# Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012



## SSDD (Aug 2, 2013)

*Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012*

The Canadian National Newspaper: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012



> Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.
> 
> Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.




Four and a half billion of us apparently didn't get the memo.  Anyone who takes these people seriously is as crazy as they are.


----------



## daveman (Aug 2, 2013)

No, no, they're right...as long as you classify every single cause of death as being related to global warming.

It's easier than thinking, I suppose.


----------



## editec (Aug 2, 2013)

An article dated 2 August 2013 is *POSTdicting* a global environmental catastrophe the PREVIOUS YEAR?

I am somewhat confused by this


----------



## martybegan (Aug 2, 2013)

editec said:


> An article dated 2 August 2013 is *POSTdicting* a global environmental catastrophe the PREVIOUS YEAR?
> 
> I am somewhat confused by this



If you look at the link it appears the article is from 2007. it isnt in the body of the article, but the archive location of the hypertext. 

The web page probably just puts todays date at the top.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 3, 2013)

So who is John Stokes, and why should I care he wrote a dumb article?

On the stupidity scale, I'd put SSDD as similar in stupidity to John Stokes, given the stupidity of this particular idiot cherry pick. 

This is why no one takes the crazy denialists seriously, because they constantly pull retarded shit like this. People with functional logic circuits simply don't get sucked into the denialist cult.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 3, 2013)

You all are missing the point of the story.  They must have invented a Time Machine so they could go back to 2012 witness all of the people die horrible deaths from AGW.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> *Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012*
> 
> The Canadian National Newspaper: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012
> 
> ...



And what scientific journal was this published in? Same kind of shit as the '70's articles about an immanent ice age. Done by journalists who have no idea of science above the third grade level. Kind of like you.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So who is John Stokes, and why should I care he wrote a dumb article?
> 
> On the stupidity scale, I'd put SSDD as similar in stupidity to John Stokes, given the stupidity of this particular idiot cherry pick.
> 
> This is why no one takes the crazy denialists seriously, because they constantly pull retarded shit like this. People with functional logic circuits simply don't get sucked into the denialist cult.



Your inability to read is showing again.  The author who provided the background research for that article is highly respected among you warmists.  In fact, he arguably wrote the first artcile on global warming back in the 1980's.  I am sure that if presented with a number of his articles, you would agree with most and in fact, probably agreed with this one when written back in 2007.  You guys are still angsting over methane in the arctic as the result of exactly this sort of scaremongering.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 5, 2013)

I notice that no one is questioning that the methane loop exists, and is a massive threat to life on this planet.

Much better to argue about what some idiot blogger wrote than actually deal with the science, I guess.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> And what scientific journal was this published in? Same kind of shit as the '70's articles about an immanent ice age. Done by journalists who have no idea of science above the third grade level. Kind of like you.



We have already examined what you call the shit of the 70's and you got your ass handed to you since it turned out that science was solidly behind the ice age scare of the 70's.  For example:

The "science" behind this claim came from NCAR:

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Then there was this from the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES

This article correctly notes that NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA  and the CIA were onboard with the ice age scare.

The Windsor Star - Google News Archive Search

And one shouldn't forget the CIA report on the problems the coming ice age was going to cause in the realm of national security.  Where do you think they got their information if not from climatologists?

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

This newspaper article clearly identifies NASA as the source of it's information

U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming

This in Time referencening information from Science Magazine...you know who publishes that mag don't you?

Science: Another Ice Age? - TIME

This one references the National Academy and NCAR:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf

The fact is rocks that there was an ice age scare in the 70's.  Maybe you aren't as old as you claim and simply weren't around or perhaps your memory has failed...or maybe you are just a denier.  Maybe you don't remember that scientific articles weren't available to the average citizen back then and the papers reported on them.

The scare happened, it didn't come to pass and now deniers and revisionists are trying to pretend that it is something made up by skeptics.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 5, 2013)

> We have already examined what you call the shit of the 70's and you got your ass handed to you since it turned out that science was solidly behind the ice age scare of the 70's.



No, that's a lie. 

As was pointed out to you by several posters at the time - the ice age scare was dreamt up by journalists and was based on something like 7 scientific papers. During the same period, some 40 scientific papers discussed global warming.

Have you forgotten that thread, or do you want to see the links?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2013)

"Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

Bibliographic reference courtesy of Brad Arnold who has an extensive resrarch background on Global Warming."


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2013)

AGW Cult is cult


----------



## Saigon (Aug 5, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGW Cult is cult



You really are completely illiterate, aren't you?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I notice that no one is questioning that the methane loop exists, and is a massive threat to life on this planet.
> 
> Much better to argue about what some idiot blogger wrote than actually deal with the science, I guess.



Methane is no more magical than CO2.  The oceans and the earth heat the atmosphere, not the other way around.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGW Cult is cult
> ...








"AGW Cult is cult.  We're the only ones who can save the planet!"


----------



## SSDD (Aug 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > We have already examined what you call the shit of the 70's and you got your ass handed to you since it turned out that science was solidly behind the ice age scare of the 70's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe you should look at the bibliography at the end of the CIA paper...the "science" upon which they were convinced that an ice age was on its way...45 citations.

That is in addition to the fact that NASA, CRU, NCAR,  and the National Academy of Science being on board.  The ice age scare was a fact and no amount of denial is going to change history.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 5, 2013)

SSDD - 

Yes, the ice age scare is a fact - but that doesn't mean it ever had scientific backing. 

It was a scare largely dreamt up by journalists, and with very little scientific interest. If you genuinely do not remember or did not see the thread where this was discussed at length, it is worth looking into. One poster went as far as listing the scientific papers published on the topic. From memory there were seven - with 40 backing global warming during the same period.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Yes, the ice age scare is a fact - but that doesn't mean it ever had scientific backing.
> 
> It was a scare largely dreamt up by journalists, and with very little scientific interest. If you genuinely do not remember or did not see the thread where this was discussed at length, it is worth looking into. One poster went as far as listing the scientific papers published on the topic. From memory there were seven - with 40 backing global warming during the same period.



AGW has no real scientific backing either. Mann's tree ring and altered data is not science


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2013)

Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming

Um, its not warming

Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Yes, the ice age scare is a fact - but that doesn't mean it ever had scientific backing. It was a scare largely dreamt up by journalists, and with very little scientific interest. If you genuinely do not remember or did not see the thread where this was discussed at length, it is worth looking into. One poster went as far as listing the scientific papers published on the topic. From memory there were seven - with 40 backing global warming during the same period.


[/quote]

That is the lie...the BIG lie.  Obviously, you didn't look at the material provided.  It is more than obvious that you didn't read this paper produced by the National Academy of Science titled "Climate Change: Chilling Possibilites.  The paper shows a city under a snow globe and begins with the statement:



> The unusually beneficial climate of the past few decades may be degenerating, facing humanity with a new challenge to survival



That is from the National Academy.  And you claim that science wasn 't behind it...or are you now perhaps claiming that the National Academy does not represent science in any way?

The paper goes on to state:



> Typical of these expressions of concern is the recent National Academy of Sciences report on global climate change (SN: 1/25/75,p. 52), with its pleas for immediate action. In tones of restrained apprehension, the academy report urgently tries to dispel the indifference with which climate is usually viewed,...





> What if we are entering a period of degenerating weather-even a new ice age? How much would it really affect daily life? A look at the historical record is not encouraging. On the one hand, the great civilizations of Rome, Egypt and China developed during relatively warm, agriculturally beneficial climatic epochs; on the other hand,
> drought and famine drove the original Greeks to settle in the Hellenic Peninsula and later to band together in the great city-states that marked the height of their civilization.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

SSDD - 

I am aware that you tend to post nonsense, and then wait 3 months before posting it again, but in this case I DO remember the last thread that covered this topic, and I am sure you do as well. 

Some poster (I don't recall who) went to a lot of trouble to list all of the papers published on this topic and presented a fairly cast iron case.

I suggest you link to that thread if you wish to rebut that case.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2013)

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

Rapid Climate Change

I read the 1975 NAS report the year it came out. And it did not say that an ice age was immenant. In fact, what it did say was that by the Milankovic Cycles, over tens of thousands of years, we would once again enter an ice age. It also state that there was a 'finite probability' that a cooling could occur in the next 100 years. Here is a direct quote from the conclusion section;

*"The question remains unresolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5% greater chance of encountering its onset If, on the other hand, these changes are more sinusiondal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of thousands of years. [this assumption that the interglacial can only last 10-ish kyr may have been correct from the info of the time; it is now dubious or wrong: WMC].... These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation... *

This has been posted several times by myself and others, yet the dumb asses just keep repeating lies about what the scientists said, and what they are saying at present.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> I read the 1975 NAS report the year it came out. And it did not say that an ice age was immenant. In fact, what it did say was that by the Milankovic Cycles, over tens of thousands of years, we would once again enter an ice age. It also state that there was a 'finite probability' that a cooling could occur in the next 100 years. Here is a direct quote from the conclusion section;



Sure you did......  Such a liar.

Obviously you didn't.  It is just as clear that you didn't read the information coming out of  NASA, CRU, and NCAR who were also on the imminent ice age bandwagon.  

Even  your own cherry picked quote is a study in equivocation.  They were on board but weren't but wanted a lot of money so that they could study how we might survive the coming ice age.

*"The question remains unresolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5% greater chance of encountering its onset If, on the other hand, these changes are more sinusiondal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of thousands of years. [this assumption that the interglacial can only last 10-ish kyr may have been correct from the info of the time; it is now dubious or wrong: WMC].... These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation... *



Old Rocks said:


> This has been posted several times by myself and others, yet the dumb asses just keep repeating lies about what the scientists said, and what they are saying at present.



Of course it has...and no matter how many times you post this cherry picked paragraph, the study isn't going to say what you wish it said.  The fact that you keep posting the same thing expecting a different result is proof positive that you are an idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I am aware that you tend to post nonsense, and then wait 3 months before posting it again, but in this case I DO remember the last thread that covered this topic, and I am sure you do as well.
> 
> ...



Pretend and deny all you like.  The fact remains that it was NASA, CRU, NCAR, and the National Academy that prompted the paper on the coming ice age by the CIA.  A bunch of crackpot journalists didn't scare the CIA into producing that paper...it was a bunch of crackpot climate scientists that prompted that paper.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

SSDD -

and I'm sure you really believe that there is enough here for you to ignore the past 20 years of scientific research.

Except of course - we both know that you do not believe that for a minute. 

It's one thing for you to post this nonsense - quite another to convince anything you believe it.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

We should make a list of the Ten Best Reasons to Avoid Science - between you and SJ you have the start of a terrific list!


----------



## editec (Aug 7, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8]Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science (Exclusive Video) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> and I'm sure you really believe that there is enough here for you to ignore the past 20 years of scientific research.
> 
> ...



Show me one repeatable experiment that either demonstrates back radiation or that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming.  Without at least one of those proofs you have a failed hypothesis that only idiots would accept.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> We should make a list of the Ten Best Reasons to Avoid Science - between you and SJ you have the start of a terrific list!



It is you and yours who are avoiding science. Look up the definition of the scientific method and try to apply it to climate science.

Here is a description of the scientific method:


The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

The only experiments by climate science are models and they are failures.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

SSDD -

Repeatable experiments is simply another excuse to avoid talking about what you know to be true. 

Weather cannot be reproduced in a lab - that does not mean weather does not occur. 

Neither you nor Westwall strike me as being terribly bright, but I credit both of you with the intelligence and literacy to know full well that AGW is occuring, and has been for some time now. It's proven scientific fact, measurable on the ground, and increasingly a part of the life of every person and the strategy of every company, government and political party.

The only question remaining really is now long you guys are going to keep up this pretence of denial?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Repeatable experiments is simply another excuse to avoid talking about what you know to be true.
> 
> ...



The arrogance of the AGWCult is only surpassed by their claims to intelligence.

You claim that 200ppm of additional CO2 over a 100 year period is causing the planet to "broil" under "sweltering heat" and we're saying hhhhhmmmkay we'll let you add 200ppm of CO2 instantaneously, you show us the broiling

We're not asking you to spawn Cat 5 hurricanes but that also is what you say happens

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

Frank - 

The opinions of someone who patently cannot read or write aren't of terrific interest to me, nor I suspect to anyone else. I have you on ignore mode, at least until such time as I see a sentence of yours that doesn't look as if it was written by a chimpanzee.

Start by learning what these signs "  " mean.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Repeatable experiments is simply another excuse to avoid talking about what you know to be true.



Predictably, you can not relate climate science to the scientific method.  Don't worry, there was never an expectation that you would.



Saigon said:


> Weather cannot be reproduced in a lab - that does not mean weather does not occur.



No one suggested that it was.  The physical phenomena upon which the AGW hypothesis depends, however, could be demonstrated in a lab if, in fact, they existed in the real world.  Not one single experiment exists, or has ever been done that demonstrates backradiation which is the backbone of the AGW hypothesis.  Any other sort of radiation can be demonstrated conclusivley and undeniably in a laboratory environment..why not backradiation?

Any chemist could predict changes within an environment with the addition of additional gasses and demonstrate those changes that were predicted by the natural laws at work.  Why then, can no experiment be devised which demonstrates a temperature increase of X when Y amount of additional CO2 is introduced into the system?

The scientific method requires certain experimental proofs....proofs which climate science has never made any effort to produce in a laboratory setting.  Why do you suppose that is so?

As the definition of the scientific method states...the distinguishing feature of science vs "something else" is letting reality speak for itself.  Climate science does't do that.  When reality speaks for itself, climate science points at failing models.  When predictions do not come to pass, they claim that the predictions were never made...when the one predicted smoking gun of man's effect on the climate (the hot spot in the troposphere) never materialized, the failure of the hypothesis was simply swept under the rug.



Saigon said:


> Neither you nor Westwall strike me as being terribly bright



Bright enough to tear you a new one every time we try.




Saigon said:


> but I credit both of you with the intelligence and literacy to know full well that AGW is occuring, and has been for some time now.



Climate change is occuring...as it has always.  



Saigon said:


> It's proven scientific fact, measurable on the ground, and increasingly a part of the life of every person and the strategy of every company, government and political party.



Climate change is a proven scientific fact....the claim that the change is due to antropogenic causes has yet to be proven.   The two key lynchpins in the hypothesis can not be proven in any sort of repeatable way...acceptence of them is a matter of faith, not demonstrable fact...the third key factor in the hypothesis...as predicted by every climate model in existence and predicted by climate science in general is the tropospheric hot spot.  It has never happened.  That fact lays waste to all claims of CO2 causing warming because if it did, the hot spot would be easy to detect.



Saigon said:


> The only question remaining really is now long you guys are going to keep up this pretence of denial?



I am afraid it is you who is the denier.  You can't even apply the definition of the scientific method to 2 decades of "research" and hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures to the "findings" and claims of climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> The opinions of someone who patently cannot read or write aren't of terrific interest to me, nor I suspect to anyone else. I have you on ignore mode, at least until such time as I see a sentence of yours that doesn't look as if it was written by a chimpanzee.
> 
> Start by learning what these signs "  " mean.



Spoken like someone who can not adequately answer the questions posed of him.  You claim that we avoid science.  We ask you to apply the very defnintion of the scientific method to the "research" and findings of climate science and you can not do it.  You can't even begin to do it.  The closest climate science has come to experiment is models and they are failures...they can't even hindcast known climate conditions because they are based on a flawed hypothesis.  The models are the hypothesis put into motion and the results they produce do not mesh with reality.  The hypothesis has failed.  So the question is how long do you continue to believe in a failed hypothesis?

Surely you see the wheels falling off the AGW crazy train.  How humiliating it will be for you warmers who have believed for decades to have to acknowledge that those of us who rejected the hypothesis immediately based on our actual knowledge of the laws of science were right.  Of course none of us expects any such acknowledgement...you will simply disappear and then reappear with a new name promoting the next bit of pseudoscience you are told to promote.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> The opinions of someone who patently cannot read or write aren't of terrific interest to me, nor I suspect to anyone else. I have you on ignore mode, at least until such time as I see a sentence of yours that doesn't look as if it was written by a chimpanzee.
> 
> Start by learning what these signs "  " mean.









Me displaying my new Saigon

Did he not read the NOAA report about how CO2 was causing us to "Broil" under "Sweltering heat"?


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> *Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012*
> 
> The Canadian National Newspaper: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012
> 
> ...



LOL, that is a fine example if the insanity that warmers spew daily..

heres another fine one...

Among Americans, Anxiety about Global Warming is Rising Again

global warming anxiety, or eco-anxiety.. LOL.. You really couldn't make this crap up...It even has a "howstuffworks" article on it...Pathetic..notice it's listed in the "science" section... Shameless...

HowStuffWorks "How Eco-anxiety Works"



> Do *you burst into tears at the mere mention of the shrinking Amazon rainforests? Does the question, "Paper or plastic?" send you into a mental tailspin? Have you spent sleepless nights worrying about whether the bleach you poured into your washing machine is going to eventually make its way into your drinking water?
> If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you may be among the growing number of people in the United States suffering from eco-anxiety. This relatively new psychological affliction is a chronic fear of environmental doom -- the concern that increasing human development and pollution are leading us into an inevitable scourge of floods, famines, heat waves, species extinctions, and ultimately, the demise of our planet.
> Eco-anxiety is real, according to some psychologists, and it can really stress you out. As one eco-anxious reporter described it, "The sight of an idling car, heat-trapping carbon dioxide spewing from the tailpipe, would send me into an hours-long panic, complete with shaking, the sweats, and staring off into space while others conversed around me" [source: Plenty].



Un-freaking-believeable....


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2013)

gslack said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012*
> ...



Two words......religious frenzy.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Anybody know what happens to any volume of matter that takes in more heat energy than it can pass on?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Anybody know what defines a compound as a greenhouse gas?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Anybody know the products of combustion of fossil fuels?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Does anybody know what causes weather?


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I notice that no one is questioning that the methane loop exists, and is a massive threat to life on this planet.
> 
> Much better to argue about what some idiot blogger wrote than actually deal with the science, I guess.



OMG!!! Cow farts are going to kill us all. We should all become vegans. Soy beans don't fart hardly at all.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 7, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I notice that no one is questioning that the methane loop exists, and is a massive threat to life on this planet.
> ...



If vegetarians like animals so much, why do they keep eating their food?


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Does anybody know what causes weather?



Dude are you that lonely???

Damn man, stop posting to yourself and begging for attention, have some dignity..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing. 

They hope to accomplish their goal of more for them at the expense of future generations through the spread of ignorance. Not unlike the role of the Church that lead to Europe's Dark Ages.

Their strategy is to attack science and scientists to try to drag them down to the level of their politics and politicians.

In other words drag dirty politics to the world of truth seeking. 

Nafarious at best.

Of course it's all for naught. They are trying to delay what's already launched. 

There is just too much opportunity to contain the doers of the world.

The bottom line for their efforts is that the harder they work at it, the more irrelevant they make themselves. And if there's one thing that they can't afford to lose any more of its relevance. 

They really seem unable to help themselves though. The ego thing. They want to seem educated and informed without investing in being educated and informed.

It's self destructive behavior.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing.
> 
> They hope to accomplish their goal of more for them at the expense of future generations through the spread of ignorance. Not unlike the role of the Church that lead to Europe's Dark Ages.
> 
> ...



...and AGWCult knows Zero Science


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

There's a world of science to support AGW.  There's not a spec of science supporting denial.  Zero.  

If you disagree,  show me one piece of scientific evidence that supports that AGW is not real.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Anybody know what happens to any volume of matter that takes in more heat energy than it can pass on?



Sure, it warms up.  Did the sun increase its output? Or did the earth's core suddenly become warmer?  If not, then what's your point since those two are the only sources of heat available.

You warmer cultists seem to forget that little fact all the time in your belief that CO2 is an energy source.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Anybody know what defines a compound as a greenhouse gas?



A fabricated, unproven, untestable, unphyisical, greenhouse effect hypothesis based on a completely made up fudge factor of entirely unknown and untraceable origins.  Any other questions?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Anybody know the products of combustion of fossil fuels?



Sure, we all do.  Do you have any repeatable, observable experiment that proves that the addition of those products to the atmosphere causes warming?  Or, as I suspect, do you have nothing more than weak corelation as a basis for your belief?  Corelation that falls apart when one looks further back into the climate history of the earth.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Does anybody know what causes weather?



Nope.  None of us do.  We have a relatively good basic understanding of what sort of weather certain atmospheric conditions cause, but we are in the dark when asked exactly what caused the atmospheric conditions that resulted in the weather.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Does anybody know what causes weather?
> ...



So you admit that weather cannot be reproduced in a lab, but demand that climate change must be reproduceable in a lab before you will take it seriously. 

And you wonder why I question whether you believe your own posting?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing.



Actually, zero is the amount of hard, observed, empirical evidence you have that mankind's activities are causing the global climate to change.

I asked siagon to read a definition of the scientific method and then apply it to the "research" and findings of climate science.  He was, predictably, unable to do it.  Would you care to give it a try?  Here is the definition of the scientific method:



> The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] *To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning*.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, *consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses*."[3]
> 
> *The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself*,[discuss] *supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false*. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. *Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them*. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
> 
> Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. *Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance*).



As you can see, climate science is at odds with a number of the very foundations of science and the scientific method.  Measurable and empirical evidence.  That is always a problem for you guys.  When asked for measureable empirical evidence that proves that man is responsible for climate change, you invariably change the subject or claim that the mythical measurable empirical evidence has already been presented.   When asked to kindly repost it, you can't.  When asked for some measureable empirical proof that Y amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes X amount of warming, again, no measurable, empirical proof is available.

Then there is the matter of experimentation.  The only evidence of experimentation that I can find that climate science has performed are climate models and they are failures.  They are literally, the hypothesis put to the test and they have failed every time...even with constant tweaking every time they go off the rails, they continue to fail.  Why?  Obviously because the hypothesis is wrong.

Climate science clearly doesn't let reality speak for itself.  The pause is a fine example.  The predictions made by the hypothesis are slapped down and in turn, the hypothesis itself is slapped down by the reality of the pause but belief in the hypothesis persists.  Belief is not part of the scientific method.  Belief falls under the catergory of "something else".

And finally there is the requirement of full disclosure. Full and open exchange of material so that others can fully test all of the research and thereby fully test the hypothesis.  We all know how much money and time have been spent by climate science in hiding data and resisting disclosure of research methods and findings.

You like to call us deniers and anti science but the fact is that what you call science fails every test that the scientific method requires of a field of study in order to be called science at all.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There's a world of science to support AGW.



What you call science can't even pass the tests required by the scientific method to be called science.



PMZ said:


> If you disagree,  show me one piece of scientific evidence that supports that AGW is not real.



Prove a negative?  There's the scientific accumen of climate science in a nutshell.  It is you who is making the claims of impending disaster...it is therefore up to you to show hard, measurable, empirical evidence that your claims have a rational basis.

You might start by showing an observable, repeatable experiment that proves that by adding Y amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, X amount of warming actually happens.  That is basic science and certainly not unreasonable if you appreciate the scientific method.  So lets see some good faith on your part.  Kindly show us the experiment.  You don't have to do it yourself but surely some climate scientist has done it since it seems to be taken as fact.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So you admit that weather cannot be reproduced in a lab, but demand that climate change must be reproduceable in a lab before you will take it seriously.
> 
> And you wonder why I question whether you believe your own posting?



As you guys like to state...weather is not climate.  And no, I certainly don't expect anyone to reproduce weather in a lab.  That isn't the issue though.  The claim is that additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will cause warming which will then cause changes in the weather.  What I want to see is hard, observable, repeatable, experimental evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.  That is basic science and is required by the scientific method of any study in order to be called science.  If in fact, adding CO2 to the atmosphere can cause warming, it should be proveable by experiment.  Natural laws certainly predict all sorts of results when one thing is added to another or taken away, or varied in amount and those predictions are routinely born out by observable repeatable experiment.  Observable repeatable experiment are, in fact, how they became laws in the first place.

So lets see the experiment that proves that adding some amount of CO2 to the atmosphere causes some amount of warming.   That is, after all, the very foundation of your claims of manmade global warming.  Surely the hypothesis has been tested in the laboratory and found to be sound.

Your inability to grasp the difference between demonstrating the soundness of the basic science behind a hypothesis and demonstrating the results of what happens if the basic science is true, calls into question your own scientific skills....not that anyone actually thought you had any in the first place.  If you can't demonstrate the basic mechanism of a hypothesis predicting a change in energy escape from a system as a result of an increase of a gas in that system in a repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory setting, how do you expect to be believed or taken serously by anyone other than rubes?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD - 



> I certainly don't expect anyone to reproduce weather in a lab. That isn't the issue though.



Then stop posting this childish gibberish about climate change not being reproduced in a lab - it's as simple as that.


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, you think it helps your case tosay such childish things like "reproduce weather in a lab" or hurts it?

Weather isn't a theory, it's right there outside our door 24/7.. 

Get a grip junior..


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

> Over 4.5 Billion people *could* die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012
> 
> * * * *
> 
> ...


 -- [As opposed to one of those non horrific catastrophes.]  Id.  

See?  They were RIGHT.  They said COULD.

Ok.  So what?  Yes, they were "off" on that whole "promise" thing.  

But still, that's pretty good; they were like about 50% correct (if we count the qualifications).  

The piece did not SAY so, but I suppose the not-quite-quoted "scientists" probably peer reviewed each other.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not and never have asked to see climate change demonstrated in a lab you blithering babbling fool.  I have asked and wlli continue to ask for some credible demonstration of the basic mechanism by which you claim CO2 causes climate change, I.E. adding X amount of CO2 to a system results in Y amount of temperature increase.  If you can demonstrate that change results in a temperature increase then we can look at the claimed changes that might result from that temperature increase.  But if you can't demonstrate that X amount of CO2 results in Y amount of warming the you are expecting me to accept the rest on faith.


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Saigonmoothifitzpmzorganman, thinks since he posts from his moms house, and mom lets him dictate there, than he can dictate here as well...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

gslack said:


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



It's amazing.  They have such a small understanding of scince that they can't grasp the difference between proving the basic mechanism by which a hypothesis is supposed to operate and proving the entire hypothesis....and further, the can't see the importance of actually proving that basic mechanism.  They are willing to simply accept the basic mechanism on faith because there has never been a single experiment done that either proves the existence of backradiation or that the additon of some amount of CO2 to an open atmosphere will result in some amount of warming.

Such a complete ignorance of science and yet, they like to call us anti science....when in reality, we are the only ones who are actually trying to get at the science via the dictates of the scientific method.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 8, 2013)

> They have such a small understanding of scince



and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody know what happens to any volume of matter that takes in more heat energy than it can pass on?
> ...



We'll,  you're revealed several gaps in your knowledge. 

Let's start with the very basics. 

The sun radiates short wavelength energy ,  a tiny fraction of which falls on the top of our atmosphere.  Some of that gets reflected back away from us, some gets absorbed into components of our atmosphere warming them,  but some makes it all the way to land and sea. If that was the end if the story the earth would get hotter and hotter forever.  So it's not the whole story. 

As the land and seas warm,  they radiate long wave energy away,  some of which reaches the top of earth's atmosphere. When the total energy leaving the top of our atmosphere is equal to what is coming in,  our global climate is stable.  Less going out produces warming,  more produces cooling. 

Any questions so far?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > They have such a small understanding of scince
> 
> 
> 
> and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.



And the fact that no experiment exists that can demonstrate that fundamental mechanism should trouble every one of them.   Although the number who believe isn't nearly as high as you believe.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2013)

Anyone dumb and dishonest enough to fall for your "No one has measured backradiation!" idiot lie has already fallen for it. So why keep repeating it? We know that your tiny retard clique will keep agreeing with you, while all the normal people will keep laughing at you.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD has a rule.  You can trust business with your life but always be suspicious of science.  Business told him to believe that so what choice does he have?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > They have such a small understanding of scince
> ...



There are 100s of experiments which together provide the overwhelming evidence of the cost to mankind of our fossil fuel addiction waste disposal methods.  

I would guess that only maybe 9
10 percent of the country are capable of understanding that science.  

Good news.  You have good company and a lot of it.  

Don't worry.  We won't just leave you behind.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We'll,  you're revealed several gaps in your knowledge.



Sorry goober, but the gaps belong entirely to you.



PMZ said:


> Let's start with the very basics.



To late for you I think.  You should have started with the basics before you drank the koolaid.



PMZ said:


> The sun radiates short wavelength energy ,  a tiny fraction of which falls on the top of our atmosphere.  Some of that gets reflected back away from us, some gets absorbed into components of our atmosphere warming them,  but some makes it all the way to land and sea. If that was the end if the story the earth would get hotter and hotter forever.  So it's not the whole story.
> 
> As the land and seas warm,  they radiate long wave energy away,  some of which reaches the top of earth's atmosphere. When the total energy leaving the top of our atmosphere is equal to what is coming in,  our global climate is stable.  Less going out produces warming,  more produces cooling.



Before you make the assumption that less is going out, you must first demonstrate that less, is in fact going out.  That will be somewhat difficult as this graph created with data from NOAA clearly shows that outgoing OLR has in fact, increased since 1975.







Since it is clear that some warming did take place in the latter part of the 20th century, and the satellites show us clearly that it was not due to less outgoing OLR, then we must assume that the warming was caused by more incoming solar energy.  A quick search of the published material reveals several papers that confirm that as the end of the 20th century approached, the activity of the sun, was, in fact, higher than at any time for approximately 9000 years.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Gh-NsgvO...g/s400/Fullscreen+capture+342013+72040+PM.jpg



> A recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examines ice core and tree ring radionuclides and finds solar activity at the end of the 20th century was at the highest levels of the record spanning the past 9,400 years.



9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows 20th century solar activity was at highest levels of past 9,400 years



> A new paper published in Astronomy & Astrophysics finds that solar activity may be influenced by gravitational torque from the orbital configuration of the planets. In addition, the authors show that solar activity during the 20th century was at the highest levels of the past 9,400 years.



Is there a planetary influence on solar activity? | A&A

There are others showing the same findings, but you either do or do not get the picture.  

Then we come to the pause.  What might have caused it?  Certainly not a decrease in atmospheric CO2...that has been rising steadily all along.  Since increased solar activity in the latter part of the 20th century clearly caused the warming, lets look to the sun for an explanation of the pause in warming.  What has been going on with the sun for the past decade and a half or so?  Any guesses?  Decreased solar activity perhaps.  The published literature tells us that a decrease in solar activity has indeed coincided with the lull in warming.



PMZ said:


> Any questions so far?



Why, yes, I have questions...questions about your magical gas.  

1. Can you show any observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates that an increase of CO2 in an open atmosphere of X  will result in a temperature increase of Y?

2. Can you show any observagle, measurable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates backradiation?

3.  The greenhouse hypothesis predicts that because increased CO2 will reduce the amount of OLR leaving the atmosphere (proven wrong by direct observation...see above), there will be a hot spot in the upper troposphere.  It is an undeniable fact that the hot spot predicted by every climate model in use today does not exist.  If in fact, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping heat, why has the hot spot not materialized?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Anyone dumb and dishonest enough to fall for your "No one has measured backradiation!" idiot lie has already fallen for it. So why keep repeating it? We know that your tiny retard clique will keep agreeing with you, while all the normal people will keep laughing at you.



As I have already pointed out....every instrument that climate science claims to have measured backradiation with has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.  Such measurements would not be of backradiation as the warmer atmosphere would be radiating to the cooler instrument as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.

And I am afraid that the only people not laughing at you are your fellow passengers on the AGW crazy train.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



But not one that demonstrates the basic mechanism by which you claim the AGW hypothesis works.  Not one.  You take the hypothesis on faith, not on evidence.

Why try and change the topic in such an obvious manner?  Did you think no one would notice?  The request was for an experiment that demonstrates the mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect......not evidence that we produce gasses that enter the atmosphere.


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I notice that no one is questioning that the methane loop exists, and is a massive threat to life on this planet.
> 
> Much better to argue about what some idiot blogger wrote than actually deal with the science, I guess.








A far more serious and realistic threat is an asteroid strike.  Funny how you morons ignore that VERY REAL threat and waste time and money on the hoax of global warming catastrophism.  

Here's a hint.  The world warms and cools.  It has done so for BILLIONS of years.  It has done so for the 3000 years that man has kept records of it doing so....  Why is it only now that the end is nigh?

Two reasons...MONEY and POWER.

Look who's pushing the fraud and look how much they stand to gain from it.  Then look at their useful idiots (and oh how many of them there are!) and how absolutely clueless and unethical_ THEY_ are and you have an idea of just how desperate these clowns are becoming.

Goebbels would be sooooooooo proud of them...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > They have such a small understanding of scince
> 
> 
> 
> and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.








Wrong as usual.... there are certainly 74 climatologists who don't, but there are well over *30,000* _REAL _scientists who do....

Sucks to be you....


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> As I have already pointed out....every instrument that climate science claims to have measured backradiation with has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.  Such measurements would not be of backradiation as the warmer atmosphere would be radiating to the cooler instrument as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.



That's right, the photons (or some other pseudo-intelligent process guiding them) look at the detector and decide to vanish and not hit the detector if the detector is warm. And you won't give a mechanism to explain how this psuedo-intelligent sorting process happens. You simply wave you hands around and declare it must be so, based on your megabotching of the second law. Real science tends to frown on those kind of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" theories. It's understood that photons don't magically vanish in flight just because they're heading for a hot surface, being that such a concept is insane.

You don't need a sensitive detector to detect backradiation. You simply need to walk outside. I went outside, it's a very humid night, so the temperature has remained hot. If it was a dry night, it would have cooled off quickly.

So, something about the water vapor holds the heat in. Dry air and humid air are nearly identical in conduction, convection and heat capacity, so those can't be the reasons. 

What's left? Radiation, of course. The humid air interferes with the radiative transfer of heat outward much more so than dry air. Water vapor is absorbing more IR and radiating more of it back, which reduces the net heat flow outward and keeps temps high.

Do you have an explanation that doesn't involve backradiation as to why humid nights remain hot?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


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




^ the experimental "design" was criticized heavily by a group of AGW PROPONENTS.

The experiment cited by PMZ says:



> The two drinks bottles for part 1 should be identical, *colourless, transparent*, *PET plastic (recycling code 1) water bottles,* fizzy drink bottles or similar, of 1 dm3 capacity, capable of carrying a 2-hole rubber bung in the mouth (see Fig. 3). One hole is needed to carry the temperature sensor (or the thermometer if used), the other to allow air flow to prevent pressure build-up.
> 
> One of the bottles should be painted matt black on one side and allowed to dry thoroughly.
> 
> The bottles should be secured in an upright position, without obscuring the light path from the lamp.


 -- The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

HOWEVER --

In just ONE of several criticisms, by "ClimateChangeEducation.org," of a similar "experiment"  (set up by "Keystone"), The AGW PROPONENT ClimateChangeEducation.org said, 

"Despite Keystone's instructions,
the *containers used are not at all 'clear,'*
in wavelen[g]ths of infrared.
Students are deceived, *not told* that like
CO2 gas, *the plastic absorbs infrared heat*."  --  
Keystone's Faulty Greenhouse Experiment -- petroleum sponsored hands-on climate science education



> ©2011 ClimateChangeEducation.org: Climate Education Specialists, since 1999
> We are a team of teachers, docents, scientists, engineers, techs, artists, students and parents providing
> pro bono services for thousands of climate education programs worldwide. While primarily based at science museums
> and the University of California, we work with hundreds of schools, programs and science institutions around the world
> to strengthen the climate education community.



Then consider THIS regarding the "experiment" which PMS suggested:



> Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxides far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is
> commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely
> different phenomenon: *The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air.*


 -- Abstract of the Wagoner, Liu and Tobin paper found at:  Lueddecke Wrong Physics Greenhouse Effect Classroom project

YET, the "experiment" suggested by PMS discusses ADDING CO2 without even hinting at the greater density of CO2.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As I have already pointed out....every instrument that climate science claims to have measured backradiation with has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.  Such measurements would not be of backradiation as the warmer atmosphere would be radiating to the cooler instrument as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.
> ...



Water vapor is quite abundant in the atmosphere, especially down in our Troposphere.

CO2 is (as a component part of  the air around us) is NOT even REMOTELY as "abundant."



> Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect


 -- Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers   THAT piece goes on to CITE:


> References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
> 
> a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models, Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
> 
> ...



    3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.



TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics 	Percent of Total 	 Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
 Water vapor 	 ----- *95.000%*
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 	72.369% 3.618%
 Methane (CH4) 	7.100%  	 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 	19.000%  	 0.950%
 CFC's (and other misc. gases) 	1.432%  	 0.072%
 Total 	100.000%  	 100.000%

The whole article is really quite informative.  Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



The experiment limits convection silly.. It's a valid experiment if your intention is to show a greenhouse works. But to show greenhouse effect in our atmosphere it's just plain retarded.. 

SSD pointed out how it fails in one way, and I just showed you another, that's two plainly obvious problems with the experiemnt and why it's not a valid proof of AGW greenhouse effect..

The second was even dumber.. Two open beakers, and add a slow stream of Co2? LOL, goahead you do that.. I gurantee you, it will not show a difference of 8 degrees between them.. What will happen is the convection will force the gases to rise up and out in concert with the amount of heat.. Meaning the more heat applied,the faster the gas will disperse,and since the beaker limits the direction and movement to one effective direction, the heated gases will be directed to the entire length of the flags with the sensors. the flag will get hotter and bingo sowill the sensor...

Damn, that really was a dumb experiment..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Before you make the assumption that less is going out, you must first demonstrate that less, is in fact going out.



Check, easily done.

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

SPIE | Proceeding | Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present

The spectral signature of global warming - Slingo - 2007 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library



> That will be somewhat difficult as this graph created with data from NOAA clearly shows that outgoing OLR has in fact, increased since 1975.



That wasn't a reference. That was an unsourced mystery graph.

On the one hand, we have several referenced papers, on the other, an unsourced plot from a blog. So zero evidence of an OLR increase, and much evidence of an OLR decrease. Hence, your theory goes crashing down.



> There are others showing the same findings, but you either do or do not get the picture.



You cherrypicked the same single paper three times, and tossed in another irrelevant link. Guess that's the best you could do to "prove" a TSI increase. Which apparently took many decades to have any effect. Your explanation as to where the energy went during that time? You don't have one. Just the usual handwaving.



> 1. Can you show any observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates that an increase of CO2 in an open atmosphere of X  will result in a temperature increase of Y?



Can you explain why that question isn't stupid? It's like asking "Do you have an observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that shows a volcanic eruption is imminent?". It's just  dumb, to assume a world-scale event is repeatable in a single lab experiment.



> 2. Can you show any observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates backradiation?



Yes. The fact that your fantasy requires you deny the measurements exist has no effect on the world outside of your fantasy.



> It is an undeniable fact that the hot spot predicted by every climate model in use today does not exist.



Er, no. Do try looking at some sources besides denialist fudgemaster blogs.

SSDD, this is hopeless for you. I'm not a genius, but as someone once said, "I see farther because I stand on the shoulders of giants". I get science from scientists instead of political cranks, hence I will always have an insurmountable advantage.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Water vapor is quite abundant in the atmosphere, especially down in our Troposphere.
> 
> CO2 is (as a component part of  the air around us) is NOT even REMOTELY as "abundant."



But they don't cover the same spectral frequency window, so the CO2 matters. Earth's atmosphere is pretty opaque over most of the longwave IR band. There aren't that many spectral windows in it to let the heat out, so squeezing down any of the open windows has an effect.

That is, if my house has 20 windows and 18 are closed (the water vapor), it still makes a significant difference in temp if I close the 19th window (CO2).


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Water vapor is quite abundant in the atmosphere, especially down in our Troposphere.
> ...



There are numerous flaws in your thinking and in your would-be analogies.  But, let's pretend that you _aren't_ all bollixed up:

If you had 20 windows and 19 were closed (the atmospheric water vapor) (i.e., 95%), you STILL wouldn't close the last window (the CO2) *all the way*, if we work with the *actual* numbers.  

And that means you are simply *not* going to get the kind of temperature differences you are claiming.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2013)

So you're claiming that closing a window partway won't affect temperature in your house?

The analogy is quite good. Your logic is not.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So you're claiming that closing a window partway won't affect temperature in your house?
> 
> The analogy is quite good. Your logic is not.



I am saying, you hack, that if my house is too warm (because I already have 19 of 20 windows shut), then closing the final window PART way will not impact the overall temperature in my already too warm house AS MUCH as YOU pretend.

Try to keep up.

Your logic is lacking -- pretty much entirely.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2013)

That's right, the whole world has got the numbers wrong, because your political cult's dogma says it has to be wrong. And you don't need no stinkin' evidence. Just declare "It's obvious!" and wave your hands around a lot.

You parroted a common denialist fallacy. You didn't understand why a small amount of CO2 was significant. Educate yourself on the basics, which means getting info from outside your cult. If you stick only with denialist sources, you're guaranteed to always get fed bad info. Like I said to SSDD, that's my advantage, not depending on cranks and liars for my information.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> That's right, the whole world has got the numbers wrong, because your political cult's dogma says it has to be wrong. And you don't need no stinkin' evidence. Just declare "It's obvious!" and wave your hands around a lot.
> 
> You parroted a common denialist fallacy. You didn't understand why a small amount of CO2 was significant. Educate yourself on the basics, which means getting info from outside your cult. If you stick only with denialist sources, you're guaranteed to always get fed bad info. Like I said to SSDD, that's my advantage, not depending on cranks and liars for my information.



Nope.  

YOU pretend that the small amount of CO2 is a LOT more "significant" than you or any of your AGW Faith based cultists have EVER been able to show or logically establish.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 8, 2013)

Ilar - 

And the fact that the entirescientific community disagrees with you, and that there are multiple studies establishing very clearly that CO2 concentrations have risen massively during the past century, do not influence your thinking at all, do they?

How long can you guys keep avoiding reading any of this science?


----------



## dblack (Aug 9, 2013)

I wonder if it wasn't a typo and they meant 2112.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ilar -
> 
> And the fact that the entirescientific community disagrees with you, and that there are multiple studies establishing very clearly that CO2 concentrations have risen massively during the past century, do not influence your thinking at all, do they?
> 
> How long can you guys keep avoiding reading any of this science?



See?  You have a major problem.

You cannot even accurately identify a "fact."

For example, it is most assuredly NOT a "fact" that "the entire scientific community disagrees with me."  Indeed, your claim is facially absurd.  

Your fail is consistent.  Funny as hell to keep watching.  

Never stop.

Please.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 9, 2013)

On one side, there's the whole world, the correct science, and decades of correct predictions to prove they got it right.

On the other side, there's an extremist fringe right political cult, one that now defines even Reagan's policies as socialist, and which has been doing faceplants into cowpatties for years on this topic.

Each group gets the respect it deserves.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

Ilar - 

Name the scientific organisations who agree with you. 

Actually, I can list them for you: 

-


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > They have such a small understanding of scince
> 
> 
> 
> and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.



I know you like to believe that bit of bullshit...bullshit is, after all, your esp-ecia-lity but sadly the facts, and the research say that you are wrong.

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



> Don&#8217;t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, *a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem*.
> 
> The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.





> *Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe*.



Contrast the findings of this study with the statements of the political heads who claim to represent all these scientists.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD - 

Firstly, why does your survey include engineers? 

Secondly, since when is 24% a majority?

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the &#8220;Nature Is Overwhelming&#8221; model. &#8220;In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.&#8221; Moreover, &#8220;they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.&#8221;


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation



I didn't see any control in that experiment on the concentration of CO2.  What was the concentration in the beaker?  100%?  One million parts per million?  Just curious.  When do you expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to one million parts per million?

Let me know when you find one that isn't about as honest as a side show at a backwater county fair.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf



Hey, what do you know?  An honest experiment and what does it show?  Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD -



> Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.



Remember I commented last week that you tend to post nonsense, wait 3 months and then post it again?

It has not been 3 months since even your own little tribe here were explaining to you that your interpretation of the Second Law is about as smart as your claim that Conservatism is not right wing.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2013)

mamooth said:
			
		

> That's right, the photons (or some other pseudo-intelligent process guiding them) look at the detector and decide to vanish and not hit the detector if the detector is warm.



An idiotic argument from an idiot...how surprising.  Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall?  Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling air to escape from a hole in a baloon or do you think some natural force is at work causing the air to escape?  Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling water to run down hill, or do you think some natural force is at work that causes the water to run downhill?  Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling free electrons which way to move down an electrical wire, or do you think some natural force is at work that sends them downstream?

If natural forces are at work in every thing we see, why would some idiot think that in one particular natural phenomenon (i.e. neither heat nor energy move from cool to warm) that some pseudo-intelligent force must be at work for the phenomenon to behave exactly as the law of nature predicts?  Answer?  Because she/he is an idiot of course.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Care to post an, observable, mesurable, repeatable experiment proving that backradiation exists and can happen?  I am sure that there is a nobel in it for you if you can.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD -

Yes, and have posted an observable, measureable and repeatable experiment for you at least three times.

You ignored it.


----------



## daveman (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation
> ...



Interesting, isn't it?  A small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables is supposed to accurately represent the atmosphere and oceans of an entire planet, a system with millions of variables.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen:  This is the basis of the "science" of climatology.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

daveman said:


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



You're the one who believes that it should be possible to accurately model climate change in a single experiment. 

In fact what you model for us is how humanity would behave in the absence of science.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A good example of how humanity would think without science.  Which is,  incidentally,  where republicans would like to drag us back to. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation
> ...



You ought to write a book.  '' Science in the Absence of Science''.  Which would really be about faith.  Faith in shaman. 

I agree that the experiment for kids that I posted was simplistic.  I thought that appropriate for you. 

BTW,  are you going to post your proof that GHGs don't absorb long wave radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Yes, and have posted an observable, measureable and repeatable experiment for you at least three times.
> 
> You ignored it.



No, I looked at them.  When I asked for such an experiment, I meant one that actually shows what it is claimed to be showing...not one that demonstrates an entirely different physical phenomenon which is predicted by the laws of physics.  

Sorry that you are so easily fooled.  I recommend that you avoid county fairs since you are so easily duped.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Says the moron who believes in magic.  The very moron who believes that when the second law says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move from a cool object to a warm object it actually means that heat and energy can move from a cool object to a warm object if a magical gas capable of producing magical backradiation is involved.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Of course so called greenhouse gasses absorb LW...which they then immediately emit towards the direction of greater entropy since energy of any kind can not move in a direction of less entropy.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD -

Who do you think you impress with these "you cannot make me understand! You can not!" games?

Here it is for you a 4th time: 

Rain falls on snow. 

Some of Earth&#8217;s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth&#8217;s previously exported energy back to Earth &#8211; this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn&#8217;t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

Three months from now, you will being denying it was ever posted.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf
> ...



Let me ask you a question.  Why does the thermometer in all set ups reach a limit?  It has energy coming in continuously,  why doesn't it warm continuously?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



As a non scientist,  what you imagine the second law to say is irrelevant.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Science can be so unruly to those with incomplete knowledge of it.  Thats why we have scientists. 

http://www.prlog.org/11842623-globa...violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics.html


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Just to clarify.  You believe that GHGs absorb long wave,  and then re radiate it,  but only in directions in which there is a colder receptor. 


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gslack (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Increase the heat enough and you can cause a thermomter to bust.. Not much for actually thinking are you socko....


----------



## gslack (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Who do you think you impress with these "you cannot make me understand! You can not!" games?
> 
> ...



LOL, the idiotic junk science article is your reason???

Tell me junior, what part of evapotranspiration shows two way energy flow?

LOL, please explain how warmer water melting ice or snow shows two way energy flow? Water = warmer, snow/ice = colder... The rainfall is not dependent on GH theory, nor is GH theory dependent on rainfall.. Rain falls due to gravity morn. The energy it uses is from the gravitational pull of the planet pulling it down.

OMG, I cannot believe you are this damn ignorant. And what's worse that guy relies on it...If he had no real logical reason, why bother making crap like that?

Dude should be ashamed..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

gslack said:


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



I guess that part of troll training is to never answer the question asked.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



^ says one of the many billions killed _by_ 2012.  PMS = a blathering idiot ghost.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

Obviously neither of you know the answer.  And yet you pretend you have something to add to AGW science.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall?



No, because gravity always works consistently. There aren't any special exceptions about how gravity turns off in certain cases just because someone's political cult wants that to happen very badly.

In every example you quote, the mechanism is well-defined and consistent. That's what makes them all completely different from your retarded magical intelligent photon theory, which posits a single exception from the normal rules for no apparent reason, and which contradicts a couple other inviolate physical laws (conservation of energy and no-breaking-lightspeed-in-information-transfer would be two).

You've rewritten the basic physical laws of the universe. Given that you're not Einstein, it indicates you're a gibbering crank. That would be why everyone justifiably treats you like a gibbering rank. If you don't want to look like a crank, explain the mechanism behind your magical vanishing photons. Explain where the energy goes, and explain how light from a distant star get the information telling it to vanish just because a cold surface appeared light-years away.


----------



## daveman (Aug 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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


You're really not paying attention.

I don't believe any such thing, which is why I'm mocking the AGW cult -- they believe it's possible.

When asked for a repeatable, verifiable experiment (you know, the basis of science) proving AGW, we're given a small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables and a screech of "See?!  SEE?!!"


PMZ said:


> In fact what you model for us is how humanity would behave in the absence of science.


Or you could just stop being a moron.  Your call.

I love science.  It's awesome.  Science is the way to get us off this rock.  Humanity is vulnerable here, and if we're to survive, we need to spread out among the solar system.  

AGW isn't science.  It's politics wearing a mask.  It fools idiots.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



People who love science invest the time and energy in learning it,  and respect others who demonstrate competence in it.  You're way outside those parameters.  You love political entertainers who tell you how smart you are.  In science you have to actually be smart and objective and independent.  

Maybe in your next life. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall?
> ...



Gibbering crank.  Very descriptive.  He's a good example of someone who has what they call ''common'' sense as compared to knowledge.  Why?  Common sense requires zero effort. And has zero value.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 11, 2013)

I see that after demanding evidence of observable backradiation - and receiving it - SSDD chose to abandon the thread without comment.

That's a great way to learn about a topic.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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









"Cause that's how the Ideal Gas Laws work.  Go take a physics class, you'll learn all sorts of things...


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall?
> ...








Then how does a gravitometer work?


----------



## Politico (Aug 11, 2013)

How did that work out for ya?


----------



## daveman (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Boy, unmerited arrogance is not attractive.  And no, "being a liberal" is not an accomplishment worthy of arrogance.  

Sorry I've gutted your CV.  Grow up and DO something, then we can talk.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

That answer is not even in the  right zip code. 

There are three radiant heat sources in the experiment.  Two bulbs and the thermometer apparatus.  It stops warming when it reaches a temperature that requires it to radiate exactly as much energy as it's receiving.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

Grew up a long time ago and have been doing lots of stuff before and since including getting educated in science so that I don't have to guess like you do.


----------



## daveman (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Grew up a long time ago and have been doing lots of stuff before and since including getting educated in science so that I don't have to guess like you do.



Then why do you sound like a smart-assed 14-year-old?

Oh, yeah -- you're a progressive.  Sorry.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Grew up a long time ago and have been doing lots of stuff before and since including getting educated in science so that I don't have to guess like you do.
> ...



And you are against progress.

Take a look at your avatar. Even by 14 most boys have outgrown your imaginary desperado image. Go read your comic books and leave adult things to adults until you become one.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I see that after demanding evidence of observable backradiation - and receiving it - SSDD chose to abandon the thread without comment.
> 
> That's a great way to learn about a topic.



First, that was not observable evidence of backradiation.  That was a demonstration of what happens if you irradiate very high concentrations of gas that emit radiation at a slightly lower wavelength than at which they absorb.  It was in no way a demonstration of backradiation.  The CO2 concentration in his experiment was close to 1 million parts per million.

Second, I don't hang around to post on the weekends.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD -



> First, that was not observable evidence of backradiation. That was a demonstration of what happens if you irradiate very high concentrations of gas that emit radiation at a slightly lower wavelength than at which they absorb. It was in no way a demonstration of backradiation. The CO2 concentration in his experiment was close to 1 million parts per million.



I meant the experiment I posted.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't seen an experiment you posted


----------



## Saigon (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD -

No, of course you haven't. 

After all, if you missed it three times on a previous thread, why would you see it now?

It's always great to see Climate Sceptics really trying to understand these topics, and to really understand the science involved.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> No, of course you haven't.
> 
> ...



What thread?  You make lots of claims to have posted one thing or another but when one looks, it isn't there.

I searched for any experiment you posted and surprise of surprises, it isn't there.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

I don't remember who posted the Science of Doom stuff but Part 1 outlined an experiment that demonstrated it quite clearly.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I don't remember who posted the Science of Doom stuff but Part 1 outlined an experiment that demonstrated it quite clearly.





Actually it didn't, but it did show how easily you could be fooled by a side show hustler.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Then how does a gravitometer work?



What does that question have to do with anything?

A gravitometer/gravimeter is just a specialized accelerometer. That doesn't require any special-case exemption from fundamental physical laws, as the "no backradiation!" claim does.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

The "No backradiation!" crowd seems unable to explain why a humid night remains hot for much longer than a low-humidity night. But then, given that backradiation is the explanation, they're naturally going to find it difficult to explain it without invoking backradiation. I do wish one would try, though, since the bizarre handwaving they'd attempt would no doubt be amusing.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Then how does a gravitometer work?
> ...



But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...there is nothing within the statement of the law covering net flows or any other such nonsense...the second law is an absolute statement...NO energy or heat can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.  In order for the AGW hoax/hypothesis to work energy must move from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The "No backradiation!" crowd seems unable to explain why a humid night remains hot for much longer than a low-humidity night. But then, given that backradiation is the explanation, they're naturally going to find it difficult to explain it with invoking backradiation. I do wish one would try, though. The bizarre reasoning they'd bring forth would no doubt be amusing.



No moron, the high humidity night stays warm longer because unlike CO2, water vapor actually can trap and hold heat within the molecule.  It's been explained to you a dozen times but you are just to f'ing stupid to get it.

There is no backradiation.  Feel free to show an observable, repeatable lab experiment that proves its existence if you can.


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

if the OP is correct, all of the warmers are dead... I don't talk corpses..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> No moron, the high humidity night stays warm longer because unlike CO2, water vapor actually can trap and hold heat within the molecule.



I've shown you the numbers before. Humid air has a heat capacity of about 1% greater than dry air. That's completely insignificant. The heat capacity of air has zilch to with why humid nights remain hot. You are unable to come up with a coherent reason as to why humid nights remain hot.

But that won't stop you from repeating your debunked nonsense. It never has before. A normal, emotionally mature adult can just admit they made a mistake. Which excludes you and the other "no backradiation!" cranks, a pack of emotionally stunted manchildren, incapable of ever admitting any error. So as usual, you'll all double down on the big lie and keep digging yourselves endlessly deeper into the stupid hole.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...



On the macro scale, not the atomic scale. That's been explained to you before. You being  ignorant of the second law does not cause backradiation to cease existing.

Meanwhile, you _still_ need to put forth an actual theory, instead of just waving your hands around wildly. Let's go down that path.

Two photons head towards the cold interstellar void, one low-energy, one high-energy.

A warm surface moves into their path. According to you, the low-energy photon must disappear somewhere before it hits the surface.

So at what specific point does the low-energy photon vanish? Does it vanish immediately, or does it vanish at the exact point where it reaches the warm surface?

Remember, there may be a Nobel Prize in this for you, since you're completely rewriting physics as we know it. You need to be specific, so we can further explore this groundbreaking new theory.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> That answer is not even in the  right zip code.
> 
> There are three radiant heat sources in the experiment.  Two bulbs and the thermometer apparatus.  It stops warming when it reaches a temperature that requires it to radiate exactly as much energy as it's receiving.







Nope, read the Ideal Gas Laws....that will tell you why the temp stops to increase and it has NOTHING to do with CO2 and everything to do with gas PRESSURE.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Then how does a gravitometer work?
> ...









Read my answer as it pertains to the comment I was answering silly!


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The "No backradiation!" crowd seems unable to explain why a humid night remains hot for much longer than a low-humidity night. But then, given that backradiation is the explanation, they're naturally going to find it difficult to explain it without invoking backradiation. I do wish one would try, though, since the bizarre handwaving they'd attempt would no doubt be amusing.








Yeah water vapor is an amazing substance.  When you can feel it in the air it stays nice and warm (which means there's LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of it) when you can't feel it then it gets cold real fast......because there's almost none of it.  

But you, you are trying to tell us that the CO2, who's content is equivalent to a sheet of rice paper, is the driver of all when water vapor, who's equivalent, in our analogy, would be several feet of nice comfy wool blankets.

THAT'S why your argument is so ridiculous.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

I think that you've managed over your life to avoid learning most all of the science behind the science of climatology.  Amazing.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yeah water vapor is an amazing substance.  When you can feel it in the air it stays nice and warm (which means there's LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of it) when you can't feel it then it gets cold real fast......because there's almost none of it.



That's not an answer. That's handwaving, simply repeating the observed phenomenon that humid nights remain hot longer.

_Why_ do humid nights remain hot longer? We know it's not because of the heat capacity of humid air, because that's barely different than the heat capacity of dry air. So what physical mechanism causes humid nights to remain hot longer?

(Hint: Starts with "back". Ends with "radiation.")



> But you, you are trying to tell us that the CO2, who's content is equivalent to a sheet of rice paper, is the driver of all when water vapor, who's equivalent, in our analogy, would be several feet of nice comfy wool blankets.



Nah. That's your dumb analogy, not mine. It fails to take into account that CO2 and water vapor cover different spectral windows.

My analogy would be more that CO2 is a blanket on just your legs, while water vapor is a blanket on just your body. If you have both blankets on, like the humid night, you stay warm. If half of your body is uncovered, you get cold, no matter how many blankets you pile on the covered half.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

''But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...''

Only for those who make up words that they wish were the words of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah water vapor is an amazing substance.  When you can feel it in the air it stays nice and warm (which means there's LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of it) when you can't feel it then it gets cold real fast......because there's almost none of it.
> ...







No, they don't.  They cover the SAME spectrums.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Here's what science says about this debate.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part Four ? Water Vapor | The Science of Doom

Of course, only people interested in science will read it, and only people educated in science will understand it. 

Of course none of that has any impact on the truth of it, and how compelling that truth is to those who understand it. 

The political minions here will deny it because it is inconvenient truth, and they feel entitled to the truth that they wish for.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> No, they don't.  They cover the SAME spectrums.



Funny, they don't look the same. There's some overlap, but they definitely also cover different portions of the IR absorption spectrum.


----------



## Staidhup (Aug 12, 2013)

So big deal, the hominid species is just a grain of sand in the earths evolution. One fact remains you will die, when, no one knows, but it is a fact, so smell the roses and enjoy your moment on earth and thank God you have one more day to enjoy this life.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

[MENTION][/MENTION]





Staidhup said:


> So big deal, the hominid species is just a grain of sand in the earths evolution. One fact remains you will die, when, no one knows, but it is a fact, so smell the roses and enjoy your moment on earth and thank God you have one more day to enjoy this life.



Interesting avatar for Pollyanna.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...
> ...



So you say.  So several of you say but based on what?  Quantum mechanics?  Is that your basis.  If so, then fine, but you shouldn't be making the statement as if it were fact.  Do you have any idea how many problems there are with quantum mechanics?  We could start listing them off by starting with the hydrogen atom.  The hydrogen atom for criminy's sake.  QM can't even explain the electron cloud around a f'ing hydrogen atom without an ad hoc (that means "made up" by the way) construct called a spin number.  The spin number was required to resolve a contradiction between observed electronic shell structure with 2n^2 electrons in a complete shell with a structure represented by n^2 Hydrogen orbitals.  And that is just for the hydrogen atom.  QM can't even accurately describe the elements on the periodic table without numerous ad hoc constructs scattered throughout the table Pauli's exclusion principle among them

Then there is the fact that on the microscopic scale, you must do statistics of statistics of microscopics which is in and of itself contradictory.

Don't forget the collapse of the wave function which remains a mystery.

In short, and in fact, QM is not a model of reality and is therefore more accurately called pseudo physics than actual physics.

So feel free to believe QM as if it were fact observed on a daily basis and carved in stone, but the fact is that it is not.  It is a not very good attempt to explain things that we don't even begin to understand at this point in our scientific development.



mamooth said:


> Meanwhile, you _still_ need to put forth an actual theory, instead of just waving your hands around wildly. Let's go down that path.
> 
> Two photons head towards the cold interstellar void, one low-energy, one high-energy.
> 
> A warm surface moves into their path. According to you, the low-energy photon must disappear somewhere before it hits the surface.



Did you know that photons sometimes seem to go around corners as if they were deflected at 90 degree angles for no apparent reason?  Ever wonder what that reason might be?

And I never said that it must disappear...I said that energy can't move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.  We can't explain why any better than we can explain gravity.  As with gravity and knowing that rocks don't fall up, it is enough to know that energy can't move from high entropy to low entropy.  A full explanation is not necessary.




mamooth said:


> Remember, there may be a Nobel Prize in this for you, since you're completely rewriting physics as we know it. You need to be specific, so we can further explore this groundbreaking new theory.



Actually, it is you who is rewriting physics.  The second law, as it is stated is good enough for me....neither heat nor energy can move from cold to warm.  It is you who wants to say otherwise...So prove it.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> A full explanation is not necessary.



"No explanation is necessary" would be the more accurate summary of your science. Have fun in your fantasy dimension. Just don't expect anyone to join you.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ''But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...''
> 
> Only for those who make up words that they wish were the words of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics.



You brought your own definition to the discussion and it didn't say anything about energy moving from high entropy to low entropy either.  No matter how you torture it, the second law doesn't say that energy can move from high entropy to low entropy.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A full explanation is not necessary.
> ...



So you are claiming that you can fully explain the mechanism by which gravity works?  Lets hear it.  I am all ears.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

I postulate that I shit out every rainbow that has ever existed.

If you can't explain the exact mechanism of gravity, you have to accept that unsupported postulate. (And thus pay me royalties anytime you use one of the rainbows I created.)

That would be SSDD's retard logic.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I postulate that I shit out every rainbow that has ever existed.
> 
> If you can't explain the exact mechanism of gravity, you have to accept that unsupported postulate. (And thus pay me royalties anytime you use one of the rainbows I created.)
> 
> That would be SSDD's retard logic.



So you can't explain the mechanism by which gravity works but believe I should be able to completely explain the fundamental mechanism by which the second law of thermodynamics works?  Lets hear your explanation for the fundamental mechanism at work in the second law.  As with your claim to know the fundamental mechanism of gravity...I am all ears.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

I believe that if you're rewriting the laws of physics as understood by humanity for the past century, you need a damn good explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making extraordinary claims, while I am not.

Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. Which you don't understand, hence you don't understand the second law.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I believe that if you're rewriting the laws of physics as understood by humanity for the past century, you need a damn good explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making extraordinary claims, while I am not.





In typical warmer fashion, you blame others for precisely what you are doing.  Backradiation is the product of post modern science.  Backradiation is a new claim and in fact, contrary to the laws of physics as understood for the past century and more...and you are right, if you are going to claim such a thing as backradiation when classical physics has never taught the idea and in fact said that it was not possible, then extrordinary evidence is required.

Lets see it.



mamooth said:


> Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. Which you don't understand, hence you don't understand the second law.



Really?  Statistics make free electrons travel in only one direction down a power line?  Statistics make a marble roll down hill?  Statistics make air go out of a baloon when it is punctured?  Statistics make every known energy exchange happen?  You have said some profoundly stupid things before, but I am going to have to say that the claim that statistics is the basic mechanism of any law of physics, much less the second law has to be the stupidest comment ever made on this or any other board....EVER.

You are so profoundly stupid that I bet you don't even know how stupid that comment was.

Statistics is the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability....it is in no way the basic mechanism by which any law of physics operates.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

If you consider backradiation from the perspective of one GHG molecule it is completely intuitive.  

The GHG molecule absorbs a photon of energy,  electron clouds move to higher energy orbits,  and that makes it higher energy than it's neighbors.  So,  it is unstable in it's environment.  It moves back to the stable energy level compared to it's neighbors by reradiating it's new energy.  That energy then continues in all directions until it either encounters another absorbing molecule or forever,  whichever comes first. 

Statistics come in when instead of quantum physics of single molecules,  masses of materials with huge numbers of molecules come into play. Then averages and means come into the discussion.  

So,  on average,  the net flow of energy is from warm higher energy bodies to colder,  lower energy bodies. 

That says nothing at all about the reverse energy flow caused by each molecule just doing it's own thing. 

The 2ond Law only deals with net flow.  Quantum mechanics predicts the reverse flow component of the net flow.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 12, 2013)

Staidhup said:


> So big deal, the hominid species is just a grain of sand in the earths evolution. One fact remains you will die, when, no one knows, but it is a fact, so smell the roses and enjoy your moment on earth and thank God you have one more day to enjoy this life.



Agreed, but I'd also like my kids and grandkids to inherit a world that would allow them the same opportunities.

As things stand, my grandkids will never see a coral reef nor a glacier.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> If you consider backradiation from the perspective of one GHG molecule it is completely intuitive.



Of course it is, if you disregard the laws of phyiscs.



PMZ said:


> Statistics come in when instead of quantum physics of single molecules,  masses of materials with huge numbers of molecules come into play. Then averages and means come into the discussion.



You guys who believe in QM as if it were law are sad and laughable.  Anyone who hangs their hat on QM as it stands today is going to lose thier hat.  The statistics of microscopics you believe so strongly in where QM is concerned are actually statistics of statistics...a contradiction...an indication that the statiststics are not to be believed.

Are you aware that QM can't even adequately express the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom?  A HYDROGEN ATOM.  The most basic of all atoms and QM can't explain its electron cloud without a completely made up "fix".  Then QM goes on to fail over and over throughout the periodic table.  QM can't even make it through the periodic table and you believe in it strongly enough to disregard the laws of physics.

You are being laughed at.   



PMZ said:


> So,  on average,  the net flow of energy is from warm higher energy bodies to colder,  lower energy bodies.



Net flow is a post modern idea which comes out of QM which is a post modern idea that is riddled with problems and contradictions.  It is not proven and remains a somewhat shaky hypothesis.  



PMZ said:


> That says nothing at all about the reverse energy flow caused by each molecule just doing it's own thing.



The only thing the second law says about reverse energy flow is that it can not happen.



PMZ said:


> The 2ond Law only deals with net flow.  Quantum mechanics predicts the reverse flow component of the net flow.



And yet, it is written in absolute terms stating that no sort of energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.  QM isn't the law...QM has barely achieved hypothetical status and certainly has not overturned any physical law.  Considering the number of contradictions and outright flaws to be found in QM beginning with its inability to adequately explain the electron cloud around a HYDROGEN ATOM, you may as well believe in the tooth fairy.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> > So big deal, the hominid species is just a grain of sand in the earths evolution. One fact remains you will die, when, no one knows, but it is a fact, so smell the roses and enjoy your moment on earth and thank God you have one more day to enjoy this life.
> ...



LOL, drama queen..

Stop with the waterworks bullshitter.. You just showed, in one post, why when you say "science" people stop listening...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Staidhup said:
> ...



If he really believes the bilge he spews, it must suck to be him.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



He is filling forum space. the only things genuine about him or any of the clone army, is their complete ignorance, and their incessant crying..


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 13, 2013)

Is this going to be like the heat wave in Britian where 700 people died during the days of heat and asphalt melted?

Then we find out that the temperature was 76F.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 13, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Is this going to be like the heat wave in Britian where 700 people died during the days of heat and asphalt melted?
> 
> Then we find out that the temperature was 76F.



Up to 760 people have reportedly already died as a result of the increasingly hot weather.

Figures by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimate that between 540 and 760 lives have been taken in the first nine days of the heatwave alone. The death toll is expected to increase as temperatures continue to rise.

Britain has already had the hottest day of the year so far on Wednesday with temperatures soaring to 32.2C (90F) in south-west London.

Heatwave warning extended across England as up to 760 deaths linked to high temperatures | Metro News


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > If you consider backradiation from the perspective of one GHG molecule it is completely intuitive.
> ...



"And yet, it is written in absolute terms stating that no sort of energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state."

Keep in mind that you are the one writing it.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Is this going to be like the heat wave in Britian where 700 people died during the days of heat and asphalt melted?
> ...



Quit calling localized weather evidence of climate change.. it's juvenile...


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



The only one writing their own version of the laws is you socko...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Statistics make every known energy exchange happen?



Nope. That's your retard strawman. Even for you, it's a pretty dumb one.

Statistics do, however, _describe_ every known energy exchange. That description is where the Second Law comes from.

It's also what the field of Statistical Mechanics is about. We can mark that down as yet another well established field of physics you're now declaring is just totally wrong, simply so you can yammer about your idiot magic intelligent vanishing photons theory. 

And that would be why everyone correctly defines you as a gibbering retard.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Statistics make every known energy exchange happen?
> ...



It was your claim.  You said, and I quote: "Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics." 



mamooth said:


> Statistics do, however, _describe_ every known energy exchange. That description is where the Second Law comes from.



Close.  Statistics is an attempt to describe energy exchange.  There doesn't exist any actual evidence that it is successful.  Statistics describes two way energy flow while observation only shows us one way energy flow.  The statistical claim of two way energy flow is taken on faith by those who believe...not on any actual hard evidence.

But I was trying to explain to you that statistics was an attempt to explain energy transfer when you decided to show how smart you aren't and claimed that statistics was the fundamental mechanism of the second law of thermodynamics.  Talk about a stupid comment.....and now you are trying to distance yourself from it.  Good luck with that.



mamooth said:


> It's also what the field of Statistical Mechanics is about. We can mark that down as yet another well established field of physics you're now declaring is just totally wrong, simply so you can yammer about your idiot magic intelligent vanishing photons theory.



Stupid and a liar.  I have never said that it was totaly wrong.  I have said that there isn't any actual evidence to support it's claims with regard to energy transfers.  Every observed energy transfer is in the direction of more entropy.  You claim that statistics shows that some energy spontaneously moves in the direction of less entropy in defiance of the second law.  I point out that it has never been observed, nor will it ever be observed.  Faith and belief are becoming all to common in post modern science.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



You make many claims based on zero evidence.  Surely you can find one credible Web site that agrees that GHGs can preferentially radiate only in the direction of lower entropy.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



The second law of thermodynics is all the support I need.  What could possibly be better than the most fundamental physical law supporting hour position.  

You clearly have lots of web sites that support your position but none of them reference any empirical evidence proving that energy flow is a two way street.  You have the support of the faithful.  So what?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



If the 2nd law is the limit of your ability to understand science,  just take another shot at the GSE review course.  Maybe the fourth time through will be magic for you.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> It was your claim.  You said, and I quote:]"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics."



It's not my fault that basic English is just one of the many things your cult hasn't educated you on. Or maybe you're just deliberately lying. It's always hard to tell with you, whether it's insanity, stupidity or dishonesty driving any particular statement. In any case, I'm in no mood to parse the meaning of "is" with you. I'm just going to point out what a weasel you are for going that route.



> The statistical claim of two way energy flow is taken on faith by those who believe...not on any actual hard evidence.



You understand you're completely detached from reality, right? No matter. Everyone else understands that. It would account for all the laughter you're hearing.

(But congratulations on that Nobel Prize you'll no doubt be getting, for rewriting most of physics as we know it.)


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2013)

LOL, doyou ding dongs know how the concept of wave-particle duality, that is part of the essence of QM came to be?

It was a compromise made.. That's really it..  A compromise made to explain why one set of researchers observed wave-like behavior or properties in light, and others observed particle-like propertiesor behavior. They couldn't explain the discrepencies sothey compromised and basically said, when it displays particle-like properties, it's a particle, and when it displays wave-like properties, it's a wave...

Wave?particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Wave&#8211;particle duality
> 
> Wave&#8211;particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer. *This treatment focuses on explaining the behavior from the perspective of the widely used Copenhagen interpretation, in which wave&#8211;particle duality serves as one aspect of the concept of complementarity, that one can view phenomena in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously.*



Yep that is what you are calling fact.. A comprmise..

If you want to get an idea of what COULD happen mathematically at any point in space and time, QM is the way to go. If you want to state something as a certainty and without any reservations, it's incomplete state shows through...

I bet you don't understand "uncertainty principle" either...

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Uncertainty principle
> 
> *In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. *For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.[1] The original heuristic argument that such a limit should exist was given by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg principle. A more formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position &#963;x and the standard deviation of momentum &#963;p was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard[2] later that year and by Hermann Weyl[3] in 1928,



Do you understand yet? Probably not.. The point is, it's incomplete even by those whose work led tothe theory... 

Now please try to keep in reality, and supress the urge to call everything fact..


----------



## westwall (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Is this going to be like the heat wave in Britian where 700 people died during the days of heat and asphalt melted?
> ...







That's terrible....  It truly is.  However 160 a DAY die due to cold every winter.  That equates out to 14,000 every winter.  There are estimates that the total is closer to 35,000.
Of course they're old so you probably don't really care anyway....


"180 pensioners died every day as a result of cold conditions during the 2010-11 winter months in England and Wales.

The annual Excess winter mortality report found that an estimated 21,800 people over the age of 65 died as a result of adverse conditions, on top of the average mortality rate for the same period of time (4 months from December 2010 to March 2011)." 


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cold-kills-180-british-pensioners-a-day-during-winter.html#fbRMl85


----------



## westwall (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Is this going to be like the heat wave in Britian where 700 people died during the days of heat and asphalt melted?
> ...







That's terrible....  It truly is.  However 160 a DAY die due to cold every winter.  That equates out to 14,000 every winter.  There are estimates that the total is closer to 35,000.
Of course they're old so you probably don't really care anyway....


"180 pensioners died every day as a result of cold conditions during the 2010-11 winter months in England and Wales.

The annual Excess winter mortality report found that an estimated 21,800 people over the age of 65 died as a result of adverse conditions, on top of the average mortality rate for the same period of time (4 months from December 2010 to March 2011)." 


Yahoo! News UK & Ireland - Latest World News & UK News Headlines


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> It's not my fault that basic English is just one of the many things your cult hasn't educated you on. Or maybe you're just deliberately lying. It's always hard to tell with you, whether it's insanity, stupidity or dishonesty driving any particular statement. In any case, I'm in no mood to parse the meaning of "is" with you. I'm just going to point out what a weasel you are for going that route.



So now you are claiming that you didn't mean what you quite clearly stated when you said:
"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics."?

You clearly stated that statistics is the fundamental mechanism that drives energy transfer.



> The statistical claim of two way energy flow is taken on faith by those who believe...not on any actual hard evidence.





mamooth said:


> You understand you're completely detached from reality, right? No matter. Everyone else understands that. It would account for all the laughter you're hearing.



So show me an observable, repeatable experiment that proves it.  You would think that such a profound "truth" as you claim could be demonstrated out here in the real world as opposed to only within the ether of theoretical mathematics.




mamooth said:


> But congratulations on that Nobel Prize you'll no doubt be getting, for rewriting most of physics as we know it.)



Alas, it is you and yours who are rewriting.  I accept the second law when it says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy.  You don't accept that and instead believe in theoretical mathematics which have not and can not be proven in the real world.  A nobel certainly awaits the one who can prove what you believe to be true.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It was your claim.  You said, and I quote:]"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics."
> ...



Reality has never been kind to conservatives.  It virtually always is in the way of them having the world that they've been told that they're entitled to.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> (But congratulations on that Nobel Prize you'll no doubt be getting, for rewriting most of physics as we know it.)



Reality has never been kind to conservatives.  It virtually always is in the way of them having the world that they've been told that they're entitled to.[/QUOTE]

Still waiting on a link to that observable experiment that proves that you are operating from a position of knowing as oppose to a position of believing.  We both know that no such experiment as been, nor will be done so you are stuck believing like any other religious zealot.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 20, 2013)

SSDD - 



> Still waiting on a link to that observable experiment



I posted it four times. You ignored it each time.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you have said before except like the other 4 times you were lying.  I went back and looked and can find no experiment ever posted by you, much less one that proves your claims.  If such an experiment existed, it would be posted daily.....everywhere.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD -

Why would I lie about what has been posted? Anyone can check back if they wanted to. 

Here is it for you for a FIFTH time!

Some of Earth&#8217;s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. *The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth&#8217;s previously exported energy back to Earth &#8211; this is a feedback. *Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn&#8217;t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Why would I lie about what has been posted? Anyone can check back if they wanted to.
> 
> ...



Do you know what an experiment is?  Do you have any idea what is and is not an experiment? Do you understand that the word has an explicit meaning?  Here is a clue...your link is not to an experiment.  Your link is to a few paragraphs of someone voicing an opinion. 

Here, let me help you out.  From the science dictionary.

experiment - A test or procedure carried out under controlled conditions to determine the validity of a hypothesis or make a discovery.

Next time you are asked for an experiment, don't claim to have posted one when you haven't.  Again, you are caught in either a bald faced lie or being ignorant in the extreme of the actual practices of science.

And if you had the first clue, you would understand that the circumstance you highlight is not the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.  Again, you are clueless.  Here is how climate science describes the greenhouse effect:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html



> The Sun powers Earth&#8217;s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth&#8217;s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth*. *This is called the greenhouse effect*.



Does that sound to you like rain falling on ice?    There is no conflict with the laws of thermodynamics when warmer water falls on ice...there is, however a conflict when it is claimed that the cooler atmosphere RADIATES energy back to the warmer surface of the earth.  Get a clue.....and learn what the fuck an experiment is.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD -

Yes, that's fairly much the standard or response I would have expected from you.

The good thing is - you now understand that backradiation exists, and you can easily test the idea in your back garden next time there is snow on the ground. You can conduct your own experiment if you don't believe this one. 

And best of all - the Second Lawof Thermodynamics no longer needs to be rewritten.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Yes, that's fairly much the standard or response I would have expected from you.
> 
> ...



Do you think rain is radiation?  Easy question...just requires a yes or no answer.  Is rain radiation?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD -

You denied that feedbacks exist. 

You now know they exist. 

Nothing to do with radiation, but nice red herring.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> You denied that feedbacks exist.



Again, you are a bald faced liar.  I have never denied that feedbacks exist.  In fact, if you do a search for me, discussing temperature inversions, you will see that I have pointed out the fact that they exist.

Here for example is a post where I was discussing the topic with you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7082796-post803.html


So again, we have demonstrated for everyone to see that you are a liar.



Saigon said:


> You now know they exist.



Of course I do.  I explained the phenomenon to you months ago.



Saigon said:


> Nothing to do with radiation, but nice red herring.



Idiot.  Look above at the link to what climate science describes as the greenhouse effect....it is in fact radiation, not rare temperature inversions or other such scarce feedbacks, but radiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth.  On this one, I think you are a liar and just that stupid and uninformed.  You believe in a thing and don't even grasp the mechanism by which the thing is supposed to work.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD -

There are two kinds of posters - those genuiely interested in knowing the facts, and those prevented by pride from doing so.

You are in the latter camp.

On the upside, you also know that you are wrong. I would never have expected you to admit it.


----------



## gslack (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> There are two kinds of posters - those genuiely interested in knowing the facts, and those prevented by pride from doing so.
> 
> ...



Finnish Fraud -- there is a third kind.. The kind who cries incessantly and complains about everyone who doesn't conform to his liking...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

Gslack - 

Please check the statement by moderators on the "16% of Americans..." thread. It's on the 2nd to last page.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> There are two kinds of posters - those genuiely interested in knowing the facts, and those prevented by pride from doing so.



You just described yourself.  I gave you the very words climate science uses to describe the greenhouse effect.  They state explicitly that the greenhouse effect is backradiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth....not scarce temperature inversions and the like.....and what do you do?   You ignore the fact that the greenhouse effect is radiation and cling to your claim that it is rain on snow.



Saigon said:


> On the upside, you also know that you are wrong. I would never have expected you to admit it.




And to ice the cake, you prove that you are to stupid to know that the description of the greenhouse effect does not mesh with your claims and apparently don't realise you are wrong even when given undeniable proof.  Congratulations.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Gslack -
> ...



You should probably provide him a definition of proxy.  In speaking to him I find that he has a terribly deficient vocabulary.  Did you take a look at what he thought was an experiment.....absolutely laughable that anyone could think that was an experiment.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD -

Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

btw. I have a better vocabulary in 5 languages than you do in one - and I'd be delighted to prove it.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Yours is the first name that comes to mind that fits your description.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
> 
> btw. I have a better vocabulary in 5 languages than you do in one - and I'd be delighted to prove it.



Actually the 2ond Law needs no defense.  It just needs to be understood in the context of physics by those who have use for it.  It still reigns supreme in its domain, which does not include quantum mechanics.  At the atomic level other mechanics take over and other laws reign supreme there.  

Just as people hire experts who know the laws of the land in more detail than laypersons, so expertise is required in understanding the laws of physics.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.



Are you calling rain radiation?  Do you think rain is radiation  Answer the question and prove that you are every bit the idiot that I think you are.  Is rain radiation?



Saigon said:


> btw. I have a better vocabulary in 5 languages than you do in one - and I'd be delighted to prove it.



And yet, you don't know the definition of experiment...and now apparently radiation since you seem to be claiming that rain is radiation.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD -

Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

btw. I have not referred to radiation in any of my comments, and won't be doing so.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?



Backradiation does not exist.  The fact that you won't answer the question is in itself an answer.  In making the claim that rain is radiation you have finally said something so stupid that even you know it is stupid.



mamooth said:


> btw. I have not referred to radiation in any of my comments, and won't be doing so.



Refer to your "experiment"  idiot.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

The experiment from scienceofdoom.com that I posted demonstrates that GHGs behave exactly as science has predicted for the last century. 

You're the last person on earth to know that.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The experiment from scienceofdoom.com that I posted demonstrates that GHGs behave exactly as science has predicted for the last century.
> 
> You're the last person on earth to know that.



There was no experiment and nothing was demonstrated.  Try learning something


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

> Backradiation does not exist.



Classic SSDD. There really is no evidence at all - not even an experiment you could perform yourselfin your owm backgarden - that could get those blinkers off your eyes, is there?

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that backradiation does exist. 

What do you get out of ignoring obvious facts?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Backradiation does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is an experiment that I can, and have performed in my back yard that would prove backradiation if it existed. You can do it as well for less than 25 dollars.  Build yourself a small solar oven (I can provide plans).  Aim it at clear sky on a sunny day.  Place a thermometer at the focal point of the oven and watch the temperature decrease.  If backradiation existed, the temperature would increase as it would be collecting backradiation.

Wait till nightfall when the temperature is above freezing but not more than 45 degrees F.  Point your oven at clear sky and place a bowl of water at the focal point of the oven.  Ice will form even though the ambient temperature is above freezing.  If backradiation were happening, that could not happen.  Observable, repeatable, positive proof that backradiation is not happening.

Aside from that, the second law of thermodynamics says that backradiation is not possible.  How much more proof do you need?  An experiment that produces the very result predicted by the second law of themrodynamics proving that backradiation is not happening...and I wager that you will continue to believe in backradiation.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 22, 2013)

SSDD -

Does the fact that some smokers never get cancer prove that smoking does not cause cancer?

No one claimed that backradiatoon exists always and everywhere and constantly - what we know for a fact is that it can and does occur in some places and at some times and under certain conditions. YOU  KNOW THIS.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Does the fact that some smokers never get cancer prove that smoking does not cause cancer?
> 
> No one claimed that backradiatoon exists always and everywhere and constantly - what we know for a fact is that it can and does occur in some places and at some times and under certain conditions. YOU  KNOW THIS.



Back radiation never happens.  Feed backs can in rare circumstances but AGW requires backradiation


----------



## Saigon (Aug 22, 2013)

SSDD - 

I am sure that you know that you are wrong, but on the off-chance that sincrely don't get this - this article might help. 

The Amazing Case of ?Back-Radiation? | The Science of Doom


----------



## PMZ (Aug 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Backradiation does not exist.
> ...



Both your experiment,  and the 2ond Law,  deal with net energy flow.  All of your apparatus is radiating away based only on its absolute temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Of course they are radiating out your moron that's exactly what the second law predicts. The atmosphere is colder than the ground. If however back radiation were happening sufficient to warm the surface of the earth which, by the way, Is the basis of the greenhouse effect hypothesis, then the solar oven would be collecting that back radiation and you wouldn't see a temperature drop to below the ambient.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I am sure that you know that you are wrong, but on the off-chance that sincrely don't get this - this article might help.
> 
> The Amazing Case of ?Back-Radiation? | The Science of Doom



How easily fooled You are. The instruments used to make those back radiation measurements are all cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere. That being the case the warmer atmosphere is radiating to the cooler instrument and there is no back radiation.   

That's one of the problems with climate science.  The practitioners are so poorly educated that they don't understand the instruments or what they are actually measuring.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 22, 2013)

Let me ask.  How much radiation would you expect to fall on land at night,  and where would it come from?


----------



## westwall (Aug 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Let me ask.  How much radiation would you expect to fall on land at night,  and where would it come from?








Don't know how much, but the stars, sunlight reflected from the moon, light reflected from the planets pretty much covers it...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask.  How much radiation would you expect to fall on land at night,  and where would it come from?
> ...



Not to mention that because of its heat capacity, there would be little difference between the outgoing radiation from the oceans from day to night.  The claim from climate science has been all along that backradiation is happening, and warming the surface 24 hours a day.

Guess now they are going to try and weasel out of that claim...like trenberth first claiming that global warming was hiding below the oceans and now claiming that global warming is a roaming hot spot that never sticks around for long and then moves to some other location.  Grabbing at straws....drowning men grabbing at straws.


----------



## theHawk (Aug 23, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Global Warming
> Global Warming
> Global Warming
> Global Warming
> ...



Corrected:
Ice Age
Ice Age
Ice Age

Uhh, its not cooling

Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming

Um, its not warming

Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You act like someone who has some data,  some evidence,  some theory that explains what GHGs do instead of what science has unequivocally proven that they do.  Thats monumental.  When will it be made public?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



All science has proven unequivocally is that So called greenhouse gases absorb then emit.  That is a far cry from proving man-made global warming. You apparently have no idea what climate science has been saying for the past 20 years..... Or should I say since the Ice Age scare died out


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



GHG's absorb and emit longwave radiation in the same range as land,  water,  ice,  and atmosphere emit. There is no alternative that's ever been theorized other than that reduces outgoing radiation and redirects it back to warm the earth. There's no other theory than the one that says the more molecules of GHGs there are in the atmosphere,  the more pronounced the imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy will be. There's no other theory than the one that says under those conditions the earth will warm until energy balance is reactive.  

So,  there is no science that supports what you wish was true.  No theory,  no data,  no anything. 

100 to zero. You're scoreless.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Sorry but you're wrong the atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature on Earth without a greenhouse effect. And the greenhouse effect fails to accurately predict the temperature of every other planet in the solar system with atmosphere


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Not true --- the "solar oven" trope ignores the *math *of back-radiation.. 

There is a NET EXCHANGE of over 70w/m2 of power GOING SKYWARD to atmosphere. The NET FLUX is towards the cooler object just as radiative physics tells you.. 

No violation of 2nd law if the NET is in obeyance with entropy flow.. 

The warming of the surface DOES NOT COME from back radiation.. It comes from the fact that the sun pumps approx the SAME AMOUNT of energy into a system that has had it's "cooling rate" reduced.. It's the radiative physics analogy to adding insulation, but not turning down the input energy.. 

The solar oven SHOULD be "below ambient" because what's coming down is much less than what's going up.. ((But indeed, it's much higher than if the atmos DIDN'T retain heat at all))

But -------------------------------------- you still won't get it....


----------



## mamooth (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> then the solar oven would be collecting that back radiation and you wouldn't see a temperature drop to below the ambient.



SSDD also flunks optics, as I have explained before. 

Parabolic reflectors such as the solar oven only concentrate _parallel_ radiation, such as coming from the sun or any other distant near-point source. Send in diffuse light, like backradiation, and nothing gets concentrated over background levels. So heat out, no heat in, temperature in oven drops.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Show us some evidence.  Some data.  Some credible science source that agrees with you.  Something that's more than what you wish was true.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > then the solar oven would be collecting that back radiation and you wouldn't see a temperature drop to below the ambient.
> ...



Don't need to invoke parallel propagation.. The distances involved make a large percentage of incident radiation appear to be parallel given the small diameter of the dish. It really is because you wouldn't expect the temp to exceed ambient. The temperature of the radiation layer is that much colder than the ground. It is the only thing standing between you and near absolute zero. AND --- the net flow of energy is highly skyward.

In optics, you wouldn't see a diffraction grating pattern with a truly diffused source. But the diffuse light from a streetlamp a couple 100 yards away is "parallel enough" (because of the small angle of admittance)  to make one thru the screen on your window at night.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 24, 2013)

I'm probably wrong in the post above to pounce on Mamooth's observation about the "gain" of the parabolic collector.. It probably does suck at collecting diffuse IR and offers very little "concentration" of the down-dwelling energy.

Sorry for the rare lack of clarity.. 

But like I said -- the sky is colder than the ground. So expecting to "concentrate it" and cook an egg with it -- is a non-starter.. As is expecting it to be anywhere near surface ambient.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> But like I said -- the sky is colder than the ground. So expecting to "concentrate it" and cook an egg with it -- is a non-starter.. As is expecting it to be anywhere near surface ambient.



No one said anyting about cooking an egg, but if there were backradiation coming back to the surface of the earth sufficient to warm it, don't you think the temperature would at least remain equal to the ambient?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> The warming of the surface DOES NOT COME from back radiation.. It comes from the fact that the sun pumps approx the SAME AMOUNT of energy into a system that has had it's "cooling rate" reduced.. It's the radiative physics analogy to adding insulation, but not turning down the input energy..



Climate science says additional warming of the surface, above and beyond what the sun can provide comes from backradiation.


----------



## IanC (Aug 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm probably wrong in the post above to pounce on Mamooth's observation about the "gain" of the parabolic collector.. It probably does suck at collecting diffuse IR and offers very little "concentration" of the down-dwelling energy.
> 
> Sorry for the rare lack of clarity..
> 
> But like I said -- the sky is colder than the ground. So expecting to "concentrate it" and cook an egg with it -- is a non-starter.. As is expecting it to be anywhere near surface ambient.



I havent perused this thread before. its off topic as most are 


I would like to point out and thank flac for reconsidering his original thought rather than doggedly stick to his guns like so many posters do here. I think it is a sign of intellect to continue to refine your opinion on a subject.


----------



## IanC (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The warming of the surface DOES NOT COME from back radiation.. It comes from the fact that the sun pumps approx the SAME AMOUNT of energy into a system that has had it's "cooling rate" reduced.. It's the radiative physics analogy to adding insulation, but not turning down the input energy..
> ...



dozens of pages have been written here on this exact question. 

over and over again you have been told that there are two major ways to affect surface equilibrium temperature. either change the input, or change the output. CO2 reduces the surface's ability to shed energy therefore it (indirectly) warms the surface. 

you may be too stupid or too pig headed to understand this but you have certainly had it explained to you on many occasions.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> dozens of pages have been written here on this exact question.
> 
> over and over again you have been told that there are two major ways to affect surface equilibrium temperature. either change the input, or change the output. CO2 reduces the surface's ability to shed energy therefore it (indirectly) warms the surface.



You say lots of things ian.  You say them as if they were the truth.  Most often, they aren't and very often you say them out of ignorance.  According to climate science, backradiation DIRECTLY warms the surface.  I understand that you, and many warmists have your own hypothesis because somewhere inside, you understand as well as I do that the greenhouse effect claimed by climate science is a big old crock of shit.  Your hypothesis about slowing warming is not, however, the official stance of climate science.

Here, from the IPCC...(and don't bother trying to claim that the IPCC is not the official mouthpiece of climate science)



			
				IPCC said:
			
		

> _The Sun powers Earths climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earths atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect*._
> 
> That is the official claim of what, and how the greenhouse effect works.  Absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and RERADIATED BACK TO EARTH.  Which part of that are you confused about?
> 
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > But like I said -- the sky is colder than the ground. So expecting to "concentrate it" and cook an egg with it -- is a non-starter.. As is expecting it to be anywhere near surface ambient.
> ...



Of course not. The "gain" of the mirror is naturally pretty low. Guess it's about 2 to 4 times the energy density coming at it. And as Mamooth pointed out -- it has MUCH less than theoretical gain because of the non-parallel nature of the source. 

And the "coolness" of the sky won't provide anywhere NEAR enough W/m2 to reach ambient. The sun supplies 1365W/m2 (about 800W at the ground) during the day. The down-dwelling IR is about 25% of that.. So the heat you get out of that cooker during the day is about 4 X 2 or 4 X 4 HIGHER during the day.. 

The EM coming back down isnt raising temperature anywhere. It's reducing the thermal path flux of what's lost going up to space..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > dozens of pages have been written here on this exact question.
> ...



It IS re-radiated back to earth.. That IPCC quote makes NO CLAIM that it reverses the net thermal exchange and starts to HEAT the surface.. If the net exchange at the surface is UP --- there is no heating of the surface -- there is cooling.. 

In EMagnetic propagation, you can absorb LESS then you are emitting.. That's what the surface is doing.. It is ABSORBING the down radiation -- but EMITTING MORE in the direction of the sky.. So under those conditions --- no temperature increase results at the surface from that exchange. Deep space just gets LESS than ALL the emitted radiation.

THAT'S the GreenHouse effect.. 

Good thinking about the IPCC lying about that --- rare occasion where they didn't stretch the truth.. But I AM AMAZED that anything that elementary has to appear in the Worlds Premiere Compendium of Knowledge on Climate Change.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> It IS re-radiated back to earth.. That IPCC quote makes NO CLAIM that it reverses the net thermal exchange and starts to HEAT the surface.. If the net exchange at the surface is UP --- there is no heating of the surface -- there is cooling..



As with so many other things, in this you simply assume that you know.  Have you even read what climate science via the IPCC has to say regarding the greenhouse effect?

Here, let me pick up from where I cut the last cut and paste off:



			
				IPCC said:
			
		

> The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth&#8217;s *greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet*.



Can I make it more clear for you?  Climate science claims that backradiation actually heats the surface of the earth to a greater degree than the sun is able to.  As you can see, if you will pull your head out of your ass for just a minute, that they do indeed claim that it reverses the net thermal exchange (as if such silliness were possible) and DOES heat the surface.

Like I told Ian, I am aware that you guys have your own hypothesis, but it isn't the one that climate science is promoting.  Most luke warmers don't buy the greenhouse effect as described by climate science for obvious reasons, but your own hypotheses are just as weak.



flacaltenn said:


> In EMagnetic propagation, you can absorb LESS then you are emitting.. That's what the surface is doing.. It is ABSORBING the down radiation -- but EMITTING MORE in the direction of the sky.. So under those conditions --- no temperature increase results at the surface from that exchange. Deep space just gets LESS than ALL the emitted radiation.



There is no down radiation except in rare instances where the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface...aside from that, your version of what is happening clearly is at odds with what climate science is claiming....they are stating in clear language that the surface of the earth is being warmed by backradiation to a temperature higher than the sun alone could provide.



flacaltenn said:


> In THAT'S the GreenHouse effect..



As I have always said, there is no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.  Now that you have seen that they are stating in no uncertain terms that backradiation is heating the surface of the planet, do you agree with me?



flacaltenn said:


> In Good thinking about the IPCC lying about that --- rare occasion where they didn't stretch the truth.. But I AM AMAZED that anything that elementary has to appear in the Worlds Premiere Compendium of Knowledge on Climate Change.



Seeing that they are in fact claiming that backradiation is warming the surface of the planet, do you still think that they are the world's premiere compendium of knowledge on climate change?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > It IS re-radiated back to earth.. That IPCC quote makes NO CLAIM that it reverses the net thermal exchange and starts to HEAT the surface.. If the net exchange at the surface is UP --- there is no heating of the surface -- there is cooling..
> ...



Well now -- THAT'S the poorly done Sesame Street story that I EXPECT from the IPCC... 
   

We agree that ALL of the public theatre that comes out off the altar of Climate Science is playing loose and fast with the facts.. The problem here with all that constant simplification is that it's not written for science. It's at the 4th grade level to be consistent with the understanding level of your typical political policy wonk or Senator.. 

The GreenHouse effect DOES warm the surface. But it's not from the down radiation. It comes from a surplus of INCOMING primary energy from the Sun that can't be shed as quickly because of a lower outgoing cooling. 

I think we can agree to not take literally any science summary from the IPCC, but as educated folks with some science chops -- we should still understand where to attack the crap that passes as "settled science".. And assaulting the basic workings of Atmos Physics is NOT gonna be productive..


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 28, 2013)

boedicca said:


> You all are missing the point of the story.  They must have invented a Time Machine so they could go back to 2012 witness all of the people die horrible deaths from AGW.



Are we dead yet?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Well now -- THAT'S the poorly done Sesame Street story that I EXPECT from the IPCC...



The ipcc is the mouthpiece for climate science.  No warmist has come out to contradict the statement that backradiation actually warms the surface.    The fact is that that is the actual greenhouse effect hypothesis and you just admitted that it belongs on sesame street.  Your own hypothesis comes from where?  Certainly not main stream climate science.



flacaltenn said:


> In The GreenHouse effect DOES warm the surface. But it's not from the down radiation. It comes from a surplus of INCOMING primary energy from the Sun that can't be shed as quickly because of a lower outgoing cooling.



There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.  There is, however, observable, repeatable evidence that an atmospheric thermal effect, predicted and supported by the laws of physics does exist and can explain the temperature here on earth.



flacaltenn said:


> In I think we can agree to not take literally any science summary from the IPCC,



I don't think we can agree to that at all.  The ipcc is the public mouthpiece for mainstream climate science.  I understand that you would want to put them as far away from the mainstream as you can get them because your hypothesis doesn't mesh with yours, but the fact is that mainstream climate science has not stepped up to refute the claim that backradiation actually warms the surface of the planet above and beyond what the sun can manage.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Well now -- THAT'S the poorly done Sesame Street story that I EXPECT from the IPCC...
> ...



One thing mainstream science can agree on is that you have no idea what you are talking about.  

There is no possible alternative to back radiation proportional to GHG concentration in the atmosphere.  That's the very definition of GHG and the properties that make them that are easily measured and confirmed.  

The IPCC was commissioned to be the science input to the politics of defining the consequences of various paths forward addressing the problems that we created for ourselves harnessing the sun's energy from 10s of millions of years ago to create the energy that we need. 

They are the science.  You are the politics. Their science conflicts with your politics. 

Too bad but your discomfort doesn't change their science.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You all are missing the point of the story.  They must have invented a Time Machine so they could go back to 2012 witness all of the people die horrible deaths from AGW.
> ...



Who cares what some undefined 'they'  said about anything,  ever.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no possible alternative to back radiation proportional to GHG concentration in the atmosphere.  That's the very definition of GHG and the properties that make them that are easily measured and confirmed.



Shows how little you actually know.  The atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature here on earth using little more than the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws and everything that goes along with them.  The hypothesis has been proven via actual real world experiment by Graeff.  No real world experiment supports your belief in the magic.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

I 





SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no possible alternative to back radiation proportional to GHG concentration in the atmosphere.  That's the very definition of GHG and the properties that make them that are easily measured and confirmed.
> ...



What do you believe the definition of GHGs is?

I can find nothing on the Internet about Graeff 's world changing experiments.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, I don't operate on belief like you.  

Greenhouse gasses are any of the compounds in the atmosphere that absorb IR and hypothetically trap heat via various hypothetical mechanisms and contribute to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.  

I'll get you a link to gareff's experiments which aren't world changing at all.  They merely confirm that the ideal gas laws can explain the temperature here without the need for magical gasses.


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...








Here you go....

Lucy Skywalker recaps: In Part One  I described my visit to Graeffs seminar. In Part Two  I described some of his experiments in detail. In Part Three I showed how he developed the backing theory. Finally in Part Four I now consider the implications of this work, and plans for replicating the experiments. Replication is of crucial importance both to Climate Science in particular, and Science in general; without it, no theory is sacrosanct.



Graeff?s experiments and 2LoD: Replication and Implications | Tallbloke's Talkshop


----------



## PMZ (Aug 30, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...



It's a simple experiment to measure the portion of the EM spectrum absorbed by different compounds. In fact,  QM tells is what the answer will be before the experiment.  

It's simple to compare the absorbed spectrum with the wavelength distribution of average outgoing reflections from Earth. Gaseous compounds that match are called GHGs. 

It's simple to estimate the relationship between GHG atmospheric concentration and the probability of collision between outgoing photons and GHG molecules. 

It's a QM given that when those molecules are elevated to a higher energy state than their neighbors,  they will emit energy to return to a stable state,  and that energy can be treated as radiating in all directions.  Roughly half up,  and half down. 

The half going down will return to warm the earth,  nanoseconds after its departure cooled the earth. 

The net effect is that,  instead of all of earth's reflections leaving the system,  only half do. 

Same in,  reduced out in proportion to GHG atmospheric concentrations,  nets more energy to be absorbed by land,  water,  ice,  atmosphere. 

The only possible reaction to that is warming,  until the energy out is increased,  until balance between in and out is restored. 

This is not rocket science. 

But,  long term,  accurate predictions of the weather reactions of achieving rebalance are beyond present science.  But they can use both short and long term history under similar conditions to make approximations.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



PMS sees nothing wrong in anything he s/he has posted.


----------



## IanC (Aug 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Too simplistic. The atmosphere was already returning half of the appropriate radiation at 300ppm. Totally diffuse at 29 feet above the surface rather than 30 feet. 

The alternate routes of escape get more heavily used as GHG concentrations go up. 

That is significantly different than what you are saying.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 30, 2013)

What I posted is happening. There is no scientific doubt about that. Only political dismay. 

If someone can offer evidence of something else happening, that offsets what IPCC science has proven is happening, and I explained in simplified form, supply the evidence, the theory, the data. 

So far none has been supplied by anyone here. Only the political dismay. 

Here's a chance to upgrade pointless whining to useful science.


----------



## IanC (Aug 30, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


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



PMZ's response to his obvious error is to retreat into political name calling.

D-K writ large.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 30, 2013)

Zero science in your reply.  I'm disappointed but not surprised.


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Zero science in your reply.  I'm disappointed but not surprised.










Where is yours?  If you post something legit that requires a response we will happily do so.  But you post provably false horse shit and expect to be taken seriously.  D-K writ large is an understatement.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Zero science in your reply.  I'm disappointed but not surprised.
> ...



Here's something that you don't or can't comprehend or accept.  You don't speak for science.  You are not qualified to.

the IPCC has both the responsibility and qualifications and resources to. 

I described their findings.  They conflict with your politics.  Tough shit. 

Nobody but you cares how you want the world to be except you.  

You and your kind, following your cult leaders, who  desire to impose their politics on all of us, have been effectively removed from power.  That's  what democracies do to minorities who believe that their needs should be satisfied first and foremost.  

You've earned every bit of disrespect you can be shown.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 30, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


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



Well, of course not, I'mALiar. There isn't anything "_wrong_" in the description of the greenhouse effect that he posted. The only reason you mistakenly believe there is something wrong with it is because you're an ignorant, anti-science denier cult retard who denies the scientific facts for political reasons that are totally insane.


----------

