential and kinetic energies are briefly combined by deforming the electron shells. When they move apart the combined energy is once again divided up into potential and kinetic energies. The individual molecule may have more or less of each upon leaving. An excited molecule may return to ground state at a different speed, or a ground state molecule may exit in an excited state. There are numerous possibilities. These collisions also cause blackbody radiation to be formed. Higher energy photons from high speed head on collisions, lower energy photons from glancing or low speed collisions.

To reiterate, a CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon simply adds to the total energy of the atmosphere, part of which is in kinetic energy AKA temperature.

This also makes it easier to understand why, at higher altitude where it is less dense hense fewer collisions , that CO2 molecules can hold onto the excited state long enough to emit a photon that won't simply be recaptured.


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens



Surface sourced CO2 specific IR radiation is absorbed to extinction by roughly 10 metres of atmosphere at STP. As density decreases with height that distance gets longer the further up in the atmosphere you get, until you reach a height where CO2 specific radiation is more likely to escape than be reabsorbed. At that height the temperature has cooled dramatically and the amount of radiation produced is much less than at the surface. The atmosphere has gained a net amount of energy that is equal to the amount of surface IR absorbed less the amount of TOA IR released. That energy is used in part to increase kinetic speed of atmospheric molecules, otherwise known as temperature.

This is the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect.


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




OMG! What a full blown retard you are.

Conduction maintains the 'warm' at the surface? How does that work exactly? The energy stored in the Earth's core plus the energy produced from radioactive decay produces a trickle equivalent to a rounding error. Are you talking about thermal inertia in the oceans and land losing stored energy from sunlight to the surface at night?

Conduction loses heat to the atmosphere in a similar way to radiation. The amount of power moving is proportional to the temperature difference. What is different though is that conduction is mediated via matter, therefore it is only a net exchange. Unlike radiation which is made up of gross flows in either direction that add up to a net exchange.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I take it back, it cannot head back to a warmer area, it ALL radiates away.  It's not random at all.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Sorry ian...you give radiation a much better place at the table than it deserves...conduction rules and in the lower atmosphere, radiation barely earns a place on the floor with the dogs..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Since it can't heat up the CO2 it's re-emitted. There's a 1 in a billion chance that the CO2 absorbs the photon in the first place and then a better than 50% chance it emits it out away from Earth , so basically vertical little happens
> ...



Agan...a 1 in a billion chance that a CO2 molecule emits a photon...and even less chance that that theoretical particle gets absorbed by another CO2 molecule...and whatever theoretical particles are emitted move on to a cooler part of the atmosphere...not back to the warmer earth.  Again, from a photon's point of view, the distance to where it is going is zero, and the time it takes to get there is zero...just the same as for energy moving via conduction along a temperature gradient in a solid material.


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2016)

But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance.  Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe?  Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions?  Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)?  How about an hour back?  A century back?  A billion years back?

Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance.  Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe?  Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions?  Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)?  How about an hour back?  A century back?  A billion years back?
> 
> Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy



Of course you aren't because you reject anything that doesn't support your dogma....add the fact that the whole topic is just to big for someone like you to wrap your mind around and you are left with your fingers stuck firmly in your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs so that you don't have to consider the fact that you have been wrong all along.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that when you are dealing with entities moving at the speed of light, your point of view is the one that is meaningless...they don't operate on your time or distance scale and unless you can wrap your head around how they experience the universe, you simply can't begin to understand what is happening...if you are going to consider what photons do, and how they behave, you must completely toss out your concept of time and distance....and I am afraid that you aren't bright enough to do that crick...you are stuck on stupid.

The mechanism crick, is the same as that for conduction...causing energy to move along a temperature grid in solid objects toward cooler areas....in the case of photons, it can be understood by taking the photon's point of view into consideration....  From its point of view, the time it takes to get anywhere is zero...and the distance to anywhere is zero....therefore, energy movement via radiation is no different than energy movement via conduction...energy moves along a temperature gradient always towards the cooler region...

And since from the photon's point of view time and distance to anywhere are zero, there is no need to predict anything....hold one hand near a heat source for a minute while running cold water over the other hand...now place them together...do you think the energy needs to "predict" where the cooler region is so that it can move on?

Sorry you can't wrap your mind around this....to bad you aren't actually an engineer....maybe this would be easier for you.


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2016)

The effect on time perception while traveling at the speed of light is completely irrelevant to thermodynamics. 

God are you stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance.  Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe?  Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions?  Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)?  How about an hour back?  A century back?  A billion years back?
> 
> Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy



The photon does not experience time, so it IS everywhere at once, even at the "farthest reaches"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> The effect on time perception while traveling at the speed of light is completely irrelevant to thermodynamics.
> 
> *God are you stupid*.


*God are you stupid.
*
At least you admit you are now.  That's progress!  Its the first step, now we need to get you passed the denial stage...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance.  Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe?  Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions?  Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)?  How about an hour back?  A century back?  A billion years back?
> ...



Trying to explain Quantum Mechanics to Crick is like trying to teach him how to read graphs..  It isn't going to happen.  You get an A for the effort.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> a graph to go with my comment above. the white areas under the red line indicate how much radiation has been absorbed by the atmosphere. the large bite in the middle is from CO2


Incorrect;

The red line is the "expected radiation" from a black body.  The blue infilled area is the "Radiated at TOA" or lost to space region. The white area *between* the red line and the infilled is the potential energy absorbed by the atmosphere.

Now lets calculate the potential temperature rise.  With just this graphs information and discounting convection and reflection the potential rise is just 0.3 deg C/decade given the earths weight of atmosphere.  CO2 has little to do with our current temperature rise and when convection and reflection are placed into the equation the potential temp rise is *less than* 0.1 deg C/decade. In the last 150 years we have had a temp rise of just 0.8 deg C. well within the boundaries of "expected" results.

Please tell me you have not been taking lessons from Crick on graph reading...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*it cannot head back to a warmer area,*

Why not? Tiny thermometers?

*It's not random at all.*

Smart photons? Which laws cover that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*...and whatever theoretical particles are emitted move on to a cooler part of the atmosphere...not back to the warmer earth*

DERP!
*
Again, from a photon's point of view, the distance to where it is going is zero, and the time it takes to get there is zero...*

Causality is nothing when your photons are smart, right? LOL!


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




that is an interesting topic that I have a lot of sympathy for, especially when it comes to what happens to captured energy from the _recent_ increase of CO2. But we are talking about whether the Greenhouse Effect is real, and what are the mechanisms.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what does happen in your world?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, sometimes collisions take energy from the CO2, sometimes they add energy to the CO2.
Can CO2 ever emit IR?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



one in a billion sounds like an impressively small number until you remember Avagadro's number. about 10^24 if I remember correctly, for a single mole.

now you are claiming energy is moving at the speed of light during conduction? hahahahahaha. 

I must admit I am a sucker for contemplating effects of quantum and relativistic events. someone, Feynman maybe, posited or said something that made me posit, that the reason for inertia is simply the energy needed to redo photon exchange when an object ends up in a different position from what was expected before the time passed in the real world because of the speed limit on light. (and gravitons or any other massless speed of light force carriers.) kinda fucks up the Arrow of Time though. I certainly have no idea what the mechanism could be. just an interesting idea.

your jihad against radiation being free to move in any direction reminds me of the belief in the 'ether'. temperature is a meaningless concept for individual particles. temperature is only a valid concept for large cohorts of particles. even then temperature does not capture the total energy of the cohort as much of the energy is potential energy. can a high speed (high temp)/low potential energy particle radiate towards a low speed/high potential particle even if the total energy contained in the low speed (low temp) particle is greater than the high speed (high temp) particle? why is potential energy ignored in your world view? 

even in a large cohort of particles that has a 'temperature', there is a range of speeds in the individual particles. a different cohort with a similar but slightly lower temp would have a range of speeds for individual particles that overlaps with the warmer one. could faster particles in the 'cool' cohort pass a photon to a slower particle in the 'warm' cohort? your system lacks internal consistency.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> The effect on time perception while traveling at the speed of light is completely irrelevant to thermodynamics.
> 
> God are you stupid.



Sorry that this is so far past your ability to grasp...but since it is the photon that is transferring the energy...everything happens according to their point of view...to bad you can't grasp it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> now you are claiming energy is moving at the speed of light during conduction? hahahahahaha.



Not at all...just you making up arguments to rail against again...I never suggested any such thing.



IanC said:


> your jihad against radiation being free to move in any direction reminds me of the belief in the 'ether'. temperature is a meaningless concept for individual particles. temperature is only a valid concept for large cohorts of particles. even then temperature does not capture the total energy of the cohort as much of the energy is potential energy. can a high speed (high temp)/low potential energy particle radiate towards a low speed/high potential particle even if the total energy contained in the low speed (low temp) particle is greater than the high speed (high temp) particle? why is potential energy ignored in your world view?



Radiation is free to move in any direction just like a rock is free to fall in any direction it cares to fall.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


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



There is no energy captured due to any amount of CO2...of all the so called greenhouse gasses...only H2O can actually capture energy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The why of it is probably wrapped up in the creation of the Universe, that's just how it works. 

If they don't experience time as we do, why do you suppose they need a thermometer?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > now you are claiming energy is moving at the speed of light during conduction? hahahahahaha.
> ...




Does gravity stop in the face of stronger gravity, or does the matter move in the direction of the net force? Are gravitons smart too?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance.  Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe?  Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions?  Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)?  How about an hour back?  A century back?  A billion years back?
> 
> Your... 'idea' is complete idiotic lunacy



Tell the photon it's doing it wrong, you know best


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

I think it's funny that some people that denied the existence of photons, relativity, and quantum theory in the recent past are now latching on to one of the most esoteric properties proposed.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > But we're not nearly as interested in the photon's point of view as we are in ours, where it DOES take time to travel distance.  Have you got a mechanism that allows all matter to know the temperature of its surroundings out to the farthest reaches of the universe?  Do you have a mechanism for matter, down to a single atom, to control its photon emissions?  Do you have a mechanism by which all matter would be able to predict what temperature matter will be in front of photons it emitted a second back (cause, you know, things move)?  How about an hour back?  A century back?  A billion years back?
> ...




A slight correction in order. The photon exists at all points along its pathway. 

A useful explanatory concept to explain how virtual photons can find a partner particle to exchange force with. Not so useful to explain radiative photons that just carry away energy, with no compulsory partner needed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> I think it's funny that some people that denied the existence of photons, relativity, and quantum theory in the recent past are now latching on to one of the most esoteric properties proposed.



Even funnier how we live in a Universe that mostly stuff we can only imagine: Dark matter and dark energy, but some are absolutely sure they can bend the Universe to their laws


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*that's just how it works.*

Except, it doesn't.  Heat isn't photons.
Photons don't care about temperature.

*why do you suppose they need a thermometer?*

They would need one, to see that a target was hotter and then decide not to go that way.
Instead of just using Stefan-Boltzmann, which says matter emits, based on its own temperature, not based on the temperature of the rest of the universe.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's funny that some people that denied the existence of photons, relativity, and quantum theory in the recent past are now latching on to one of the most esoteric properties proposed.
> ...



Someone will come along and pull back the curtain on some of those questions. But the new answers will incorporate relativity and QM just like those only refined classic Newtonian physics.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


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







Actually, that IS an interesting question.  I don't think we have the ability to measure that yet.  It's amazing how little we know about gravity.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Yup, I agree.

Energy transfered by radiation is not heat. It is potential energy that may be transferred into kinetic energy via collisions of particles of matter.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


where does your heat come from then?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

westwall said:


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



Yes, it's pretty tricky all right. Does gravity bend light because space gets warped or because the momentum carried by the photons are a proxy for mass? The calculations seem to give similar numbers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So what is heat then?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



From oxidizing constituents of food in the cells of my body, of course.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


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








Who knows.  We have no idea what gravity even IS.  We have no idea how it works.  The current theory is gravitons emanating little gravity fields are the culprits, but we truly have no clue.  Gravity is the most pervasive, yet least known force at work in the universe.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



does all of that get radiated? Isn't it heat?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



First, you define what you mean by 'heat'.

I'm tired of the goalposts being shifted when the definition is changed in response to my answer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Heat: I know it when I feel it


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

westwall said:


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




Yup, we can examine and predict the effects with startling precision but the underlying mechanism is totally hidden.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



That type of heat is nerve stimulation in the parasympathetic nervous system of your body.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Any proof of gravitons?  You just jump on every bandwagon that passes along don't you?

And I get that an idiot like rocks might construe in his mind that a thing must be smart to obey the forces at work in the universe....but for you to suggest the same thing is to put yourself on an intellectual par with him....you know good and damned well that neither energy, nor theoretical particles must be intelligent to behave as they must...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> I think it's funny that some people that denied the existence of photons, relativity, and quantum theory in the recent past are now latching on to one of the most esoteric properties proposed.



Hey, if you are going to believe in them, then you must accept them for what we believe them to be...personally, I think what we see re: wave particle duality is just our failure to completely understand waves.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's funny that some people that denied the existence of photons, relativity, and quantum theory in the recent past are now latching on to one of the most esoteric properties proposed.
> ...



Even funnier that some believe they actually understand what is happening at the sub atomic level...and act and behave as if these theoretical particles are real and practically drinking buddies.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



As if you could make that statement with anything like real honesty...you are doing nothing more than expressing an opinion which can not be verified or proven by any means possible....acting as if you actually know this stuff to be fact is just ridiculous ian...you may as well tell me about the tooth fairy's taste in socks....pretending that you are spouting actual knowledge instead of just stories that we tell ourselves till such time as we actually start to learn something real about the sub atomic world just makes you look like a schmekel.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



I have found equally credible sources that say that heat is a form of energy in and of itself...and that heat is nothing more than the "fingerprint" left by energy moving from one place to another....it is clear that at this point, we don't really know...but people like Ian are quite sure that they already know and are perfectly willing to tell you all about it....


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Who knows.  We have no idea what gravity even IS.  We have no idea how it works.  The current theory is gravitons emanating little gravity fields are the culprits, but we truly have no clue.  Gravity is the most pervasive, yet least known force at work in the universe.



The most pervasive force that we know about....perhaps the force that drives all energy movement is even more pervasive and yet, we remain completely unaware...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




I think you are missing all the work that has been done on atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals, etc   Atomic orbital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Xray spectography on crystals has actually produced pictures of orbitals. I imagine you think it's all a giant hoax though.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




I dont find joe Postma to be a 'equally credible source'.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




transfer of energy by radiation is reasonably simple and can easily described.

transfer of energy by conduction in condensed matter is tremendously complex and cannot be easily described.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 4, 2016)

IanC said:


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



And still it remains nothing but stories that we tell ourselves till such time as we actually get a clue....mathematical models aren't reality ian...no matter how much you wish or believe they are.


----------



## Crick (Oct 5, 2016)

Sid, you're about to step into a busy street... or, you're out in left field watching the ball rise from the bat... or you're in your car waiting to take a left turn... or you've tasted your wife's spaghetti and are now holding a salt shaker above it... or you've come across a strange dog on your morning walk and have to cross paths with it...

These are all instances in which we model reality in order to make the best judgement we can about what WILL happen.  The mantra you all spout about models is based solely on the fact that they consistently show you what you don't want to see.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 5, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



Heat, gravity, dark matter, dark energy - but don't worry, we KNOW everything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Smart photons know everything, people, not so much.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well we definitely know people not so much is accurate. Photons?  Now they behave the way they must behave.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Emitted in all directions, all the time, without regard to the temperature of their target.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Following the rules makes you smart?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Which rule says photons can measure the temperature of all the matter in the Universe?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The one that says that from a photon's point of view, the distance to anywhere in the universe is zero...and the time it takes to get there is zero...photons don't need to "know" where a cooler region is any more than energy conducting through a solid material needs to know...


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Sid, you're about to step into a busy street... or, you're out in left field watching the ball rise from the bat... or you're in your car waiting to take a left turn... or you've tasted your wife's spaghetti and are now holding a salt shaker above it... or you've come across a strange dog on your morning walk and have to cross paths with it...
> 
> These are all instances in which we model reality in order to make the best judgement we can about what WILL happen.  The mantra you all spout about models is based solely on the fact that they consistently show you what you don't want to see.









Huge difference between OBSERVED data, and a computer model.  The computer model could come up with the scenario that says, "it's OK to cross the street between 04:50 and 05:30" but on the ground you see dozens of large construction trucks coming down the road.  How are you going to judge whether it's safe to cross?  The computer model, or the trucks you can SEE?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> [Huge difference between OBSERVED data, and a computer model.  The computer model could come up with the scenario that says, "it's OK to cross the street between 04:50 and 05:30" but on the ground you see dozens of large construction trucks coming down the road.  How are you going to judge whether it's safe to cross?  The computer model, or the trucks you can SEE?



Since he is unable to actually think for himself, he will be compelled to accept the computer model without regard for its ability to accurately represent reality.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what's emitting and where is it emitting from?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


*
The one that says that from a photon's point of view, the distance to anywhere in the universe is zero
*
The distance may be zero, doesn't mean they can predict the temperature, everywhere, not to mention knowing where everything will be at every point in the future.

Which laws of physics back up your claim that they can?

Are photons God? Because knowing that much would pretty much take God.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Photons are being emitted. From all matter above 0K.
All the time. In all directions. Whether warmer matter is near or far or not.


----------



## IanC (Oct 5, 2016)

SSDD is simply dragging us into deep water.

Radiation is the simplest type of energy transfer to understand but even then we are making simplifying assumptions.

The most basic form of radiation comes from an atom that has extra energy so that an electron is in a higher orbital. When the electron jumps down to ground state a photon is given off in a random direction. High school science.

Next is molecular collisions. The electron shells are deformed in the collision, turning kinetic energy into potential energy. When the molecules separate and return to their regular state some of the stored energy is given off as blackbody radiation, and/or an electron is moved to a higher state which can then lead to the above first case. Even the opposite can happen. An excited molecule can lose its extra energy in a collision and turn it into kinetic energy.


There are no tags on molecules that define it's kinetic energy (temperature). Molecules are constantly changing speed with every collision. Air at a certain temperature (average speed) has molecules moving both faster and slower than the average. There is no way to tell the temperature from one individual molecule.


Even if SSDD was right (he's not) about photons refusing to move from a slower molecule to a faster molecule (absurd), there would still be a lot of radiation passing from the (higher than average) cool to the (lower than average) warm.


Conduction in condensed matter is tremendously more complex and I wont even try to explain.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


In all directions based off of what?

Why does heat rise?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
In all directions based off of what?*

Based off of photons moving in all directions.

*Why does heat rise?*

Define heat.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I did that already.  if you lit a match and held it in your hand which direction does the heat go?

Why are heat detectors in ceilings?

*photons*

Based off what?


----------



## IanC (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




All directions based on observation. And theory. Do you have some reason that certain directions would be prohibited? Actual mechanisms not just opinion.

Heat rises, that is an imprecise statement. Warm air rises because it is less dense, weighs less, and therefore gravity pulls cooler, heavier air down to replace it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*All directions based on observation.*

got a link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I did that already.*

Do it again. Try to be precise.

*if you lit a match and held it in your hand which direction does the heat go?*

IR from the flame would travel in all directions.
*
Why are heat detectors in ceilings?*

Because fires are bad.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


there you go saying IR is heat again.  I thought you stated it wasn't.  heat goes to cool so it only goes that direction.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Do it again.*
do what again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*there you go saying IR is heat again.*

Nope. You'll notice I didn't use the word heat in that post.

Your thinking is so muddled, your questions are pointless.
IR from the flame goes in all directions. Do you deny that?

If you'd like to talk about where hot air that touches the flame moves, that's a completely different question.

Be precise, for once, please.

*heat goes to cool so it only goes that direction*

If I light a match an inch above an ice cube, the heat only travels down?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Define heat.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nope, I did it already.  live with my initial post.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*If I light a match an inch above an ice cube, the heat only travels down?*

nope, heat rises, the ice underneath will eventually melt due to not being in a freezer. And the IR doesn't hit it either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you really did, you could post it again.

But you didn't.....and you won't. What are you afraid of?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*heat rises*

Something you won't...can't...define, rises?

How do you know?
*
the ice underneath will eventually melt due to not being in a freezer.*

It is in a freezer.

*And the IR doesn't hit it either*

IR won't hit the ice below the match?  Why?

Does the ice have a force field?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's really simple to do a search by entering 'define heat' and search under jc456.  it really is simple to do.  you should try once.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Something you won't...can't...define, rises?*
defined once, not again. use search in the application.

*How do you know?*

I feel it.

*It is in a freezer.*
well then it will remain as ice and your hand will get cold.

*IR won't hit the ice below the match?  Why?*
since it is in a freezer, the IR will go nowhere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't remember your definition?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I feel it.*

We're basing scientific discussions on what your nerve endings can detect?

*since it is in a freezer, the IR will go nowhere*

What stops it?


----------



## IanC (Oct 5, 2016)

Interesting factoid. A candle won't burn without gravity to remove the heated air and replace it with fresh. 

I think there is even a utube video demonstrating the effect in one of those high speed elevators going down under a fraction of g.


----------



## IanC (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Hahahaha, you might as well be trying to explain things to your dog. 

Maybe that is unfair to dogs. Make it a fish. Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*We're basing scientific discussions on what your nerve endings can detect?*
yep!

*What stops it?*
Temperature


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


ahh the condescending puppy barks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



A temperature force field blocks IR, preventing it from traveling down to the ice?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


nature does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How does nature prevent IR from traveling down to the ice?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it should be tested for that answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, you should run some tests to show that IR is magically blocked from going in certain directions.
You'll be famous!

In the meantime, downward IR from the atmosphere to the warmer ground, at night, shows the greenhouse effect is real.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why me, I'm happy that nature does its thing.  you're arguing it has some magical powers, prove the magic. ahhhh cause little grasshopper, you can't. now throw the math equations up, hahahhahaahahahahahaha


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD is simply dragging us into deep water.
> 
> .




Complacency, consensus...and being wrong are what happens in shallow water.


----------



## Crick (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> Interesting factoid. A candle won't burn without gravity to remove the heated air and replace it with fresh.
> 
> I think there is even a utube video demonstrating the effect in one of those high speed elevators going down under a fraction of g.



A balloon floating in the back of an empty truck will move forward when the truck accelerates.  The acceleration pushes the air towards the rear of the truck and creates a pressure gradient that drives the balloon forward.


----------



## Crick (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




jc, I hope you realize that in that you appear to be equating _yourself_ with a dog


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2016)

Crick said:


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


it is the sacrifice one has to make. Since CO2 can't warm anything, I guess being with man's best friend is a good place to be.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> it is the sacrifice one has to make. Since CO2 can't warm anything, I guess being with man's best friend is a good place to be.



Dogs are more honest...and frankly, much better people than members of the wacko warmer cult....

Only someone with a terribly broken character would think that being compared to a dog is a bad thing...


----------



## Crick (Oct 6, 2016)

Man, glad you two at least got each other.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Man, glad you two at least got each other.



Combined, they still don't have 100 IQ points.


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Man, glad you two at least got each other.
> ...



Think so? JC is probably on the wrong side of the curve but SSDD is just wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

IanC said:


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




Sop you say...but every observation ever made supports my argument while all you have is unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



Tell us again how matter stops emitting if it's near matter of the same temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



No need...The SB equations speak for me.






    Write out the equation....set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....(hint) zero...and it is supported by every observation ever made...whether you believe your eyes or not......Two way energy exchange has never been observed or measured...it only exists within mathematical models...not out here in the real world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....*

That would give the result of net power loss = zero.
*
and it is supported by every observation ever made*

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2016)

Again....

Temperature is a characteristic of a group of particles, not individual particles. 

Radiation is created by individual particles depending on the internal conditions within that particle.

There is no tag that can be read that defines a particle's temperature because an individual particle has no temperature, only groups do and they are made up of variable speeds, of which the average is considered the temperature.

SSDD'S theory has no mechanisms to explain it. He conflates the rules for groups as prohibition for individual interactions. He confuses the properties of matter with the properties of light. He is wrong on multiple issues and refuses to defend or even acknowledge the inconsistencies that are pointed out to him.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> Again....
> 
> Temperature is a characteristic of a group of particles, not individual particles.
> 
> ...



Energy only moves from warm to cool...this is born out by every observation and measurement ever made....and the fact thatI can't describe or name a mechanism means nothing...you can't describe or name the mechanism that causes gravity...but it exists none the less and everything in the universe  is effected by it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*Energy only moves from warm to cool*

Repeating your confusion doesn't make it true.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to reflect your beliefs....

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 (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




Energy in the form of radiation is moving in all directions, all the time. Heat, a net exchange of energy only moves from warm to cool. Two objects at the same temperature are still radiating at each other but there is no net change, no movement of heat.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Ler me know when they alter the wording of the law to reflect what you believe as well...I have looked all over and in none of the actual statements of the law do they mention net anything...that would probably be because net energy exchange between to objects of different temperatures has never been observed...just doesn't happen...but yes...I know that you believe it does...based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...got it.  When they change the 2nd law of thermodynamics to reflect what you believe...let me know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to reflect your beliefs....*

Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to say photons won't move from a colder body to a warmer body.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



The heat emitted by a blackbody (per unit time) at an absolute temperature of _T_ is given by the *Stefan-Boltzmann Law* of thermal radiation,





where 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 has units of Watts, _A_ is the total radiating area of the blackbody, and s is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
A small blackbody at absolute temperature _T_ enclosed by a much larger blackbody at absolute temperature _Te_ will transfer a *net heat flow* of,





Why is this a "net" heat flow? The small blackbody still emits a total heat flow given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. However, the small blackbody also receives and absorbs all the thermal energy emitted by the large enclosing blackbody, which is a function of its temperature _Te_. The difference in these two heat flows is the net heat flow lost by the small blackbody.

Blackbody Radiation Theory in Heat Transfer


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



It already does...to bad you can't read for comprehension...if you believe photons carry energy then the statement clearly states that energy won't move from cool to warm...do you think it has some other way to move than via photon?....this is why I rarely talk to you...it is like talking to a child and if I want to talk to children I have grandkids to talk to  that are much more interesting than you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


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


*
It already does*

Great, provide one from a decent source that says photons.

*do you think it has some other way to move than via photon?..*

Does energy inside solid matter move via photons? Does molecular movement play a part?
*
....this is why I rarely talk to you...it is like talking to a child*

I agree, but as a parent, I'm used to speaking to children. Luckily mine are much smarter than you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 7, 2016)

Also what the science is saying..............

*No increase in drought in over 100 years. No increase in flooding over the past 70+ years.*

'Floods are not increasing': Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams 'global warming' link to floods & extreme weather - How does media 'get away with this?'



Not good news if you are an alarmist k00k.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I agree, but as a parent, I'm used to speaking to children. Luckily mine are much smarter than you.



Not if they are getting their information from you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....
*
That would give the result of net power loss = zero.
*
and it is supported by every observation ever made*

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.

You never answered. Why is that?


----------



## Crick (Oct 14, 2016)

Excellent.  Excellent.  We await the explanation with bated breath SID.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Excellent.  Excellent.  We await the explanation with bated breath SID.




You already got it idiot child...sorry it was over your head...alas, there is no crayon function here so it isn't possible to draw you a picture in bright primary colors.


----------



## IanC (Oct 14, 2016)

SSDD continues to confuse the properties of photons with the properties of matter, etc.

there are two types of photons, real and virtual, radiative or reactive.

real photons are produced when particles shed energy from excited states to ground state. high school physics and electron orbitals. the energy is paid in full for the photon and there is no known need for a partner particle to absorb the photon. the direction of the emitted photon is random and only affected by the internal state of the emitting particle.

virtual photons are the force carriers in electromagnetic fields. they are constantly being emitted and reabsorbed unless they find a partner particle to swap the energy with, in a direction based on the properties of the two particles. the energy for these virtual photons is 'borrowed' via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, and they exist for an incredibly short period of time but because in the photon's reference frame there is no time or distance they can 'see' if a partner is waiting. the direction of the photon, and whether it is attractive or repulsive is dependent on both the emitting particle and the receiving particle.


obviously this is an oversimplified description. but SSDD is confusing the need of one type of photon to have two partner particles, with the individual particle simply trying to shed energy. in the past he has also compared radiation to air coming out of a tire. this is wrong because air molecules cannot occupy the same spot at the same time whereas photons can. there is no prohibition for photons to go through the same spot at the same time going in different directions. he has also compared radiation to gravity, a simple concept but with no observed carrier, and always attractive. does he really believe that gravity of the smaller object 'stops' in the presents of a larger object? that the moon stops attracting the earth, and only the net force remains? tides would seem to disprove that.

SSDD cuts out bits of evidence, selects favourable definitions of words, to build his argument. and then ignores all the evidence against it, refusing to defend his idea except by endless repetition. I have shown that particles have no 'tag' that defines their temperature. I have used classical and quantum physics to show why heat only moves from warm to cool, but there is no prohibition against photons going in both directions, in fact there are strong reasons as to why they HAVE to move in both directions.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> there are two types of photons, real and virtual, radiative or reactive.



No ian...there is only one kind of photon...that kind is theoretical...and all properties ascribed to them is hypothetical...little more than a story to be told till such time as the mystery of the subatomic is unraveled....


----------



## IanC (Oct 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > there are two types of photons, real and virtual, radiative or reactive.
> ...




hahahahahaha. that's why I always get my flashlight and my magnet mixed up!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Not surprising for someone who is as easily fooled by instrumentation as you...and are you suggesting that because your flashlight emits light and your magnet doesn't that somehow that makes all your fantasies about photons real?...you really are easily duped...aren't you?  You sound like crick showing his graph of so called greenhouse gas absorption and claiming that it supports the A in AGW...  His belief that his graph supports the A in AGW and your belief in what photons are up to are all nothing more than assumption that you have mistaken for the truth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2016)

IanC said:


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



SameStupidityDifferentDerp is so stupid, it's actual painful.


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2016)

Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.

I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.
> 
> I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha


Wow, an MRI? How does an MRI get done? Under force? Machine right, electrical energy? Why do you go there with Todd?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.
> ...



Wait a second, you can trick a photon to move to a warmer target, just by using electricity?


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.
> ...




Do you have even the foggiest notion of how an MRI machine works?

I can assure you that the technology wasn't invented using classical Newtonian physics.

Perhaps after discussing MRIs we could move onto tunnelling electron microscope. QM tunnelling must make SSDD'S head explode. But,but..... it's impossible, it must be a hoax!!!!! Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


hmmmmm ever have an MRI?  what's the loud clunk from the machine?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The smart photons bumping into each other when they suddenly stop moving forward?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


what happens when they bump each other?  do they emit?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why would photons emit anything?


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




No, I haven't. You?

The short answer to why are there clunks is because a strong electromagnet is being turned on and off.


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Photons, smart or otherwise, don't bump into each other.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why would they? I thought that was my question.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well my question was why the loud clunk when in operation?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


and what happens when the strong electromagnet is being turned on?


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I would be happy to answer that....as soon as you explain where you think the energy goes that is absorbed by CO2 but not released.

Try to focus


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, I've noticed your ignorance about photons.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I stated it was absorbed in the oceans.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I give two shits what you notice. And I was discussing MRI with Ian.  thanks.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> 
> I would be happy to answer that....as soon as you explain where you think the energy goes that is absorbed by CO2 but not released.



CO2 lacks the capacity to retain energy...all that is absorbed is then given up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*CO2 lacks the capacity to retain energy*

CO2 electrons never move to a higher orbit? Why not?

*all that is absorbed is then given up*

How? Photons in all directions?


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




So you are saying that IR emitted by the surface and absorbed by CO2 is then transported to the oceans somehow. Would you mind expanding on the part where it travels to the oceans?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


yeppers.


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere.

The excited CO2 molecules give up their energy to the atmosphere. Of course the atmosphere is also giving energy to other CO2 molecules and exciting them. A constant interchange of energy from potential to kinetic, affected by the lapse rate, until the density of the air is thin enough that CO2 emissions can actually escape without being reabsorbed.


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




So, does it return from the atmosphere by, ahem, backradiation? So far you have given no clue as to how it is transported to the oceans.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


convection.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



IR is transported by convection?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I wasn't talking about IR.  Why would you think that since I didn't state such a thing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
I wasn't talking about IR. Why would you think that since I didn't state such a thing?*

Because if you follow the comments back up the thread, you'd see that IanC asked you a question about IR and you never told him what happened to the IR.


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Are you just throwing out the first thing that comes to your mind????

Explain how convection captures CO2 specific IR (that would directly escape to space without the presence of CO2) and transports it into the oceans. You aren't making sense. Are there some steps that you are leaving out ?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2016)

IanC said:


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



1 in a billion ian...i in a billion...the rest is convection....radiation plays almost no part in energy transfer in the lower atmosphere


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2016)

Does it convect to space SID?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> Does it convect to space SID?



JC once claimed CO2 escapes into space.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Does it convect to space SID?



So in addition to being completely unable to make any sense of a graph...you are unable to read even short simple sentences and comprehend what they say...here, let me type the sentence again for you...this time I will use large, easy to see letters, and some pretty colors for you......skidmark...

radiation plays almost no part in energy transfer *in the lower atmosphere*


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2016)

Good.  So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space.  Well, that's a start.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Good.  So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space.  Well, that's a start.



Is that his roundabout admission that CO2 does slow the loss of heat to space?
Takes a lot longer for "warm" CO2 to rise high enough to radiate to space than for the IR to
move from the surface to space.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Good.  So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space.  Well, that's a start.



And the only part CO2 and other radiative gasses play in the lower atmosphere is to hasten energy to space...non radiative gasses are the blanket...as they only move energy by convection...radiative gasses are holes in the blanket which allow energy to reach space much more quickly than it would by conduction alone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Good.  So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space.  Well, that's a start.
> ...



*And the only part CO2 and other radiative gasses play in the lower atmosphere is to hasten energy to space...*

Which is why we see rapid night time cooling in desert areas. DERP!

*non radiative gasses are the blanket...as they only move energy by convection*

Yup. A blanket that allows IR to escape directly into space.

You're actually getting dumber the longer the post.


----------



## miketx (Oct 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
> ...



Oh My Fucking God! Squiggly lines on the internet! Stop the presses stop the presses! Which way the white women! Full speed ahead! Let them eat cake! Yarrrrhrhrgrhrgrhrgrgh!


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Does it convect to space SID?
> ...




You guys are being unfair to SSDD. He brought up an important point, and while he stated it incorrectly, it still needs to be addressed.

Roughly 1/4 of the 400w radiated from the surface escapes through the atmospheric window directly to space at the speed of light. Hardly 'plays almost no part'.

Roughly 1/8 of the 400w radiated from the surface is absorbed in a band that only reacts with CO2. That energy does not escape directly to space at the speed of light.

This is CO2's part in the mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect. Personally I cannot understand why anyone would deny the GHE or CO2's role in it.

As I have stated many times in the past, there is a bottleneck at the surface. Most of the radiation cannot freely escape so it finds another pathway. Evaporation cools the surface, moist air is lighter than dry air so it rises, it then cools from the lapse rate and condenses into clouds and precipitation releasing the latent heat from phase change. A lot of energy has been transported away from the surface to a point where it can more easily escape to space by radiation.

Even Trenberth's Cartoon acknowledges that almost half of the surface energy takes this 'elevator' up. Adding more GHGs shunts more energy into this pathway. BUT the surface temperature must rise at least slightly otherwise the energy would ALREADY be taking this pathway. Nature finds the most efficient route to shed energy.


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Good.  So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space.  Well, that's a start.
> ...




This comment is garbled by undefined pronouns.

Without GHGs all of the surface radiation would escape directly to space and it would be very cold.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well I did


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Please post the comment number where you did. I must have missed it somehow.


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

an interesting view on the radiation budget.   Does the Trenberth et al “Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram” Contain a Paradox?






the values are always different for any pathway but the overall directions are similar


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 18, 2016)

Im laughing...........you AGW guys are getting schooled on a thread you've all started. fAiL.........but might I remind you. Nobody out there is caring about the science.


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Good.  So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space.  Well, that's a start.









Really?  That's all you've got?  UV interaction with the oceans has nothing to do with it?  Long wave IR's inability to penetrate the skin of the water sails right over your tiny little head?


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> an interesting view on the radiation budget.   Does the Trenberth et al “Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram” Contain a Paradox?
> 
> 
> 
> ...







That graph is truly a piece of shit.  It tries to make an incredibly complex engine (climate) into a simple diagram.  A diagram that doesn't even really come close to reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Im laughing...........you AGW guys are getting schooled on a thread you've all started. fAiL.........but might I remind you. Nobody out there is caring about the science.



Any AGW guys in particular?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Good.  So you admit that the process is controlled entirely by radiative transfer to space.  Well, that's a start.
> ...


LOL  So, if IR cannot penetrate the skin of water it cannot warm it? LOL  So that rock that you just burned your hand on in July in the desert must have been heated by magic. LOL Because the IR did not penetrate the skin of the rock.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > an interesting view on the radiation budget.   Does the Trenberth et al “Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram” Contain a Paradox?
> ...


Closer to reality than you will ever get. You still calling for a major cooling? LOL  Even Dr. Spencer is saying that 2016 will more than likely be the warmest year in satellite history. And the other people keeping score are saying that the last three years have been the warmest on record since we, the human race, began keeping records. Many, many other people. LOL Must put it in terms you fellows can understand.


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > an interesting view on the radiation budget.   Does the Trenberth et al “Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram” Contain a Paradox?
> ...



A diagram of a tree isn't a real tree. I get that. But there is more available information in the diagram than there is looking at a tree in your backyard.

You can argue that too many assumptions are made, too many complexities ignored, but you have to start somewhere.


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




What a dolt. Visible and UV light warmed the rock.

IR returning from the atmosphere does not directly warm anything, it has no capacity to do work. On the other hand it does change surface conditions so that solar insolation, which is capable of doing work, can warm the surface faster and to a higher degree.

Surface temperature is dependent on both energy input and energy output. Higher atmospheric temperature means lower surface loss, a la the S-B equation.


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...








Nope.  Never said that.  In the desert the rocks get warm and then at night they cool off very fast.  When you are in the desert next to the ocean, on the other hand, the ocean moderates the temps.  Thus we KNOW that UV light penetrates the oceans to a depth of up to 500 meters and THAT is what warms this planet.


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

Most of the power coming from the Sun is in the visible light range. That is what warms the oceans. 

Much of the Sun's UV is intercepted by ozone high in the atmosphere. Some by N2 as well, I believe.


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> Most of the power coming from the Sun is in the visible light range. That is what warms the oceans.
> 
> Much of the Sun's UV is intercepted by ozone high in the atmosphere. Some by N2 as well, I believe.







Yes, it is, however the visible light is likewise not capable of penetrating deeply enough to warm the oceans.  UV, on the other hand, over hundreds of millions of years HAS been able to warm the oceans up.  That's why the thermocline exists in the first place.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2016)

So, energy that only penetrates a few thousandths of an inch isn't REALLY in the water?  Is that it?  Water doesn't start conducting heat till you get, what, ten feet deep?


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, energy that only penetrates a few thousandths of an inch isn't REALLY in the water?  Is that it?  Water doesn't start conducting heat till you get, what, ten feet deep?






Where does heat go junior?  Ahhhh yes.  It RISES!  Tell me then, slick, how do you get any warming of the water when the long wave IR can't even penetrate as deep as a thousandth of an inch?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


So, Ian, what you are saying is that a photon of IR carries no energy? Truly fucking amazing. Worth a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> IR returning from the atmosphere does not directly warm anything, it has no capacity to do work.



Have I quoted this correctly Ian.  Did you actually say that?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IR returning from the atmosphere does not directly warm anything, it has no capacity to do work.
> ...


Actually IR from the atmosphere doesn't go to the surface.


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


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








No, it does, it just doesn't do much.


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IR returning from the atmosphere does not directly warm anything, it has no capacity to do work.
> ...



Yes, I said that. Are you trying to take it out of context?

In these discussions it is implied that the surface is warmer than the atmosphere and the atmosphere has a temperature gradient from warm at the bottom that cools with altitude.

Are you nitpicking that I could have been more precise in my wording? Or do you actually believe that a cooler object can add heat to a warmer object?


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Where have I ever said photons of any type carry no energy? That is absurd.

Temperature is a quality of macroscopic objects,  warming and cooling are descriptions of temperature change.

A single particle of matter has no temperature. Only large collections of particles have a temperature, defined as the average kinetic speed of its constituents.

Warmer objects produce more photons at a higher average energy level than do cooler objects. For any interval of time the warmer object loses more energy than it gets back from the cooler object. A single photon coming from cool to warm does not increase the average energy of the warmer object because there is always more energy leaving in the other direction.


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, energy that only penetrates a few thousandths of an inch isn't REALLY in the water?  Is that it?  Water doesn't start conducting heat till you get, what, ten feet deep?
> ...



Heat does NOT rise.  Water expanded to a lower density by heating might rise, but heat travels in all directions nitwit.


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Even given a surface target warmer than the atmosphere that emitted that IR photon, that photon contains energy that will be transferred to the surface it strikes.  If NOT, you will have to give up the idea of NET RADIATIVE TRANSFER.


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...








  Sure you want to go with that assertion dude?


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

Crick said:


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




nope.

it's like a game where we both have a pile of money in front of us. I have a $100, you have $200. every 'turn' you have to give me 1% of your money and I have to give you 1% of mine. for the first turn you give me $2 and I give you 1$. you lost a net 1$. next turn  you give me $1.98 and I give you $1.02. you lost again. pretty soon we are both just passing each other $1.50 to each other.


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2016)

Nope.

If I, having less money than you, cannot accept your money (the analog of atmospheric IR not being able to do work), there is no transfer and my balance does not change.  You're moving into SSSD-ville.


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Nope.
> 
> If I, having less money than you, cannot accept your money (the analog of atmospheric IR not being able to do work), there is no transfer and my balance does not change.  You're moving into SSSD-ville.




Wow. I knew you had a problem deciphering information from graphs but apparently you aren't so hot with word either.

The smaller amount is the atmosphere.

You guys are saying the $1.00 increases the bigger balance. I say the $1.00 is offset by the $2.00 going the other way AT THE SAME TIME. The bigger balance will always go down until it is equal with the other balance.

Also, radiation is a direct handing over of energy. Heat transfer mediated by matter is different. In that case it is like a banker middle man who tallies up the transaction and only transfers the net amount. $1.00 first turn, $0.98 (edit $0.96) next turn.....$0.00 once the balances are equal.

I really don't understand how you could confuse my position with SSDD's. SSDD thinks there is always a middleman banker even when there is no matter to mediate the exchange of energy.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Wow


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.
> ...


Nice analogy.  I don't completely agree but it was still a nice analogy


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Have you got something to say jc?  Do you disagree?


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.
> ...



Obviously both are taking place at the same time.  That no work gets accomplished in the whole system is irrelevant.  Work is also a net sum.  IR from the colder atmosphere is absorbed by the warmer surface.  If you disagree, please explain why?


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

Crick said:


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




Hold on a minute Bucko!!!!

You and especially Old Rocks were saying that the radiation from the atmosphere was returning to the surface and warming it! I showed you that it was NOT, and explained why.

Instead of agreeing, disagreeing, or being grateful for the explanation you have now insinuated that I said the back radiation cannot be absorbed by the surface.

You are a scumbag.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2016)

Crick said:


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


I just want to make sure I read your post correctly.  you stated heat does not rise.  are you going with that?


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




I think you should put more effort into understanding my comments rather than finding loopholes to get around them.


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




Heat rising is a function of gravity, not an inherent quality of heat.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


no loopholes, I just don't agree there is back radiation.  You know this.  I complimented you because you showed how the balance of your idea works.  It is a very good analogy.  but I don't believe the atmosphere actually gives back any money.


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




the inescapable conclusion from that statement is that you disagree with the fundemental physics principle that all objects warmer than zero degrees Kelvin radiate.

the atmosphere is warmer than 0K, it does radiate, some of that radiation is in the direction of the surface. QED


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2016)

IanC said:


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


heat moves to the cooler atmosphere due to the increase in pressure of the air, as it does it gets less dense and  downward force is reduced. cold air replaces the heat as cold air is more dense and sinks.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I never said that objects don't radiate,  I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Heat doesn't radiate from cold to hot. Heat is the net transfer of energy from one object to another.

The radiation is always there.

Do two objects of the same temperature stop radiating as they are brought together? Or do they continue to radiate as before?

While the concept of radiation is not simple, nor is the fact that light and matter have different properties and obey different rules, I still cannot grasp why you and others find it so difficult to comprehend.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.*

Those tiny thermometers they have are neat!


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I didn't invent the rules


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I know, you just misinterpret them.


----------



## IanC (Oct 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Yup. Something like "there is a law against jaywalking therefore no birds have ever crossed a street"


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 At least  that would be observed


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....
*
That would give the result of net power loss = zero.
*
and it is supported by every observation ever made*

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd



And logical fallacies don't work on people who base their positions on actual evidence as opposed to failed models.  You get more like crick, mammoth, and rocks every day...are you proud of that achievement?


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think sarcasm works on the smart photon crowd
> ...




You keep saying shit like that, I suppose you really believe it.

But when I ask you specific questions like where does blackbody radiation come from, and how can the temperature of a distant object change the speed or direction of the molecular collisions producing it, then you go silent. Or revert back to irrelevant insults.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


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


and when we ask for observed measurements to validate your position, there is nothing.


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




Nothing to validate my position? Are you kidding?

Look up blackbody radiation. Look up thermal energy transfer. Look up photons or emissivity or a host of other topics. They are consistent with my position and against yours. At best, all you can find are definitions and explanations that are so general that they don't cover the specific topics we are fighting over.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


and still no observed measurement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




light is probably the most researched and measured topic in science. Todd just gave you a measurement of backradiation in the comment above. what other types of measurements would you like to see?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


what was the instrumentation used?


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

a picture of instrumentation. I googled Schulze-Dake and found this paper on comparisons of the available machines circa 1992. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426(1992)009<0762:EINRCA>2.0.CO;2

the page numbered 765 gives details on this particular instrument, which appears to be superior. you should read the PDF to find out more about the design and performance of these radiometers. in particular you will note that none of them are cooled, and that the response at different temperatures is analyzed. as are many other factors and calibrations.

those interested in Backradiation, both the theory and the measured data, could do worse than checking out this three part article. The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Pyranometers.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2016)

You are a funny guy ian....once again, you prove that you are perfectly willing to be fooled by instrumentation if it supports your beliefs....net radiometers are little more than souped up pyrogeometers..

Net radiometers operate via thermopiles whose warm joints are in thermal contact with the receiver and the upper cool joints are in thermal contact with the lower receiver...via a contrived mathematical model, the temperature difference between the two receivers is supposedly proportional to the net radiation...The temperature difference between hot and cold is converted to voltage by a Seebeck effect.

So congratulations...once again, you have fallen victim to being fooled by instrumentation...net radiometers are not measuring back radiation any more than pyrogeometers are...they are measuring the temperature difference between sensors on a thermopile...again, if you want to actually measure physical radiation (as opposed to radiation contrived via a mathematical model) you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and once again, that is not back radiation, it is merely radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.


----------



## IanC (Oct 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You are a funny guy ian....once again, you prove that you are perfectly willing to be fooled by instrumentation if it supports your beliefs....net radiometers are little more than souped up pyrogeometers..
> 
> Net radiometers operate via thermopiles whose warm joints are in thermal contact with the receiver and the upper cool joints are in thermal contact with the lower receiver...via a contrived mathematical model, the temperature difference between the two receivers is supposedly proportional to the net radiation...The temperature difference between hot and cold is converted to voltage by a Seebeck effect.
> 
> So congratulations...once again, you have fallen victim to being fooled by instrumentation...net radiometers are not measuring back radiation any more than pyrogeometers are...they are measuring the temperature difference between sensors on a thermopile...again, if you want to actually measure physical radiation (as opposed to radiation contrived via a mathematical model) you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and once again, that is not back radiation, it is merely radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.




Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring? 

If you say they are only detecting an effect of IR, then prove that your cooled instruments are not just detecting an effect of IR but the actual existence of IR.

Prove it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are a funny guy ian....once again, you prove that you are perfectly willing to be fooled by instrumentation if it supports your beliefs....net radiometers are little more than souped up pyrogeometers..
> ...



Already have on another thread...they are doing nothing more than performing calculations based on temperature changes of internal thermopiles.  You just don't want to admit that you have been completely fooled by instrumentation and claims based on faulty knowledge of what the instrument is actually measuring.


----------



## IanC (Oct 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




Prove it. Prove that the scientists and manufacturers of scientific instruments have fooled themselves. What are they measuring instead of radiation? 

You make declarative statements with no supporting evidence. Start showing the evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Prove it. Prove that the scientists and manufacturers of scientific instruments have fooled themselves. What are they measuring instead of radiation?



Dang ian...you sure turn into a pissy little bitch when you are proven wrong...don't you.  I never said that the manufacturers have fooled themselves...I said that the users have fooled themselves...and it is evident by the claims being made of measurements being made with the instruments...which clearly are not capable of measuring what they are claimed to be measuring.


----------



## IanC (Nov 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it. Prove that the scientists and manufacturers of scientific instruments have fooled themselves. What are they measuring instead of radiation?
> ...




So you seemingly agree that the instruments are measuring something in a reproducible fashion. If it is not radiation from the atmosphere then what is it? Explain yourself and provide some sort of evidence other than the misfiring neurons in your brain.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Temperature changes in an internal thermopile result in an electrical charge which is then "interpreted" via a contrived mathematical formula.  The something that is being measured is the temperature change of the internal thermopile...any number of things might cause the thermopile to change temperature.  The resulting electrical current is then interpreted every time by the same contrived mathematical formula...  What they are measuring is based on the assumption that only one thing can cause the temperature change within the thermopile....if you are a hammer....everything looks like a nail.

The only instruments that actually measure radiation directly must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to measure any radiation coming from the atmosphere...let the instrument warm and they will record nothing....but have no problem recording incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature which, according to believers is only half as much radiation as is coming back from the atmosphere.

Clearly it is your own brain that is misfiring...tragic lack of critical thinking skills....the opposite of skeptical is gullible.


----------



## Crick (Nov 2, 2016)

"Any number of things" when the instrument is designed specifically to ensure that nothing but incoming radiation affects the thermopile's temperature?


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




Stop just talking about it, and start putting up evidence that supports your opinion.

Show us your instruments, describe the detectors and how they work, prove that the cooling is an integral part of the operation and not just getting rid of background noise that obscures the signal.

I am no expert and I would appreciate the information. Show us all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....
*
That would give the result of net power loss = zero.
*
and it is supported by every observation ever made*

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> "Any number of things" when the instrument is designed specifically to ensure that nothing but incoming radiation affects the thermopile's temperature?



Tell me skid mark...how might you prevent a thermocouple from being warmed by "anything" but incoming IR radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> Stop just talking about it, and start putting up evidence that supports your opinion.



So you are acknowledging that you have no idea how a thermopile works?  interesting.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Show me "net" in S=B's writings.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Stop just talking about it, and start putting up evidence that supports your opinion.
> ...




I acknowledge nothing of the sort.

I am trying to get you to expand upon your opinion in a concrete way. If you actually explained what you think is happening, and the reasons and evidence behind, then either I will be convinced, or find an area that my knowledge was lacking and change my worldview, or I will find your explanation to be bullshit and proceed to demolish it. Or some combination of all three.

So hop to it. Start presenting evidence and explanations.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




I have, many times. You just call the Distributive Law of mathematics corrupt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



*Show me "net" in S=B's writings.*

You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> I acknowledge nothing of the sort.


If you need an explanation as to what a thermopile does, then clearly you don't know.
 [/QUOTE]


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> I have, many times. You just call the Distributive Law of mathematics corrupt.



A-B never used the distributive law in his writings...because he was describing a gross energy flow...not a net flow...show me in the writings of S-B the use of the distributive property..

Never happened and therefore the use of the distributive property is not only a corruption of the science...it is plain bad math to apply the distributive property to an equation that is already simplified...bad math and just plain stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Show me "net" in S=B's writings.*
> 
> You bet.
> Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.








  Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact.  Sorry guy...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Show me "net" in S=B's writings.*
> ...




*set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....
*
That would give the result of net power loss = zero.
*
and it is supported by every observation ever made*

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I acknowledge nothing of the sort.
> ...


[/QUOTE]


Hahahaha, I don't want just any explanation, I want YOUR explanation.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Hahahahahaha. I guess he is saying both objects stop radiating if their temperature is the same?? What an idiot. 

You know, I think he really believes his bullshit. I used to think he just painted himself into a corner and was just refusing to admit to an error but now I'm not so sure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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


*
I guess he is saying both objects stop radiating if their temperature is the same?? What an idiot.*

Yes. Yes!!!

Do you have that list of scientists, Einstein etc. who discussed net power loss?

I thought I saved it somewhere, but I can't find it. Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Found it!

_Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech._
_http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html_
_ "[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”
_
_http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity_
_ Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.” 
_
_https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium_
_ In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux
_
_Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events_
_ One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.
_
_What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD_
_ Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
_
_http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm_
_ Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it _*will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat*_ so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914._
_http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf_
_ Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random _*exchange by radiation *_equal amounts of heat with each other..." _


In Support of the A in AGW


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




Thanks! I must have dropped out of that thread before that comment came up. Outstanding!


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Don't forget the timing issue.  If a star a million light years were to wink out, all the Earth's warmer matter would have had to start radiating towards it a million years ago.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Lots of laughing like a monkey in a tree....not a single observed, measured instance of net energy exchange...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2016)

Crick said:


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



Personally, I don't think photons exist...but if they do, then I am afraid that you must abide by the rules...which state that a photon exists simultaneously at every point between its origination and its destination at the same time...sorry this is all so difficult for you, but then what would you expect from someone who can't make heads nor tails from the simplest graph.


----------



## IanC (Nov 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.


----------



## IanC (Nov 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




SSDD confuses the properties of light with the properties of matter. If you point two water hoses at each other they meet in the middle and cancel out because matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time with other matter. Light has no similar constraints. Any amount of light, traveling in any direction, can occupy the same space at the same time. Energy transfer by radiation is a net flow because radiation can only be absorbed, not cancelled out .


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.
> 
> Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.



And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.



IanC said:


> SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.



Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.
> ...


*
From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,*

Omniscient photons....cool!


----------



## IanC (Nov 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.
> ...




You seem to have a great difficulty in grasping concepts, even simple ones.

We use light to observe things. Either with our eyes or with instruments that can be much more sensitive. What are you proposing to observe light with? Hahahaha.

The speed of light has been measured quite accurately, in different mediums as well as in a vacuum. I can assure you that it takes a photon roughly six minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth.

Much of what we know can only be inferred from our observations. For instance, in the 1800's , Jupiter's orbit was well known and could be calculated quite precisely. But the predictions were just a little off, for an unknown reason. When light was hypothesized to have a speed rather than being instantaneous, it was quickly determined that it was the amount of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth that was causing the inconsistencies between observation and calculation. This discovery in turn helped to narrow down range of possible speeds for light.

This type of thing destroys your claim that there is no evidence, of anything, by anyone,  and that physics is a hoax. 

Do you have a similar type of anecdote that supports your theory that internal emission of radiation is controlled by the temperature of a distant object? Hmmmm...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> You seem to have a great difficulty in grasping concepts, even simple ones.



Far worse, you seem to have a great difficulty in separating concept from reality....you go on about theoretical constructs such as photons, etc, as if they are real and you have some actual idea of what they are up to.  I have known computer geeks who spoke of the workings of computers as if they were small communities composed of their friends and each of these friends had a thing that he did...rather than view the reality of the computer as a cold machine that spoke nothing more than a machine language consisting of zeroes and ones, they apparently found that they could only relate to it if they made it personal and had relationships with the internal workings...you seem to have that same problem with theoretical concepts...rather than accept them as little more than stories that hold a place till we get more understanding (or more correctly, ANY real understanding) of what is happening at the microscopic level, you seem to view the theoretical concepts as real, and speak of them in terms as if you had some sort of actual evidence that they are real and doing what you claim.  Nothing could be further from the truth and yet, that is apparently how you go about your life.



IanC said:


> The speed of light has been measured quite accurately, in different mediums as well as in a vacuum. I can assure you that it takes a photon roughly six minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth.



From your point of view...which is irrelevant to the theoretical photon to whom the distance from the sun to here as zero and the time to reach the earth as also zero.  Your point of view is of little importance.



IanC said:


> Much of what we know can only be inferred from our observations.



Translation.....much of what we claim to know is little more than stories that we invented in an attempt to explain things that we are still a very long way from actually understanding.  It isn't anything new...look at the stories that people five thousand years ago told themselves in an attempt to explain the world around them...look at the difference in the stories of 300 years ago....they reflect some increase in knowledge, and understanding, but are still a long way from reality...now look at the stories from a hundred years ago...more knowledge, some more understanding, but still just stories and at that point they were beginning to grasp how far those stories are from reality...look at the stories from 50 years ago...from 25 years ago...from 10 years ago...from 3 years ago....as we gain knowledge, the stories change....but they are still stories....and they are not to be mistaken for reality.  You really need to come to terms with the FACT that photons are theoretical constructs that hold a place in the narrative till such time as we gain some more knowledge of the microscopic.



IanC said:


> This type of thing destroys your claim that there is no evidence, of anything, by anyone,  and that physics is a hoax.



I never said that there is no evidence of anything...and I never said that physics is a hoax...there is plenty of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of most of classical physics...and I accept observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence as truth till such time as even more evidence overturns what we thought we understood...but I don't accept mathematical constructs and models in place of reality...which you clearly do...and not only accept them, but apparently have built yourself a little community in which you have actual relationships with all of these fictional characters.



IanC said:


> Do you have a similar type of anecdote that supports your theory that internal emission of radiation is controlled by the temperature of a distant object? Hmmmm...




Just the SB law...and the second law of thermodynamics...and every observation ever made.


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2016)

What is the speed of light SID, in any reference frame?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> What is the speed of light SID, in any reference frame?



Is this supposed to be an a ha! question


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What is the speed of light SID, in any reference frame?
> ...



It was the best he could come up with...he has been wondering for a very long time...think I should give it to him in the form of a graph?


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2016)

We all know the answer and it is not, as SSDD has been attempting to push, infinity.  That photons experience complete time dilation is irrelevant.  Their velocity in any and all other timeframes is c, 2.998e ms^-1, a distinctly finite value.  I pointed out that SSDD's nonsense (which you adopted jc) that matter throttles its own emissions depending on the temperature of distant matter clearly violates relativity AND (as we have seen from Ian and Todd) causality. So SSDD's rants about time dilation are intended to give the impression to folks like you, jc, that he has some method by which this can take place without violating relativity.  Well, he cannot.  Photons DO take time to get from A to B.  If the temperature of distant matter controls whether or not something emits photons, that awareness would have to travel instantaneously AND allow the calculation of future states.  Nothing travels instantaneously and neither inanimate matter nor electromagnetic energy can perform calculations.

Try this on for size jc.

We have two objects coasting along relatively near to each other in deep space.  One is 5.K (extremely cold), the other is 5,000K (very hot).  Real science (as opposed to SSDD's 'science') tells us they are both radiating, but that the hot one is radiating a great deal more then the cold one.  The net result is some transfer of heat from the hot to the cold.  Simplistically, it would be the same transfer as we would see from a 4,995K object to a region of absolute zero. But I digress.  SSDD's view is that the colder object radiates absolutely nothing towards the hotter one and that the hotter one throttles its own emissions towards the cold object by an amount proportional to the colder ones's temperature.

But both these objects are moving.  Their trajectories are controlled by the spacetime geometry through which they travel which, in turn, is controlled by the gravity fields of the matter in that space.  In other words, they travel on geodesic paths according to the gravity fields in which they are immersed. 

Now, completely indiscernible from the exterior, the hotter object contains a large fusion device at its center.  At time t=0, that device detonates and the entire object is turned into a fine gas spreading through space. Obviously, this changes the relationship between the two objects.  The colder one, which had to have somehow known that the object was about to be destroyed. had to alter its own emissions and do so before the explosion had taken place since it will require some amount of time for its emissions to travel to the former location of the hotter object.  The matter of the hotter object, had to throttle its emissions, in advance of the detonation, to reflect the conditions that would exist after it had been forcefully scattered to the four winds.

The obvious answer, jc, is that SSDD's interpretation of physics is deeply, fundamentally wrong.  The above scenario is perfectly characterized by accepting that all matter radiates all the time in a manner proportional to its temperature.  Think of Occam's Razor.  The simpler explanation; the explanation that requires manufacturing the least number of new things (like intelligent photons that can violate relativity), is far more likely to be true.  The normal, mainstream understanding of radiative heat transfer is far, far, far more likely to be correct than is SSDD's.


----------



## IanC (Nov 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> We all know the answer and it is not, as SSDD has been attempting to push, infinity.  That photons experience complete time dilation is irrelevant.  Their velocity in any and all other timeframes is c, 2.998e ms^-1, a distinctly finite value.  I pointed out that SSDD's nonsense (which you adopted jc) that matter throttles its own emissions depending on the temperature of distant matter clearly violates relativity AND (as we have seen from Ian and Todd) causality. So SSDD's rants about time dilation are intended to give the impression to folks like you, jc, that he has some method by which this can take place without violating relativity.  Well, he cannot.  Photons DO take time to get from A to B.  If the temperature of distant matter controls whether or not something emits photons, that awareness would have to travel instantaneously AND allow the calculation of future states.  Nothing travels instantaneously and neither inanimate matter nor electromagnetic energy can perform calculations.
> 
> Try this on for size jc.
> 
> ...




Thanks. I hadn't thought of the time element to transfer information. There were too many other glaringly obvious reasons as to why SSDD was wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2016)

Goodness gracious. The photon is following its rules and Todd is simply aware of them.


----------



## IanC (Nov 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



I never did.
I do insist that they follow the rules we've already discovered, not SSDD's confused misinterpretation of the rules we've discovered.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light


----------



## IanC (Nov 5, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.


----------



## Crick (Nov 5, 2016)

Time, dimensional and mass dilation all originated with the Lorentz Transforms which were based solely on Maxwell's equations.  No Einstein involved yet..  The Lorentz Transform figures centrally in the derivation of E=mc^2 from first principles.


----------



## IanC (Nov 5, 2016)

Good ol' mathematics, ya gotta love it.

Sometimes it is expanded to fill a need, other times it is expanded just for math's sake and others find a use for it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 5, 2016)

IanC said:


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



So time does or does not stop at c?


----------



## IanC (Nov 5, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.



Funny you should object to a model that is only a postulate based on mathematics...since your belief in back radiation, anthropogenic global warming (even to a small degree) are exactly that, and you seem willing to defend them to the death.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Well, you were wrong on the most basic element of the S-B law, so pardon me if I don't take your thoughts on this topic to seriously.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


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



From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.
> ...



Your contention about photons in a speed-of-light reference frame may very well be correct, but since it requires division by zero, it is not a "known" and is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Back radiation, as you've been told repeatedly, has been observed and measured on many occasions and AGW is a great deal more than a mathematical postulate, being supported by mountains of empirical data to which you simply close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and chant "nanananananan".

God, are you stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2016)

Crick said:


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



Right.

All we know for certain is manmade global climate warming change, or whatever you call it today: Excess Heat, etc. can only be stopped by by redistribution of wealth.


----------



## IanC (Nov 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




hahahahaha. my point of view? what other point of view is there? the realm of speed of light entities is permanently closed off from us. we can guess at it only. in our universe light has a speed limit, both maximum and minimum, both the same.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


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



So now we are guessing, but when you want to make a point, you talk as if there were no guessing involved...and we know all there is to know about the properties of light.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Yes, Ian, you're just a point of view. You might not the the ultimate arbiter of the Universe. Try not to be devastated


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



It's like expecting an ant to draw up the architectural plans for the Hudson Yard development in NYC. From the ant's POV, it's just all dirt


----------



## IanC (Nov 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.
> ...




what is your definition of back radiation? is it something other than radiation produced by the atmosphere returning to the surface?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Downward radiation that originated from the surface...any radiation from a cooler radiator returning to its warmer source.


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2016)

*Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate*

*W.F.J. Evans*, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.






The full text and data available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

A direct measurement of backradiation showing the quantified contributions of the atmosphere's various GHGs.  The contention that this is all an artifact of misused instrumentation is unsupportable bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


A single particle of matter has no energy? But temperature is the average of the kinetic energy of all the particles that the material is composed of. So if a single particle has kinetic energy x, and another particle has kinetic energy y, the kinetic energy of the two particle system is x + y. And the average is x + y / 2. So the temperature is x + y / 2, in whatever units you wish to measure it. But, if that is the case, then the kinetic energy of the single particle x can be measured in those same units. Therefore, the single particle does indeed have a temperature. Sheesh, pretty damned basic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


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


And why should we be grateful for a false argument? And your visceral reaction is an indication of immaturity.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




I never said an individual particle of matter has no energy, I said it has no temperature.

I have seen an estimate that the macroscopic world starts breaking down in the range of one picogram, one nanosecond. A mole is 6 x 10^23, atomic weights are in the range of 30 gms/mole therefore a picogram is roughly 10^10 particles. More than a billion particles to start providing a cohort that follows macroscopic rules due to statistical properties.

A far cry from stating one particle has a temperature as you just did.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> *Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate*
> 
> *W.F.J. Evans*, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin
> 
> ...



Again.. measurements taken with an instrument cooled to -80F...such measurements could not be taken with an instrument at ambient temperature because the energy would not move to a warmer instrument according to the SLoT


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



An estimate based on an untestable, unobservable, unmeasurable mathematical model so naturally to you, it becomes fact...and thereafter, you represent it as fact.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate*
> ...




I certainly don't read all the threads, and often don't read all the comments in the ones I do peruse so I cannot vouch that you have never posted up evidence that IR detectors need to be cooled to work.

So far any instruments I have checked into use ambient temperature. I have heard references to machines that are cooled to increase sensitivity or reduce response time but not as a prerequisite for the method to work.

I invite you to prove your seemingly unsupported declarative statement that IR cannot be measured except by cooled instruments. Perhaps you could give us the general range of IR that necessitates going from liquid nitrogen to liquid hydrogen as a coolant, as an example. TIA


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


if an object is cooler than another object, the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object, just has never been proven.  evah!!!!!!  BTW, when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object and it all goes upwards out of the atmosphere due to the lapse rate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.
> ...



*since your belief in back radiation,*

Smart photons iz smart. DERP.

Why haven't you explained how the cooler surface of the Sun radiates toward the much hotter corona?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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


*
From your point of view light takes time.*

Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate*
> ...



*because the energy would not move to a warmer instrument according to the SLoT*

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object



*

Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.
What's your explanation?

*when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object*

Stop it, you almost sound like you understand the S-B Law.

*and it all goes upwards*

Why? Magic?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


*Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.
What's your explanation?*

Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.

*Why? Magic?*
Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder. That's up!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



From your POV, that's correct.  Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.*

Those instrument readings are made up? Why do you feel that?
Are all measures of downward IR made up?

*Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder.*

SB doesn't say photons only more from warmer to colder.
If that were true, why does the cooler surface of the Sun radiate toward the hotter corona?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*From your POV, that's correct.*

Yes, time exists from my POV.  What about your POV?

Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?

*Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?*

Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Are you playing the semantics game now Frank?

Point of view in this case means frame of reference. All six billion of us humans share the same reference frame when it come to the speed of light. Or do you disagree? If so, why do you disagree and explain your reasoning.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So what if 6B share the same POV on c? Why is that relevant to a photon?

Again using the example of an ant at the Hudson Yards, it's all just dirt to the ant. He lacks the perceptional capacity to see it any other way


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why should a photon share your notion of "future", that's a fiction of time


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Are all measures of downward IR made up?*
yes, did I stutter?

*If that were true, why does the cooler surface of the Sun radiate toward the hotter corona?*
I never said it did. The surface is the source, so all surface heat is from the engine internally forced.

Since the corona is hotter, why isn't the surface as hot as the corona if radiation will warm?  Any guesses?  I bet you have no idea.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




Flip it the other way. We can't visit or even see into the world of the photons. Here in our universe it always travels at the speed of light. What it does in our world matters, the unknown and unknowable properties of what the universe looks like to a speed of light entity doesn't.


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




The corona is so thin it is practically nonexistent. The mechanism for it to be so hot is not well known but it is not a thermal transfer equilibrium from the surface of the Sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So a photon can tell, now, what the temperature of all matter, everywhere, will be at all points in the future?

That's some smart photon!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*yes, did I stutter?*

No, you said something incredibly moronic, and I wanted to confirm that's what you meant.
*
I never said it did.*

So no photons can leave the Sun, that's awesome!
*
The surface is the source*

No, the core is the source.

*so all surface heat is from the engine internally forced.*

Again, in English?
*
why isn't the surface as hot as the corona if radiation will warm?* 

Because, physics. As explained by S-B.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

IanC said:


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



We're in flatlands. We lack the perceptional capabilities to relate to a reality where time and space are lower dimensions and time is our convenient fiction.

You can't will a photon to only experience our reality just because it's the only one we can experience. We are irrevocably divided, our perception limits us. limits us. limits us.

We're living in 4 dimension Flatlands


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The future is your fiction, a photon has no time


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



In this no time "non-fiction", how does the photon "know" the temperature and location of all matter?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If from your point of view, the distance to anywhere was zero, and the time for you to get there was zero, how could you not know the temperature and location of all matter?...if "know" is the word you must use...It never ceases to amuse me that you and a few others seem to be under the impression that objects must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...I guess you think rocks must know which way is down from our point of view in order to obey the demands placed on them by gravity also....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


*
If from your point of view, the distance to anywhere was zero, and the time for you to get there was zero, how could you not know the temperature and location of all matter?...*

Okay, I can go anywhere in the Universe, and to me it feels instantaneous.
To the rest of the Universe, it takes me 1 million years to travel 1 million light years.
How does that help me know the location and temperature of all matter 1 million light years away 1 million years in the future?
*
It never ceases to amuse me that you and a few others seem to be under the impression that objects must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.*

Just as it amuses me that you think the temperature of a target changes the behavior of a photon.

*...I guess you think rocks must know which way is down from our point of view in order to obey the demands placed on them by gravity also*

Gravity curves time and space, according to current theory. Matter goes downhill.
What does that have to do with your omniscient photons?


----------



## IanC (Nov 9, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




Cool! I can dig it.

Light is living in Pointland because it only shares one dimension with us in its reference frame. We can't see its other dimensions and it can't see ours. I like it!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 9, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the surface is a heat source powered by the hydrogen core.  

You still didn't answer why the corona is hotter, btw, the earth's atmosphere isn't hotter yet you believe it radiates to the surface, the sun corona radiates but not back to the surface.  hmmmm


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*the surface is a heat source powered by the hydrogen core.* 

And you've explained, heat doesn't go from colder to warmer.

*You still didn't answer why the corona is hotter*

Don't know, don't care and for the purposes of S-B, don't matter.
*
btw, the earth's atmosphere isn't hotter yet you believe it radiates to the surface,*

The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.
*
the sun corona radiates but not back to the surface.* 

The corona radiates in all directions.


----------



## IanC (Nov 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




What surprise! Another nonsensical comment from jc.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 9, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
The corona radiates in all directions*

then why doesn't it double the heat at the surface?  I mean that's what our atmosphere is supposedly doing according to you and Ian.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 9, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.*

the earth atmosphere radiates up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
then why doesn't it double the heat at the surface?*

Why would it? Show your math if that's what you think.
*
I mean that's what our atmosphere is supposedly doing*

Our atmosphere is "doubling the heat at the Earth's surface"?
Who said that? Where?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The Earth's atmosphere radiates in all directions, it's what matter above 0K does.*

the earth atmosphere radiates up.
*
Up-Down-Left-Right.
All directions.
Just like the Sun's corona radiates in all directions.


----------



## IanC (Nov 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Up, down and sideways. 

Net radiative flow is from the solar heated surface through the atmosphere to the sink of space. There is no restriction on direction.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you keep saying..but you can't measure it unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...and then you aren't really measuring downward radiation..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Net energy movement is a fiction...it is only observed in mathematical models...never out in the real world.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


except that it does not radiate toward the surface based on temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 9, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


or not!!


----------



## IanC (Nov 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




How, exactly, does the surface temperature affect the molecular collisions that cause the radiation but only in a fashion to stop downward photons?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Well, what happens in a collision?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*..you are only measuring energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.*

How does the atmosphere know when it is safe to emit toward the instrument?


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 9, 2016)

lock this thread s0ns!!!

After last night, nobody but nobody is caring about the science except the hard core religion. It is officially nothing more than a hobby topic of interest at this point.......not even debatable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> lock this thread s0ns!!!
> 
> After last night, nobody but nobody is caring about the science except the hard core religion. It is officially nothing more than a hobby topic of interest at this point.......not even debatable.



Sorry, until jc and ssdd pull their heads out, we'll keep pounding their ignorance.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



How does a rock know to fall towards the mass of the earth?   How do oxygen and water know that together they can cause iron to rust?  How do ice bergs know to float?  When you rock back in a rocking chair, how does the chair know to bring you forward again?  How does any non sentient object know what to do toddster?  Do you really believe that things must know what to do rather than simply obey the laws of physics...or is a logical fallacy known as argument to ridicule really the only response you have since you clearly can't bring any real evidence to support your position to the table.


----------



## Crick (Nov 10, 2016)

YOU are the one saying inanimate objects are aware of their surroundings numbnuts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




How does a warmer object know the temperature of a cooler object?
How does your "dimmer switch" version of the S-B work?
*
Do you really believe that things must know what to do rather than simply obey the laws of physics*

They obey the laws of physics, not your silly misinterpretation of them.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

When was it decided that Einstein was wrong?

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

Or Kirchoff?

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Or Planck?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/14521686/


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




THAT is a good question. When molecules collide kinetic energy from velocity is turned into potential energy by deforming the shape of the electron clouds. After the collision the clouds revert to their original shape, releasing the stored potential energy as photons, blackbody radiation photons.

This is a ridiculously simplified explanation. Other things can and do happen. The important point is that molecules bring one set of kinetic and potential energies into a collision but leave with a different set. What happens is controlled by local conditions not the temperature of some far off target.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


when there is a temperature difference to move it that way, it's why they cool the equipment.  It seems simple to me, I understand it's above your pay grade.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> YOU are the one saying inanimate objects are aware of their surroundings numbnuts.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so do the CO2 molecules hand that energy off to O and N molecules?


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




what is the 'that energy' you are referring to?

if it is the IR radiation absorbed by atmospheric CO2, then we must define what it is. a CO2 molecule that absorbs a photon has increased its POTENTIAL energy. it is not moving faster, which is kinetic energy. collisions redistribute energy between potential and kinetic. the excited CO2 molecule may indeed give up that extra potential energy via collision and turn it into kinetic energy. the reverse also commonly happens, atmospheric kinetic energy can be turned into potential energy by exciting a CO2 molecule.

we know that the surface radiates CO2 specific IR that is then absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. less of this IR is released from the atmosphere to space. the difference between what is produced at the surface and what is released at the top of the atmosphere, is energy that in part powers the Greenhouse Effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


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


*
when there is a temperature difference to move it that way,*

How does the atmosphere know when the instrument is cool enough? ESP?

*It seems simple to me*

Simple? It seems very complicated to me. Emitting, stopping emitting, measuring the temperature of all matter, at every point in time and space. Not very simple.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why does a plant like CO2?

Why do humans exhale CO2?

why is there gravity?

Why does your heart beat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



All interesting questions that have nothing to do with your confusion on matter above 0K emitting in any and all directions.


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




Start giving some concrete examples of instrumentation that needs to be cooled, and documentation that the cooling is a necessary preconditon rather than just a refinement to give faster or more sensitive results.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why?  why don't you just prove back radiation.


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




We have proved back radiation by showing you data by instruments measuring it at ambient temperatures.

You guys say we are being 'fooled by instrumentation ', yet you never give any evidence of that other than to make unsupported declarative statements that only cooled instruments can measure it, and that the radiation somehow disappears if there is nothing cool to receive it.

Start providing some evidence to back up your position. We aren't just going to take your word for it. Prove it.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


the evidence is you and all of your warmer buddies.  CO2 went up and temperatures didn't.  I don't need anything more.  And yes, every ambient temperature reading was not back radiation.  simply wasn't and you can't prove it was.  My evidence are today's temps and today's CO2 count.


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2016)

CO2's warming influence is either there or it isn't. It is one factor out of hundreds. Even if temps were going down that would not prove CO2 was not contributing.

Your logic is false.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> CO2's warming influence is either there or it isn't. It is one factor out of hundreds. Even if temps were going down that would not prove CO2 was not contributing.
> 
> Your logic is false.


huh?  more CO2 and no more warming influence, your position is false just on that.  mk


----------



## IanC (Nov 10, 2016)

The temperature of the surface or atmosphere is decided by many factors taken in its entirety.

You cannot declare that CO2 is the only factor or even the main factor. If all the other factors remained the same but CO2's warming influence went up then so would the temperature. That is the warmer's position.

My position is that other factors are more important, especially in combination. The correlation between CO2 and temps was very strong for the period between 1980-2000. That is when CO2 was hardwired into the climate models. Since then the correlation has been much weaker but the input for CO2 has not been changed, they are just hoping the results will come back and show the conclusions they jumped to will again be reasonable.

While I disagree with the feedbacks, I do agree that CO2 has a warming influence. Based on principles of physics. The total change of temperature is not proof or disproof of CO2's contribution.


----------



## Crick (Nov 10, 2016)

Other factors can temporarily overwhelm greenhouse warming.  But, you postulated "all the other factors remained the same".  Under that condition, increasing CO2 will certainly lead to increasing temperatures. Conditions on the Earth: ENSO, PDO, etc, will add noise, but CO2's strength is in its persistence


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Other factors can temporarily overwhelm greenhouse warming.  But, you postulated "all the other factors remained the same".  Under that condition, increasing CO2 will certainly lead to increasing temperatures. Conditions on the Earth: ENSO, PDO, etc, will add noise, but CO2's strength is in its persistence




I really wish you would quote me, in context, when you are telling other people 'what Ian said'.

your version-  "all the other factors remained the same"

what I actually said -  "If all the other factors remained the same"

huge difference in meaning, especially without the context.


----------



## Crick (Nov 12, 2016)

I stand by "CO2's strength is in its persistence".


----------



## IanC (Nov 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Other factors can temporarily overwhelm greenhouse warming.  But, you postulated "all the other factors remained the same".  Under that condition, increasing CO2 will certainly lead to increasing temperatures. Conditions on the Earth: ENSO, PDO, etc, will add noise, but CO2's strength is in its persistence
> ...




ya know, I have usually tried to be fair with you. I have even gone back and apologized when _I _discovered that I had perhaps treated you unfairly by reacting to your actual words rather than the intent behind them.

here is a case where you purposely misquoted me, and when it was pointed out to you, you churlishly refuse to even acknowledge it. do you still wonder why I call you dishonest? your character is abysmal. I hope your children have learned to reject your poor values.


----------



## Crick (Nov 12, 2016)

That's a bit harsh for leaving out the word "if".  So, let me take that back and just replace it with a big fuck off.


----------



## Crick (Nov 12, 2016)

Sorry.  Caught me at a bad moment.


----------



## IanC (Nov 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> That's a bit harsh for leaving out the word "if".  So, let me take that back and just replace it with a big fuck off.




this was just the latest dishonest misquote that you made. I have asked you repeatedly to stop doing it but you can't help yourself.

it is symptomatic of your character, and your faulty way of thinking and understanding of science.

you probably think it is fair to misquote and distort what I say because you have been misquoted or distorted yourself by others. rationalization is part of your problem.


----------



## Crick (Nov 13, 2016)

Having a bad day yourself, eh.  If there's something I've suffered around here it would be out of context quoting.  See SSDD's sig.  Tell you what, though; I'll let you know when I want your advice on any of this.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Sorry.  Caught me at a bad moment.




Hey Crick.......we get it.....bad week for you guys but look, it was a pretty good 8 year run!!!

But dang if it isn't heading downhill at a blinding speed...............

Trump chooses climate change hard-liner for energy advisor


I mean, how many times have I talked about nobody caring about climate science? Now......it really is off the charts irrelevant.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 13, 2016)

Trump’s election marks the end of any serious hope of limiting climate change to 2 degrees


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 13, 2016)

Trump win boosts coal, hits renewable stocks

I mean......is  this thread at all relevant anymore???


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The loud clunk is the magnets, which polarize the cell structures, being released. those structures emit stored energy which is read by very sensitive sensors. this creates a photonic picture of the energy released.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> here is a case where you purposely misquoted me, and when it was pointed out to you, you churlishly refuse to even acknowledge it. do you still wonder why I call you dishonest? your character is abysmal. I hope your children have learned to reject your poor values.



The hypocrisy literally drips ian....it literally drips....how often do you twist and torture my comments and then make arguments against what you have made of my statements?...hint...it is a constant issue with you.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That's a bit harsh for leaving out the word "if".  So, let me take that back and just replace it with a big fuck off.
> ...



Same can be said of you ian....you routinely torture my comments into something I never said and then argue against that...you are just as guilty as crick...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Having a bad day yourself, eh.  If there's something I've suffered around here it would be out of context quoting.  See SSDD's sig.  Tell you what, though; I'll let you know when I want your advice on any of this.



Been through this crick...I never quoted you out of context...I used the entire sentence...word for word...the fact that you hate that someone actually grabbed your idiot comment and that you must have it routinely reminding you of what a schmendrick you are has nothing whatsoever to do with context.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Having a bad day yourself, eh.  If there's something I've suffered around here it would be out of context quoting.  See SSDD's sig.  Tell you what, though; I'll let you know when I want your advice on any of this.




I wasn't giving you advice. I was pointing out and condemning your dishonesty. are you stupid?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 14, 2016)

How does a smart balling ball know how to fall toward Earth?


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > here is a case where you purposely misquoted me, and when it was pointed out to you, you churlishly refuse to even acknowledge it. do you still wonder why I call you dishonest? your character is abysmal. I hope your children have learned to reject your poor values.
> ...




nope. I have tried on many, many occasions to debate certain topics with you. you made it abundantly clear that you would not defend your positions except to endlessly repeat them. if I have misconstrued your position, or caricatured them, it is because of your failure to explain them despite numerous specific requests.


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How does a smart balling ball know how to fall toward Earth?




non sequitur

we know the effects of gravity to a very fine degree. that we cannot identify the actual force carrier is unfortunate but does not change our calculations.

we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons  are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred. 

the known properties of light do not support SSDD's version of physics. bringing gravity into the discussion does nothing to add clarity or understanding of this topic.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 14, 2016)

Heres what the science says s0ns..............

*Record Global Cooling Over The Last Eight Months*
Posted on November 13, 2016 by tonyheller
Over the last eight months, global temperatures over land have cooled a record 1.2 C. November is seeing record cold in Russia and South Australia, so we should see the record cooling trend continue.

Record Global Cooling Over The Last Eight Months | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog


But really, nobody cares one way or another in 2016.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons  are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred.



No ian....we have theorized an energy carrier in radiation...we call it a photon...now, would you like to provide some actual proof that photons as described by science exist?...of course you wouldn't...because none exists...but you would rather die than admit that wouldn't you?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How does a smart balling ball know how to fall toward Earth?
> ...


So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just _knows _


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Never stops amusing me that they think that objects must be intelligent, or aware in order to obey the laws of physics...or worse that they think suggesting that I think that they must be smart is a good argument in support of their position.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



At the end of the day, the Kabbalists and theoretical physicists agree that our 4 dimension space time is folded within a larger 10 dimension construct. we're living in our version of Flatlands where things passing through, light, heat, feelings are just our limited interpretations of something we forever lack the perceptual capability to grasp


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> At the end of the day, the Kabbalists and theoretical physicists agree that our 4 dimension space time is folded within a larger 10 dimension construct. we're living in our version of Flatlands where things passing through, light, heat, feelings are just our limited interpretations of something we forever lack the perceptual capability to grasp



"There is no spoon."


----------



## Crick (Nov 16, 2016)

The bowling ball falls because it is driven in that direction by the gravity field.  No such field exists to control photons in response to the temperature of distant objects.

That's the heart of SSDD's failure.  His interpretation and the real interpretation end up with the same results but the real interpretation doesn't require matter being sentient and able to control its emissions and violate special relativity.  Why would you pick the explanation that requires such idiotic bullshit?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> The bowling ball falls because it is driven in that direction by the gravity field.  No such field exists to control photons in response to the temperature of distant objects.
> 
> That's the heart of SSDD's failure.  His interpretation and the real interpretation end up with the same results but the real interpretation doesn't require matter being sentient and able to control its emissions and violate special relativity.  Why would you pick the explanation that requires such idiotic bullshit?



Gravity can drive, but not temperature?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> The bowling ball falls because it is driven in that direction by the gravity field.  No such field exists to control photons in response to the temperature of distant objects.



You say that as if it were proven fact....you and ian are becoming the same person.  At present, we haven't even scratched the surface in so far as our understanding of the forces that drive energy transfer go...and yet you believe that you can make declarative statements with regard to what forces do or do not exist that drive energy transfer.



Crick said:


> That's the heart of SSDD's failure.



One can't fail so long as one goes with every observation ever made....the possibility of failure increases proportionally as one gets further away from what one can actually observe....and when you start believing unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models over what you can actually observe, you are pretty much assured to fail.


----------



## Crick (Nov 17, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The bowling ball falls because it is driven in that direction by the gravity field.  No such field exists to control photons in response to the temperature of distant objects.
> ...



Do you understand the concept of fields?  An electromagnetic field applies a force to all charged particles within the field.  A gravity field applies a force to any mass within the field.  At any given location a field has a magnitude and a direction.  No such field exists for radiant temperature. Besides, gravity and EM fields produce a physical force - something that results in the acceleration of matter. That is not what you and SSDD are attempting to conjure up.

And, again, given two explanations that produce the same result, why pick the one that violates every manner of physical law?


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

interesting. Franky has tossed a life preserver to SSDD in the form of unobservable extra dimensions. will he take it? hahahahaha.

will SSDD claim that radiant dispersion of energy is a field like wirebender did? for that matter, is SSDD actually the reincarnation of wirebender? wirebender left after being painted into a corner, SSDD arrived soon after with a slightly modified 'theory of everything' but he refuses to actually explain anything because he knows that would just paint him back into the corner again.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.

light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.

the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.

gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
> 
> light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
> 
> ...


Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum.  Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD.  I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument.  hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed.  Zippola baby!!!!!!

I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners.  But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group. 

but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
> ...







Keep ignoring the data jc.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.

150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.

we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.

SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


presented and debunked in previous threads.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


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


well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system.  Do you believe the earth is a closed system?  If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.

What about all of you space junk?


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
> ...




I can't figure out which old saying describes you better....



> *There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See:*
> 
> • According to the ‘Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings’ this proverb has been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’). In 1738 it was used by Jonathan Swift in his ‘Polite Conversation’ and is first attested in the United States in the 1713 ‘Works of Thomas Chalkley’. The full saying is: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’.



or 



> *YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT DRINK*
> *When It Originated:* 1175
> ￼
> ￼One of the oldest aphorisms in English, this adage was first recorded in the Old English Homilies: “Hwa is thet mei thet hors wettrien the him self nule drinken.” A modern version appeared in the 1602 play _Narcissus_: “They can but bringe horse to the water brinke / But horse may choose whether that horse will drinke.”￼


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


bubba, I give two shits as I have stated before.  The fact remains, you have no observed material to prove your position.  PERIOD!!!!!!!!

earth is not a closed system.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




I dont think there is any such thing as a truly closed system. even the universe as a whole seems to be expanding. embedded and expanding into what is a bit of a paradox mind you.

that said, you guys claim absolutes when convenient, or uncertainties when it is not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, your smart photons have debunked those measurements of back radiation. Sure.

Maybe you can help SSDD explain how the cooler surface of the Sun still radiates toward the hotter corona?

Or maybe post proof that it doesn't?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How do you know that it does?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The Sun's surface would be black, you know, if it's not emitting photons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's a damn good point


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yeah, SSDD's smart photons require lots of hoops.
The real science is much cleaner.
All matter above 0K emits in all directions.
It doesn't care the temperature of the target and it doesn't violate the 2nd Law because the hotter
emits more/faster toward the cooler, so net, energy moves from hot to cold.
We showed him the S-B Law, but he tried to build more stupid hoops.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Dude, you are very wrong.  I merely ask for proof.  I haven't seen any. You'd think with the supposed climate science, someone could present an experiment to confirm what it is you claim happens mathematically.  IT IS SCIENCE that REQUIRES that.  Not me.  Why is it you are so hung up on this back radiation thingy you can't prove?  You claim I want absolutes, nope, I want evidence. Through this post, proof has never been posted. And this is after folks in here saying over and over there are thousands of scientific procedures out there.  And yet, zippo.

I even showed you that a well known scientist, judith curry, has repositioned herself to not use back radiation.  BTW, you for one never stated what you believe back radiation is.  you asked SSDD and I, but no mention of it from you.  What say you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







If this doesn't show back-radiation (incoming long-wave), what do you feel it shows?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I have no idea, nor do you.  It could just be downwelling IR from the sun.  I know, I know it's night. There are many objects in space that emit toward earth, stars, the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface. To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*It could just be downwelling IR from the sun. I know, I know it's night.*

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.
*
the Moon for example, I bet when the moon is full it emits quite a lot of IR to the surface.*

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface? Okay.

*To make a claim that something is absolute as you do is absurd.*

It's absurd that the atmosphere, which is above 0K, can emit toward the surface?
Please explain further.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


asked and answered.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, your avoidance of actual measurements of back radiation was noted.

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?

Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Moon and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Judy Curry did not say there was no 'back radiation'. she said it was a non technical term. I pointed out your misunderstanding, did you not read her comment?

Sullivan made a strawman misquote, attributed it to her, and made a faulty conclusion inferred from the strawman rather than her words. Can't you think?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


asked and answered.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


post her comment again.  You read it wrong. in other words you read into it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Are you saying the atmosphere can absorb energy from the Sun and the cooler atmosphere
can then emit toward the warmer surface?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


asked and answered.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




IR radiation from the Sun is absorbed to extinction well before it gets anywhere near the surface. try again.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I asked for her quote again.  you read into it.

bTW, are you going to give your definition of back radiation ever?


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




my personal working definition of back radiation? I have described it many times for you in the past. you are just too stupid to understand it.

first you need an atmosphere. no GHGs are necessary. the atmosphere is held aloft with stored solar energy. the energy is composed of two parts, potential energy (height of the atmosphere) and kinetic energy (speed of the molecules, also known as temperature). the ratio between kinetic and potential is constantly being swapped back and forth by molecular collisions.

molecular collisions also produce 'blackbody radiation', or 'thermal radiation' if you are offended by the first description. all objects produce radiation if they are above zero degrees Kelvin.

while the surface can only radiate upwards (the sideways component balances out), the atmosphere radiates both upwards and downwards (again, the sideways component balances out). the atmospheric radiation that travels downward is back radiation. it is giving back part of the energy it received from the surface. the net flow of energy is always up and out to space but some of the energy given to the atmosphere is returned to the surface.

got it now?

adding GHGs to the atmosphere increases the amount of energy the surface adds to the atmosphere, which in turn adds to the amount of energy returned to the surface.


----------



## IanC (Nov 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




you asked for her quote again? you and SSDD are the one's who posted the link! are you saying that you didnt even read it? you just read the headline?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why can we see the surface of the Sun?


----------



## Crick (Nov 18, 2016)

Because it chooses to be seen


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Is there an actual surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_The photosphere is the visible surface of the Sun that we are most familiar with. Since the Sun is a ball of gas, this is not a solid surface but is actually a layer about 100 km thick (very, very, thin compared to the 700,000 km radius of the Sun)._

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics


----------



## ding (Nov 19, 2016)

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. Over the last 5 million years there has been rapid cooling. 












Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 600 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm.






Five million years ago the earth started going through glacial / interglacial cycles. The glacial / interglacial cycles of the past 5 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. But before the glacial cycle could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.






The north pole is isolated by landmasses. The south pole is isolated because of Antarctica. 






Trust me... we would be much better off at 600 ppm than we would 250 ppm which is the UN's goal. Luckily for us, we won't get any where close to that in our lifetime.


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

How do you see the Antarctic continent as being isolated from warm ocean currents?


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> How do you see the Antarctic continent as being isolated from warm ocean currents?


The pole is isolated from warm marine currents.  The Antarctic continent is what is isolating the south pole of the planet from warm marine currents.  Basically when the poles become isolated from warm marine currents the threshold is lowered for glaciation at the poles.  The south pole has a lower threshold for glaciation than the north pole because a continent is parked over the south pole while the north pole is  somewhat less isolated because other land masses are interfering with the circulation of the warm marine currents of the ocean rather than a landmass being parked over the pole.


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

Antarctica and its ice sheets have been responding to warm ocean currents for decades now. What do you think destabilized the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)?


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Antarctica and its ice sheets have been responding to warm ocean currents for decades now. What do you think destabilized the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)?


Well given that through the geologic record that CO2 has lagged temperature by 800 years, I'm not convinced that CO2 is the driving force in climate change.  I see it more as reinforcing climate change.  When it heats up more CO2 is released from the ocean, thus reinforcing the temperature change.  When it cools down, the oceans absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, thus reinforcing temperature change.  Mind you I'm not arguing that there is no greenhouse gas effect.  Of course there is and we should all be glad there is because the earth would be much colder without that effect.  The reality is that the majority of the impact is at really really low atmospheric CO2 levels.  There is a logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and associated temperature change.  Basically it is diminishing returns.  But to answer your question, there are lots of moving parts and it gets really really complicated fast.  My personal belief is that the oceans play the biggest role with orbital effects acting as a trigger for climate changes.  Water vapor is the dominant GHG and we can't really history match that with past climate changes.  As for the ice sheets, we'll know more later because if you know anything about where CO2 is being emitted in the world and why it is being emitted, then you will know that nothing is going to change anytime soon.


----------



## IanC (Nov 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Antarctica and its ice sheets have been responding to warm ocean currents for decades now. What do you think destabilized the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)?




_IF_, a big if, the WAIS has been destabilized, then it was caused by coming out of the last Ice Age 5000yrs ago. aided by the line of active volcanoes under the west side of the continent.

ice sheets are slow reacting so the last few decades is essentially a single data point in a long history, of which we have no records.


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

That is NOT the opinion of the experts Ian.  

Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet after local destabilization of the Amundsen Basin
Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet after local destabilization of the Amundsen Basin
“Unstoppable” Destabilization of West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Threshold May Have Been Crossed
Antarctic coast meltdown could trigger ice-sheet collapse
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...antarctic-ice-sheet-raise-sea-levels-3-meters
Stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet in a warming world :  Nature Geoscience :  Nature Research


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> That is NOT the opinion of the experts Ian.



If the experts behave anything like you do, then they are not experts.


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

Did you have anything pertinent to add to the conversation?  Did you find my comment to Ian offensive in some manner?  If so, please report it to management.


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Did you have anything pertinent to add to the conversation?  Did you find my comment to Ian offensive in some manner?  If so, please report it to management.


Did I have anything pertinent to add to the conversation? Yes, I already added it.  Your comments in my thread were unprofessional.  Your interpretation of the data was not only wrong it was 180 degrees from being right.  The paper you posted was the paper I used and in fact pretty much everyone uses for climate modeling.  So when you believed its reference to episodic ice sheets somehow proved that bipolar glaciation had occurred earlier, you totally missed the point of that paper.  *So, if your experts are anything like you, they are no experts. * Now do you understand?


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2016)

What do you understand "episodic Northern-hemispheric ice sheets" through a period in which CO2 was continuously below the Antarctic glaciation threshold to mean? 

 I quote "Proxy CO2 estimates remain above our model’s northern-hemispheric glaciation threshold of ~280 p.p.m.v. until ~25 Myr ago, but have been near or below that level ever since. This implies that episodic northern-hemispheric ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed (although still much later than Oi-1) and could explain some of the variability in Miocene sea-level records"



Crick said:


> Antarctica and its ice sheets have been responding to warm ocean currents for decades now. What do you think destabilized the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)?





ding said:


> Well given that through the geologic record that CO2 has lagged temperature by 800 years, I'm not convinced that CO2 is the driving force in climate change.   I see it more as reinforcing climate change.  When it heats up more CO2 is released from the ocean, thus reinforcing the temperature change.  When it cools down, the oceans absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, thus reinforcing temperature change.



Shakun's work on the early Holocene [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html]showed that interglacials were initiated by Milankovitch cycles but were reinforced and extended by increased CO2 released from warming oceans and tundra.  However, a later paper of his [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.700.4832&rep=rep1&type=pdf] concludes that "The first mode of deglacial climate variability is common to most climate records and is likely related to rising CO2, implicating it as a major deglacial forcing/feedback"



ding said:


> Mind you I'm not arguing that there is no greenhouse gas effect.  Of course there is and we should all be glad there is because the earth would be much colder without that effect.  The reality is that the majority of the impact is at really really low atmospheric CO2 levels.



That's probably true but has no relevance to anything of concern to humanity at present.  We're not going to see "really really low atmospheric CO2 levels" for several centuries at least. Climate sensitivity at it's current range is still approximately 3C/doubling which is sufficient to easily take the Earth's temperature into a very 'expensive' range without significant efforts on all our parts.



ding said:


> There is a logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and associated temperature change.  Basically it is diminishing returns.  But to answer your question, there are lots of moving parts and it gets really really complicated fast.  My personal belief is that the oceans play the biggest role with orbital effects acting as a trigger for climate changes.  Water vapor is the dominant GHG and we can't really history match that with past climate changes.  As for the ice sheets, we'll know more later because if you know anything about where CO2 is being emitted in the world and why it is being emitted, then you will know that nothing is going to change anytime soon.



You have not answered the question.  What do you believe has destabilized the WAIS?


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do you understand "episodic Northern-hemispheric ice sheets" through a period in which CO2 was continuously below the Antarctic glaciation threshold to mean?
> 
> I quote "Proxy CO2 estimates remain above our model’s northern-hemispheric glaciation threshold of ~280 p.p.m.v. until ~25 Myr ago, but have been near or below that level ever since. This implies that episodic northern-hemispheric ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed (although still much later than Oi-1) and could explain some of the variability in Miocene sea-level records"
> 
> ...


The paper you referenced established the glaciation threshold for the north pole at ~280 ppm and ~750 ppm for the south pole which was lower than the CO2 values estimated by geochemical proxies10, 11 and carbon-cycle models13, 14. This means there was no glaciation at the north pole until as recently as 500,000 years ago. Prior to that time they found... *Instead of bipolar glaciation, we find that Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation alone.*


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2016)

*The apparent absence of contemporaneous cooling in deep-sea Mg/Ca records4, 5, 6, however, has been argued to reflect the growth of more ice than can be accommodated on Antarctica; this, combined with new evidence of continental cooling7 and ice-rafted debris8, 9 in the Northern Hemisphere during this period, raises the possibility that Oi-1 represents a precursory bipolar glaciation. Here we test this hypothesis using an isotope-capable global climate/ice-sheet model that accommodates both the long-term decline of Cenozoic atmospheric CO2 levels10, 11 and the effects of orbital forcing12. We show that the CO2 threshold below which glaciation occurs in the Northern Hemisphere (~280 p.p.m.v.) is much lower than that for Antarctica (~750 p.p.m.v.). Therefore, the growth of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere immediately following Antarctic glaciation would have required rapid CO2 drawdown within the Oi-1 timeframe, to levels lower than those estimated by geochemical proxies10, 11 and carbon-cycle models13, 14. Instead of bipolar glaciation, we find that Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation alone...*
*
Episodic ice sheets are not the same thing as glaciation and are not a part of the geologic record.  *


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do you understand "episodic Northern-hemispheric ice sheets" through a period in which CO2 was continuously below the Antarctic glaciation threshold to mean?
> 
> I quote "Proxy CO2 estimates remain above our model’s northern-hemispheric glaciation threshold of ~280 p.p.m.v. until ~25 Myr ago, but have been near or below that level ever since. This implies that episodic northern-hemispheric ice sheets have been possible some 20 million years earlier than currently assumed (although still much later than Oi-1) and could explain some of the variability in Miocene sea-level records"
> 
> ...


For major bipolar glaciation to have occurred at Oi-1, CO2 would first have to cross the Antarctic glaciation threshold (,750 p.p.m.v.) and then fall more than 400 p.p.m.v. within ,200 kyr to reach the Northern Hemisphere threshold (Fig. 4). Increased sea ice and upwelling in the Southern Ocean 13,29 and falling sea level 14 could have acted as feedbacks accelerating CO2 drawdown at the time of Oi-1.This is supported by CO2 proxy records and carbon-cycle model results showing a drop in CO2 across the Eocene/Oligocene transition10,13,14, but none of these reconstructions reach the low levels required for Northern Hemisphere glaciation. We therefore conclude that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely, and Mg/Ca-based estimates of deep-sea temperatures across the boundary 5 are unreliable. Our findings lend support to the hypothesis that the 1-km deepening of the carbonate compensation depth and the associated carbonate ion effect on deep-water calcite mask a cooling signal in the Mg/Ca records 4,5. Therefore, the observed isotope shift at Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation 22 accompanied by 4.0 uC of cooling in the deep sea or slightly less (,3.3 uC) if there was additional ice growth on West Antarctica (see Methods and Supplementary Information). This explanation is in better agreement with sequence stratigraphic estimates of sea-level fall at Oi-1(70 620 m)19,20 equivalent to 70–120% of modern Antarctic ice volume, and coupled GCM/ice-sheet simulations showing 2–5 uC cooling and expanding sea ice in the Southern Ocean in response to Antarctic glaciation 29. Additional support for ocean cooling is provided by new records from Tanzania 16 and the Gulf of Mexico 15, where Mg/Ca temperature estimates show ,2.5 uC cooling in shallow, continental shelf settings during the first step of the Eocene/Oligocene transition.

In summary, our model results show that the Northern Hemisphere contained glaciers and small, isolated ice caps in high elevations through much of the Cenozoic, especially during favourable orbital periods (Fig. 3a–c). However, major continental-scale Northern Hemisphere glaciation at or before the Oi-1 event (33.6Myr) is unlikely, in keeping with recently published high-resolution Eocene no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago, pre-Pliocene records from subsequently glaciated high northern latitudes are generally lacking. More highly resolved CO2 records focusing on specific events, along with additional geological information from high northern latitudes, will help to unravel the Cenozoic evolution of the cryosphere. According to these results, this evolution may have included an episodic northern-hemispheric ice component for the past 23 million years.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2016)

Pick up your microphone and identify current continent-scale glaciation.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Pick up your microphone and identify current continent-scale glaciation.


You have been proven wrong without a shadow of doubt and you still can't admit that you were wrong?


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2016)

Where do you see continent-scale glaciation in today's Northern Hemisphere?  Your attacks on me aren't going to go very far till you answer that one.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Where do you see continent-scale glaciation in today's Northern Hemisphere?


Bipolar glaciation does exist at present, we are presently in an interglacial cycle, but there are still glaciers in the northern hemisphere today. They just aren't extensive as they are in a glacial cycle. 12,000 years ago the Great Lakes were formed when the glacier retreated. At that time New York was under 1000 ft of ice. 

So what if we do not have extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere today. We aren't supposed to, we are in an interglacial cycle. What does that have to do with bi-polar glaciation being rare and possibly unique. Nothing. There are no other known instance of bipolar glaciation recorded in the geologic record. 

It is a very good thing we are not in a glacial cycle right now, because it would be very very bad for us if we were. The conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 5 million years still exists today. 

Your latest argument is that because we are not in a glacial cycle today, then my point that bi-polar glaciation being rare and possibly unique doesn't matter. That is a stupid argument. The best way to understand future climate change is to study past climate change. So, yes, it really does matter.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Your attacks on me aren't going to go very far till you answer that one.



You think I am attacking you?  I am exposing your incompetence and dishonesty.  That's not an attack.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Where do you see _continent-scale_ glaciation in today's Northern Hemisphere?





ding said:


> Bipolar glaciation does exist at present, we are presently in an interglacial cycle, but there are still glaciers in the northern hemisphere today. They just aren't extensive as they are in a glacial cycle. 12,000 years ago the Great Lakes were formed when the glacier retreated. At that time New York was under 1000 ft of ice.



Why don't you try one more time and answer what I actually asked you.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you see _continent-scale_ glaciation in today's Northern Hemisphere?
> ...


My goodness, it really would be easier and more honest just to admit your mistake.  Google northern hemisphere glaciers.  You do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of extensive glaciation, glaciation and episodic ice sheets. 

Besides why do you believe this matters?  It has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the world we live in today is considered to be an icehouse world, that icehouse worlds are characterized by bipolar glaciation and high latitudinal thermal gradients.  It has no bearing on the fact that bipolar glaciation is not the norm for our planet.  It has no bearing on the fact that bipolar glaciation is rare and possibly unique.  It has no bearing on there is no evidence of a previous bipolar glaciation in the geologic record.  It has no bearing on the fact that the conditions which led to bipolar glaciation are the poles being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm.  

The reality is that you only read the abstract and you made an error in that.  I have read and posted the full paper.  I have taken the conclusions from the full paper.  And those conclusions say you are full of shit.  Funny how this has come full circle, isn't it?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you see _continent-scale_ glaciation in today's Northern Hemisphere?
> ...


You are such a dope that you still don't know that the full paper has been posted like 4 times.


----------



## Crick (Nov 22, 2016)

Dope?  Is that you avoiding personal attacks once again?


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Dope?  Is that you avoiding personal attacks once again?


That is me trying to get your attention and show you the error of your way.  I tried doing it the easy way first, but you would have none of it.  If you really want to understand the root cause failure of this, you will need to go back to your very first post to see where you started with assumptions and conclusions instead of questions.  You can never go wrong asking questions.  Unless of course they aren't really questions aimed at understanding the basis of what and why someone believes what they do.  There will always be plenty of time for righteous indignation later.


----------



## Crick (Nov 22, 2016)

I hope you don't actually believe anyone here is falling for such crap.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> I hope you don't actually believe anyone here is falling for such crap.


I don't worry myself about other people, but it seems that you must.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

Got it.  Not here for exchange of information or to test the veracity of your own conclusons.  You're here to feed your ego.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Got it.  Not here for exchange of information or to test the veracity of your own conclusons.  You're here to feed your ego.


No.  That's not what that means.  I believe that you are projecting.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

That is what that means.  This is a discussion board.  People who come here not caring what anyone else has to say aren't here for discussions; they're here to see themselves in print.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> That is what that means.  This is a discussion board.  People who come here not caring what anyone else has to say aren't here for discussions; they're here to see themselves in print.


Discussion sure.   Getting upset because someone doesn't agree with me?  Not so much.  Being tied to an outcome?  No.  So let me say again... you are projecting.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

Fine.

Would it be correct to say that you believe the US need do no more to reduce its CO2 emissions or do you believe more should be done or even that no effort was ever required?


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Fine.
> 
> Would it be correct to say that you believe the US need do no more to reduce its CO2 emissions or do you believe more should be done or even that no effort was ever required?


No.  I don't believe there is a problem and if there were we are not the problem.  I would rather atmospheric CO2 be at 600 ppm rather than 250 ppm.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

Really?  And what effects do you think would take place as we moved to 600 ppm?


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really?  And what effects do you think would take place as we moved to 600 ppm?


That one of the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles would no longer exist.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2016)

My question was what effects do you believe would take place _as a result of_ CO2 levels going from 400 to 600 ppm?

And just out of curiosity, what glacial-interglacial condition do you believe would no longer exist?


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> My question was what effects do you believe would take place _as a result of_ CO2 levels going from 400 to 600 ppm?
> 
> And just out of curiosity, what glacial-interglacial condition do you believe would no longer exist?


A 1.62 C increase, a sea level rise of 252 mm and an atmospheric CO2 level that was greater than that of the first glacial cycle.


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2016)

And you say you would like to see those changes?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> And you say you would like to see those changes?


Yes.  That is a much better state than a 1000 ft thick ice sheet over New York state.   AND I don't think that the data proves that radiative forcing of CO2 is driving climate change in the first place.


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2016)

And do you really believe a 280 ppm CO2 level would result in a 1000 ft thick ice sheet over New York state?

What do you believe is causing the observed warming?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> And do you really believe a 280 ppm CO2 level would result in a 1000 ft thick ice sheet over New York state?
> 
> What do you believe is causing the observed warming?


Don't be silly.  CO2 doesn't cause climate change, it reinforces it.  250 ppm is the condition for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation to occur.  That doesn't mean that it will occur.  It is a complex system.  I still can't believe the UN has set a target of 250 ppm though.


----------



## Crick (Nov 26, 2016)

I'm curious how you see CO2 functioning as a reinforcing agent via its radiative forcing but believe it unable to change climate on its own.  What prevents it?

And where do you see the UN setting a target of  250 ppm CO2?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'm curious how you see CO2 functioning as a reinforcing agent via its radiative forcing but believe it unable to change climate on its own.  What prevents it?
> 
> And where do you see the UN setting a target of  250 ppm CO2?


Time and the factors which drive climate change, the sun, ocean and water vapor.  At one time the UN was advocating a return to pre-industrial levels of CO2.


----------



## Crick (Nov 26, 2016)

That doesn't even begin to explain your contention.  Why do you believe the sun, the ocean and water vapor can initiate a  change of the climate but CO2 cannot.  You have repeatedly admitted/assumed/accepted that CO2 has a radiative forcing factor.  What happens to that forcing factor when it comes on prior to warming by any of these other agents?  Why do you believe it will not warm the planet?


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> That doesn't even begin to explain your contention.  Why do you believe the sun, the ocean and water vapor can initiate a  change of the climate but CO2 cannot.  You have repeatedly admitted/assumed/accepted that CO2 has a radiative forcing factor.  What happens to that forcing factor when it comes on prior to warming by any of these other agents?  Why do you believe it will not warm the planet?


Obviously because it hasn't done so.


----------



## Crick (Nov 26, 2016)

Have you never taken a class in basic logic or did you take one and fail?


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Have you never taken a class in basic logic or did you take one and fail?


Yes, I have.  They told me to do the opposite what you do.


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

A number of your statements here strenuously suggest you are exceedingly weak in the topic.

Obviously, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the occurrence of a rise in CO2 such as the present's, not preceded by a temperature increase which could drive it out of solution from the world's oceans, is exceedingly rare, limited to events such as the Deccan Traps eruption and the Chicxulub Impact.  On those occasions, conditions led to massive extinction events.  The geological record simply does not provide evidence to support the claims you are making and you look more than a little foolish making the attempt.  I'd say you were besmirching the name of 'Engineer'.


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> A number of your statements here strenuously suggest you are exceedingly weak in the topic.
> 
> Obviously, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the occurrence of a rise in CO2 such as the present's, not preceded by a temperature increase which could drive it out of solution from the world's oceans, is exceedingly rare, limited to events such as the Deccan Traps eruption and the Chicxulub Impact.  On those occasions, conditions led to massive extinction events.  The geological record simply does not provide evidence to support the claims you are making and you look more than a little foolish making the attempt.  I'd say you were besmirching the name of 'Engineer'.


I can live with your opinion of me.  It's not so bad.  I have already provided geologic evidence of past climate changes that where CO2 went up and down and showed that the temperature did not respond as the radiative forcing of CO2 projected. On each occasion you had no valid answer that in of itself did not refute your current position. In fact, the few times you did respond your answer was that there were other variables that influenced the temperature. No shit. That's the point I am making today.

Why did the temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

How did Antarctic thawing occur while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?

How did we enter the glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years when atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm?

Why did it take 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2?

None of these were driven by cataclysmic events which put other compounds into the atmosphere like the volcanic events you are referencing.  All of these events isolate CO2 and show that CO2 did not drive climate change.


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> A number of your statements here strenuously suggest you are exceedingly weak in the topic.
> 
> Obviously, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the occurrence of a rise in CO2 such as the present's, not preceded by a temperature increase which could drive it out of solution from the world's oceans, is exceedingly rare, limited to events such as the Deccan Traps eruption and the Chicxulub Impact.  On those occasions, conditions led to massive extinction events.  The geological record simply does not provide evidence to support the claims you are making and you look more than a little foolish making the attempt.  I'd say you were besmirching the name of 'Engineer'.


Sounds like really great examples of climate change brought on by cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. I am glad you guys are starting to look at real climate change events. Now can you explain why it took 12 million years for the temperature to reach the temperature predicted from radiative forcing of CO2 when co2 levels fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?







And while you are at it can you explain how Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?







And lastly, can you explain why the temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing and can you explain how we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles with atmospheric CO2 greater than 400 ppm?


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

Jesus, it's LaDexter's twin brother.


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Jesus, it's LaDexter's twin brother.


Why did the temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?

How did Antarctic thawing occur while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI?

How did we enter the glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years when atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm?

Why did it take 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2?

None of these were driven by cataclysmic events which put other compounds into the atmosphere like the volcanic events you are referencing. All of these events isolate CO2 and show that CO2 did not drive climate change.


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2016)

If I have two identical planets roughly resembling Earth except one has 200 ppm CO2 and the other has 1,000 ppm CO2.  I let them sit for a thousand years.  What difference will I find?


----------



## ding (Nov 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> If I have two identical planets roughly resembling Earth except one has 200 ppm CO2 and the other has 1,000 ppm CO2.  I let them sit for a thousand years.  What difference will I find?


That the one at 200 ppm would be in a glacial cycle and the one at 1000 ppm would be in an interglacial cycle.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2016)

ding said:


> Why did the temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?



I don't have much time to converse during this time of the year...I play a lot of parties and such so I spend most of my time practicing new material but I do stop in to look for a few minutes a day...I have to say I enjoy watching you clean cricks clock...but I do have a question for you re: your position on CO2.  You state that CO2 doesn't cause climate change....it just reinforces climate change.

I took a minute to look up the word reinforce just to make sure that it meant what I have always thought it meant.  sure enough....reinforce - to strengthen; make more forcible or effective.

That being the case with regard to the word reinforce, and you holding the position that CO2 reinforces climate change, I must ask you your own question....why did temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was rising?  I can only guess that prior to the falling temperatures, that you would have held that CO2 reinforced the rising temperatures, till it didn't.

I am of the position, and all observations seem to support my position that the only contribution CO2 makes to the temperature of the planet is the small amount of weight it adds to the total mass of the atmosphere and that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.  There is, I believe, and atmospheric thermal effect that is greater than the claimed greenhouse effect, but it doesn't depend at all on the composition of the atmosphere beyond what the individual components add to the total mass.

So again, if CO2 reinforces climate change, why did temperatures drop 10 million years ago while CO2 was climbing?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> If I have two identical planets roughly resembling Earth except one has 200 ppm CO2 and the other has 1,000 ppm CO2.  I let them sit for a thousand years.  What difference will I find?



One may be very very slightly warmer because its atmosphere would be very slightly more massive due to the additional CO2.


----------



## ding (Nov 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why did the temperature fall 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing?
> ...


Let' start with what happened before we entered the glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years first because we do have a decent understanding of what caused that.  The two conditions which led to that were the two poles becoming isolated from warm marine currents.





Thermal isolation provided the background decreasing atmospheric CO2 set the table and Milankotvich cycles were the trigger.









Climate models predict that extensive continental glaciation at the south pole begins occurs at 750 ppm and extensive northern hemisphere glaciation occurs at 250 ppm.  5 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was at 400 ppm.  At this point we had extensive Antarctic glaciation but not extensive norther hemisphere glaciation.  Which would have been pretty similar to where we are today.






During this period we see a saw tooth behavior in the oxygen isotope curve which is our proxy for temperature (4 to 6 million years ago on the above figure) while we had a slight decline in CO2 which hovered around 400 ppm.  The best explanation I have here is that the ocean currents and the incoming energy of the sun coupled with feedback of the water vapor and the landmass configuration were the dominant factors in driving climate change.  In this case a global cooling and that CO2 cyclicity was reinforcing that trend (i.e. as the oceans cooled more CO2 was being absorbed by the oceans). 

So if we now look at the data from 6 million to 10 million years ago, we see a slightly inclining atmospheric CO2 which is still hovering around 400 ppm and a declining temperature trend (oxygen isotope curve) which has a less saw tooth behavior than the time period between 4 to 6 million years ago.  To me this period is more difficult to explain as I would have thought that the oceans would have been absorbing more CO2 during this cool down.  Given that it was slightly increasing, I can only assume that the ocean was absorbing more CO2 but that something was offseting that sink with a source.  Probably volcanics.  Anyway, the point remains that other factors beside CO2 were more dominant than the GHG effect of CO2 and led to a cooling phase.  The exact same thing occurred and is shown in the orbital forcing graphs of the last 500,000 years when CO2 was decreasing with an increasing temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2016)

I would argue that the cooling happened without regard to CO2...just as the warming happened without regard to CO2 and that as the earth cooled, the cooler oceans absorbed more CO2 and when the earth began exiting the glacial cycle...again, without regard to CO2, the warming oceans simply began to outgas CO2....  I believe any apparent relationship of CO2 to climate is purely coincidental and results from the simple fact that CO2 follows climate....beyond that, it has no effect on climate whatsoever....and again....observation seems to bear that out.  Glaciation happens without regard to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, as does warming....interglacials also happen without regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations....

CO2 has become such a hot topic that everyone seems willing to give it power it does not possess.  CO2 affects the climate only in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## ding (Nov 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I would argue that the cooling happened without regard to CO2...just as the warming happened without regard to CO2 and that as the earth cooled, the cooler oceans absorbed more CO2 and when the earth began exiting the glacial cycle...again, without regard to CO2, the warming oceans simply began to outgas CO2....  I believe any apparent relationship of CO2 to climate is purely coincidental and results from the simple fact that CO2 follows climate....beyond that, it has no effect on climate whatsoever....and again....observation seems to bear that out.  Glaciation happens without regard to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, as does warming....interglacials also happen without regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations....
> 
> CO2 has become such a hot topic that everyone seems willing to give it power it does not possess.  CO2 affects the climate only in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere.


I would agree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 30, 2016)

ding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that the cooling happened without regard to CO2...just as the warming happened without regard to CO2 and that as the earth cooled, the cooler oceans absorbed more CO2 and when the earth began exiting the glacial cycle...again, without regard to CO2, the warming oceans simply began to outgas CO2....  I believe any apparent relationship of CO2 to climate is purely coincidental and results from the simple fact that CO2 follows climate....beyond that, it has no effect on climate whatsoever....and again....observation seems to bear that out.  Glaciation happens without regard to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, as does warming....interglacials also happen without regard to atmospheric CO2 concentrations....
> ...



Don't ask SSDD about his magic photons.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


 Some day, if you are very lucky, and apply yourself, you may come to realize that magic is not required to make objects obey the laws of physics.,,,they are laws not because they make anything at all happen...they simply describe things that all of our observations show us...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....no law makes that happen...the law is written as reference to remind us that that is simply what happens.....every damned time we make an observation.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 1, 2016)

Trumping any science ( no pun intended   )............

Record cold coming to ‘almost entire USA’ – Low temperature records set to be SHATTERED

If have an understanding about human behavior, you'll get it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



*magic is not required to make objects obey the laws of physics*

Cool story, bro.
*
neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....no law makes that happen...*

Why can we see the Sun?


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2016)

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change. 

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.
> 
> CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.
> 
> ...


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.
> 
> CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.
> 
> the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now.


Of course past responses of CO2 are valid.  Are you kidding me?  The best way to understand future climate changes is to study past climate changes.  You are effectively saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Ian.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.
> ...




I didn't say past responses of CO2 were not valid. I said the present levels of CO2 increase are mostly man made and therefore do not reflect a naturally driven homeostasis.

Burning sequestered carbon to produce CO2 is a decidedly unnatural factor. Millions of years of stored carbon has been released in a single century.

The medieval warm period was roughly equal in warmth to today. Where are the proxy records showing a 100 ppm increase in CO2? And that is for only a thousand years ago, where we should have a good grasp of the situation. The further back in time that we go, the less accuracy and sensitivity there is.

I believe increased CO2 has a warming influence but I do not believe it is the only factor. The water cycle has kept the Earth in a very tight temperature range for billions of years despite even larger disruptions to the system. It will continue to do so.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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


You wrote that, "therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening now."  I disagree.  Of course they are valid as they show that CO2 does not drive the climate.  It is way more complex than that.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.
> ...




Radiative physics says otherwise.

Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.
> ...



You still can't explain why we can see the Sun.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


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




In the past the CO2 level is driven by equilibrium processes, or major disruptive events of unknown etiology, with very little time frame sensitivity available. I think a 120 ppm increase driven by natural factors is a much different situation than a bolus of 120 ppm CO2 injected into the atmosphere by man. In the first case all the other parts of the system are also infused by CO2. 

eg...Radiant floor heating passively disperses heat and is slow to change. Forced air heating quickly changes the air temperature but the objects in the room change more slowly.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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


And radiative physics says there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the effect diminishes as the level of CO2 rises.  Given that their predictions have not come true or can explain past climates, I would say it is valid to question their dire predictions.  Just curious, what do you predict the CO2 level will be if we continue on the same trend of emissions that we have been on for the past 14 years?


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


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



I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.

I don't typically make predictions but given the increasing population I fully expect the CO2 concentration to continue rising in much the same fashion as the last few decades. With a warming influence. Temperatures may go up or down depending on the totality of factors but the influence will still be there.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> Radiative physics says otherwise.



Observation says that radiative physics....if indeed that is what radiative physics says (rather than just a very flawed interpretation of radiative physics).....is wrong...and observation wins over unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models every damned time 



IanC said:


> I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.



You have "seen" no compelling evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer either and yet, you believe none the less.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> 
> In the past the CO2 level is driven by equilibrium processes, or major disruptive events of unknown etiology, with very little time frame sensitivity available. I think a 120 ppm increase driven by natural factors is a much different situation than a bolus of 120 ppm CO2 injected into the atmosphere by man. In the first case all the other parts of the system are also infused by CO2.



So man made CO2 (as if there were such a thing) is more magic than natural CO2?  Get a grip ian.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.



You are a luke warmer...meaning that you believe in the magic of CO2...you just don't believe the magic is as all powerful as the off the deep end wackos believe it to be.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Radiative physics says otherwise.
> ...




No compelling evidence for the Greenhouse Effect? Or no compelling evidence for the last 120 ppm of CO2 making a demonstrable effect?

Much of the surface radiation leaves through the atmospheric window, 8-14 microns. without CO2 that window would be 8-16 microns. All the energy intercepted by CO2 would instead just escape to space at the speed of light.

Does increasing CO2 more effectively block the 15 micron band? I guess that is debatable. Saturated is saturated. But the initial blocking of 15 micron surface radiation is undeniable. Part of the GHE


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




No magic. Increased CO2 from natural equilibriums is obviously different than just adding man made CO2 directly into the atmosphere.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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


I did not know that you are a skeptic  I accept the radiative forcing of CO2 too. I just don't agree that CO2 drives the climate.  I most certainly do not agree with any of the "A" forecasts of the IPCC as they are devoid of reality when it comes to predictions of CO2 emissions.  I also do not believe their models accurately model so-called "feedback" as I believe they have stacked their deck in their "feedback" favor.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> No compelling evidence for the Greenhouse Effect? Or no compelling evidence for the last 120 ppm of CO2 making a demonstrable effect?



Can you show me an actual quantification of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science?  Of course not....and no, there is no compelling evidence that the past 120ppm of CO2 have had any effect...the 20+ year pause while CO2 has steadily increased sort of puts that nonsense to bed.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> No magic. Increased CO2 from natural equilibriums is obviously different than just adding man made CO2 directly into the atmosphere.



No it isn't....CO2 is CO2 and it doesn't matter where it comes from....it has no power to alter the climate anyway so why get so pissy?


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


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




Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.

I believe that the nonsensical denial of any CO2 effect at all by many of the wackos here is counter productive.

Telling and believing lies is just as bad for our side as it is for the alarmists


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.
> 
> I believe that the nonsensical denial of any CO2 effect at all by many of the wackos here is counter productive.
> 
> Telling and believing lies is just as bad for our side as it is for the alarmists



So lets see an actual measurement of back radiation in the narrow band of CO2 measured by an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

IanC said:


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


I could not agree more.  I will look for those threads.  I have not gotten into the details of the manipulations.  I have taken a more holistic approach by studying past climates throughout the geologic record.  I have also built my own models to predict radiative forcing of CO2 and plotted up historic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2.  I have crossplotted the emission with atmospheric CO2.  I understand who and what is responsible for the nearly 1 billion ton per year increase in global emissions that have been occurring for the past 14 years.  The trends are remarkably linear and quite easy to extrapolate.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

ding said:


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




If you like geological proxies etc then I strongly suggest you peruse the Climate Audit archives. McIntyre is not only a good source for the data and methodologies but also has laid down a comprehensive history of how climate science has gone off the rails in support of the 'Noble Cause' of AGW.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.
> ...




You have already been given that information. You chose to ignore it. Why would it be different this time?

BTW, you still haven't given any information or explanations about the necessity of cooled instruments although you have been asked repeatedly. The reasonable conclusion is that it is not there to be produced. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So lets see an actual measurement of back radiation in the narrow band of CO2 measured by an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.


My gosh you still don't understand the second law of thermodynamics. 

There is absolutely nothing in the second law that forbids EM radiation from going from a cooler object to a warmer object.

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> You have already been given that information. You chose to ignore it. Why would it be different this time?



Why persist in that lie ian?  You have provided measurements of "something" measured with uncooled instruments which were merely measuring temperature changes of an internal thermopile...certainly not discrete wavelengths of energy....All measurements of of actual energy in the narrow CO2 wavelength were measured with instruments cooled to at least -80F.  If you believe that you have provided the measurements that I have asked for....then you have been well and truly fooled by instrumentation....a chronic problem in the soft climate science community. 



IanC said:


> BTW, you still haven't given any information or explanations about the necessity of cooled instruments although you have been asked repeatedly. The reasonable conclusion is that it is not there to be produced. Prove me wrong.



Neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....if you want to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ground, you must first cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere to give the atmosphere a cooler place to radiate to.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm.


There is nothing in the science of physics that implies that. That is only your opinion with not a shred of truth behind it.


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You have already been given that information. You chose to ignore it. Why would it be different this time?
> ...




I gave you pictures and diagrams of the instrumentation, documentation of the methods and response of those instruments, data produced by those instruments.

You give us nothing. No alternant instruments, no documentation to support your claims, nothing. The only thing you produce is hysterical denial and the repetition of your unsupported talking points.

Start providing evidence instead of just your bizarre opinions on physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You have already been given that information. You chose to ignore it. Why would it be different this time?
> ...



*Neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....*

You make this claim, but still can't explain why we can see the Sun.


----------

