# 4 Reasons Why 'Climate Change' Is a Flat-Out Hoax



## longknife (Oct 8, 2018)

*First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*


*Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*

_First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims._

_In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth._

_Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history._

_1. Rampant scientific fraud_

_2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public_

_3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions_

_4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history_

All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

*The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it*. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 8, 2018)

It's political science - for real


----------



## Oddball (Oct 8, 2018)




----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 8, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...


One reason why climate change deniers are full of shit and dangerous:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test | Climate Science Watch



> The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, _Climate Change Reconsidered_, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 8, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...



Now hear this:

‘Sobering’ New UN Report Challenges Republican Climate Hawks’ Free-Market Dogma | HuffPost

I am 71 hears old and I actually fear reincarnation more than death and this is why. I do not want to come back into a world on fire, plagued by drought, extreme weather, and famine That is where we are headed. The pig headed and greedy conservatives had better wake up and realize that they can't kill the earth for short term profits which is exactly what this is all about.

Younger people had better wake the fuck up and think about their future regardless of their spiritual beliefs









> A landmark new United Nations report warning of catastrophic global warming doesn’t seem to have shaken many Republican climate hawks’ faith that market tweaks alone can deliver the unprecedented emissions cuts needed to avert disaster.
> 
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. consortium of researchers from 40 countries, said Sunday the reductions needed to avoid average global warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”
> 
> “The only force that I know of on the planet that can deliver innovation as quickly as we need it is the free enterprise system,” said former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), now the executive director of RepublicEn, a group urging Republicans to support a ca



And please spare us the hysterical horsesit which I can already hear about the evil UN plotting to usurp our soverenty and establish a one world government . Get the fuck over it.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 8, 2018)




----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 8, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...




LMFAO you posting about reincarnation as proof man made climate change is real ?



What a LGBT dofus..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 8, 2018)

bear513 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...


No bubba. Do you have a reading problem.?? That is not what I said at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2018)

Just more dumb fuck 'Conservatives' proving their depths of ignorance.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 9, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...



Can you be more specific.

Let's start at the beginning.  

Is the earth getting warmer or cooler right now?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...



So one biased organization says that another biased organization doesn't pass the credibility test and that is good enough for you?

Sounds like you are short on the critical thinking skills.  If you want to know whether climate change is science or pseudoscience, look for the actual observed, measured evidence that supports the man mad climate change hypothesis.

After having looked for decades, I can confidently state that there is not the first shred of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.  

Feel free to prove me wrong by posting a single piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  I predict no such piece of evidence will be forthcoming because none exists...so you believe in a hypothesis which has zero actual observed, measured evidence in support of it and yet you call skeptics deniers?  How stupid is that?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...



Right now...cooler...but either warmer or cooler is business as usual on planet Earth...static temps for any appreciable period of time are the anomaly.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Just more dumb fuck 'Conservatives' proving their depths of ignorance.




Is that you Mary Lincoln?


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 9, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...


The UN wants to fleece the US of all of it's wealth concentrations.


----------



## Crick (Oct 13, 2018)

Oddball said:


> View attachment 221330



Idiots will reject anything if you tell them that scientists discovered it.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 13, 2018)

Crick said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 221330
> ...


STFU, warmer.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 13, 2018)

.
From ground level, this is sad. Politics corrupting real science is a bad idea....for everyone.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 13, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...



1) Because you don't like it
2) Because the rich don't like it
3) Because the oil companies don't like
4) fuck you.

Right?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Oct 13, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am 71 hears old and I actually fear reincarnation more than death and this is why. I do not want to come back into a world on fire, plagued by drought, extreme weather, and famine That is where we are headed.



  Based on some of the crazy, immoral, and outright evil crap which you've advocated, defended, and even occasionally admitted to engaging in yourself, I think it's safe to say that when you shuffle off this mortal coil, you will be going to some place that is much, much warmer, than the Earth will ever get, even if this insane _“climate change”_ hoax was based on any truth.  That is where you are headed.

  No reincarnation.  We get one chance at this life, and soon enough, you'll be held to account for what you did with yours.

  You needn't worry about the Earth, and those on it; we'll do just fine without you.  In fact, we'll do better without you.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 13, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...




Who wants to pay more for "cheap" power??????


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I am 71 hears old and I actually fear reincarnation more than death and this is why. I do not want to come back into a world on fire, plagued by drought, extreme weather, and famine That is where we are headed.
> ...





Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I am 71 hears old and I actually fear reincarnation more than death and this is why. I do not want to come back into a world on fire, plagued by drought, extreme weather, and famine That is where we are headed.
> ...






Now  ………...


----------



## JLW (Oct 13, 2018)

This is the first line from the OP's link:

"First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist.  In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind.  But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims."

This is the last line about  the author of the opinion piece:

"John Eidson is a 1968 electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech; a lifelong conservative; and the father of two law-abiding, self-reliant sons."

So let me translate, the author of this piece is an anti-science denialist who for ideological reasons refuses to accept the established science of climate change.  His OPINION piece is total bullshit and just more chum thrown out from the mindless denialist masses to swallow.  Nothing more; nothing less.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...


You do realize the IPCC is batting 1000 for its failure in any prediction... Don't You?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> This is the first line from the OP's link:
> 
> "First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist.  In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind.  But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims."
> 
> ...


You attack him yet he has more science in his background than does Gore or any other alarmist..  Even Bill Nye the science liar is not a real scientist.. Yet you all believe him... Priceless...

Now please address the real science he presented and refute it.  You cant, because its repeatable and has been verified...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

percysunshine said:


> .
> From ground level, this is sad. Politics corrupting real science is a bad idea....for everyone.


The IPCC has been a political Socialist take over sham from the very beginning..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...


Cooler..




And its cyclical in its behavior..





And its about to get MUCH colder... Our interglacial is about over if it is not already as a temp spike precedes rapid cooling into the next glacial cycle.  That happened in 1998...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)




----------



## JLW (Oct 13, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > This is the first line from the OP's link:
> ...



In response to your questions regarding Eidson's opinion piecs:

1.  Rampant Scientific Fraud.  He cites ONE, YES FOLKS, ONE, example of alleged fraud and who does he quote: David Evans a well known anti-science conservative denialist whose opinion is not worth the electrons it takes to publish his opinion on line.

2. Duping of the American public.  Once again he cites, ONE, YES FOLKS, ONE individual when in fact the examples of fossil fuel companies duping the American public into questioning the established and clear science of climate change is legion.

3. Inaccurate predictions.  This is just a red herring and more BS.  The predictions of climate change are coming true,  Stronger storms, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, extreme weather, etc.

4.  Concealing History.  Now this is typical conservative inane conspiracy trash thrown out for the gullible.  Not one of those events is "concealed".

The opinion piece was only so much flotsam and jetsam for the conservative denialist movement.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


Dr. David Evans work is repeatable and verified.  He not only debunks your tripe but shows how the scientific fraud was perpetuated.

Your use of the word denialist exposes you and your pure bull shit political hack crap.  You have no intention of debating the facts. This is why you idiots are never taken seriously.. 

Wake me when you get one, just one, verifiable scientific fact that is observed and can be verified that supports your hyperbole of AGW.  I and others here have asked for the evidence over and over and not one has yet to produce it.

Dr. Evans provided proof that CO2 can not influence the atmosphere like you and your alarmists say it can. Even the IPCC has now had to admit its predictions of 6 deg C warming for each doubling of CO2 was so ludicrous that they have reduced it to 0.6-1.1 deg C rise per doubling now...  

Your warming fantasy has never identified the atmospheric(mid troposphere) hot spot, which must exist if your hypothesis were true..

Please, deal in facts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> 3. Inaccurate predictions. This is just a red herring and more BS. The predictions of climate change are coming true, Stronger storms, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, extreme weather, etc.
> 
> 4. Concealing History. Now this is typical conservative inane conspiracy trash thrown out for the gullible. Not one of those events is "concealed".


Lets deal with these two...

Name one prediction that was made by the IPCC that has come to pass.  You wont find any because they all failed. Their modeling is so bad that they must "train" their models every few years to put them back inside 2 standard deviations. When they do this, the modeling failure is erased and the general public is none the wiser.  THIS IS BLATANT DECEPTION! They conceal the models failure.



 

The balloon data sets tell the story.  These are hard evidence observations which show the modeling is crap.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 13, 2018)

For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change

Only Republicans and Oil Companies disagree


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> 
> Only Republicans and Oil Companies disagree


For some reason left wing fools believe the lies they are told and fail to fact check them or are to stupid too do so...  In either event, Stupidity is the common factor among left wing fools.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 13, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> 
> Only Republicans and Oil Companies disagree


For some reason satellite instruments also disagree,( maybe the oil companies paid for them?):
Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere | Science Mission Directorate




_"For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, *re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."*_
Every one of the "scientists" you believe claims that 50% of the energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated down and 50 % up and out....not 95% up and out as SABER registered.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

polarbear said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> ...


Another series of papers which blow major holes in the Trenbreth and Hansen Et Al planetary energy budget cartoon..

Looks like I need to read them..


----------



## JLW (Oct 13, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> 
> Only Republicans and Oil Companies disagree


Actually oil companies like Exxon and BP agree that global warming is real and the result of the burning of fossil fuels.


----------



## Crick (Oct 13, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Can't handle a little criticism?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 13, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> ...


Again, Prove you're assertion...

Parroting left wing BS doesn't make it true..


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...



So in the last 100 years sense the earth is getting cooler you are telling me? 

Or are you saying its warming up but be prepared for a long term cooling cycle?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 14, 2018)

longknife said:


> First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change.


You TrumpTards need some new lies.

*They* changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change” after the term global warming just wasn’t working (it was too cold)! (Donald Jackass Trump)

There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" have "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> ...


Climate change denial is nothing but flat earth reasoning 

Republicans are dupes of Big Oil


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 14, 2018)

polarbear said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> ...


No, Cientists do not claim man is the ONLY freak’n contributor

Where do we get these morons?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


*Damn, you continue to be such a stupid ignorant fuck, Silly Billy. * 

Our position | ExxonMobil

*Our position on climate change*


We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.


----------



## AZGAL (Oct 14, 2018)

FYI: Not all conservatives think like robots and groupthink. Some conservatives follow a protocol of respect for God's green earth. It is also a good idea to listen to an effort by many scientists to inform humanity of important issues.


----------



## AZGAL (Oct 14, 2018)

longknife said:


> First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist.


everyone including electrical engineers should take steps to pollute less


----------



## polarbear (Oct 14, 2018)

Hahaha look at the panic in the chickenlittle coup. All the hens are cackling because their rooster Hansen is no longer at NASA to emasculate it. And now thanks to SABER and soon more missions tasked to investigate their fairy tail CO2 monster they hoped would keep the fox in check dematerialized.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


Wow...  Another idiot who likes "snipit" looks starting in the LIA and looking only at that section of a warming planet. All while ignoring the massive cool down that came in the 1300's...

Its people like you who think we have somehow stopped natural forces and now everything is man made..  Your a dupe!

As I said before, provide just one observed and verifiable scientific fact which proves your speculation of man caused anything which rules out natural variation.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You're a name caller with poor use of punctuation! lol.  If we are just throwing insults.

So back to the matter at hand, what do greenhouse gasses do in your world?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 15, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Do YOU have a thinking problem?  the current warming trend very similar to PREVIOUS warming trends back to the mid 1800's. There are FEWER landfalling hurricanes and Tornadoes than usual in the last decade. Increasing cold/snow in recent decades, decreasing wildfire and flood deaths.

Alarmist/Warmists have failed to show evidence that CO2 is a driver of climate, which of course isn't surprising since it doesn't exist.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Unless you can provide a source for that it is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 15, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Then you are way behind because it is well known, example about the per decade warming trend:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones 

*"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?*"

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Fewer Tornadoes

Decreased ACE in recent decade


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


From the same interview...… You conveniently left out a few thing:


> *B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*
> 
> *Yes, but only just.* I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. *The positive trend is quite close to the significance level*. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.





> *C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?*
> 
> No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.





*



			E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
		
Click to expand...

*


> I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.



And let me remind you that this is the guy who you climate change deniers tried and failed to discredit with leaked e mails

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Fewer Tornadoes


Ah yes Roy Spencer, the guy who said that more Co2 in the environment is good, and we cant get rid of it anyway,

Climate misinformation by source: Roy Spencer


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 15, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Once again for YOU the dishonest person who completely ignored Dr. Jones answer to the question. The rate of warming is still around the .16C /decade today.

It is clear you are just the latest warmist moron who can't articulate a decent counterpoint, see that you try that stupid deflection to other parts of the interview that doesn't change his first answer at all, which stated the rate was about .16C/decade in all the identifiable warming period back to the 1800's.

You stupidity is vivid here since you quoted:
*B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*

*Yes, but only just.* I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. *The positive trend is quite close to the significance level*. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods"

clue time for warmist moron:

.12C is SMALLER than .16C

Your other quote:

"*C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?*

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."

-.12C is a LOT lower than either .12C (1995-2009) or .16C (*1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998) *

Your stupidity is noted.​


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 15, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Fewer Tornadoes
> ...



 All this warmist loon can come up with is an ad hom by proxy, no actual reply to the evidence that was 100% from the NOAA. The NOAA themselves show a DECLINE in severe Tornadoes over the past few decades. Dr. Spencer was simply bringing it up on his blog.

Again you have NOTHING to show here but more dead on arrival replies.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now  ………...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 222436




Got any evidence to support your faith?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> 
> Only Republicans and Oil Companies disagree



Interesting...can you provide a single piece of observed evidence which supports this belief in man made climate change over natural variability.  I mean, if all the scientists everywhere believe it, surely there must be a literal mountain of observed evidence which served to convince them....I am just asking for a single piece of it....and yet, you won't be able to deliver because no such evidence exists.

You know what will bring a bunch of scientists who are supposed to be natural born skeptics together faster than even a mountain of evidence?...a wheelbarrow full of money.  Since you can't provide even a single piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability, I'll give you three guesses as to exactly what brought them into consensus...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason.....Scientists from around the world concur on manmade climate change
> ...



Actually, they stand to make a killing off of the global warming scam...follow the money..it  never leads to observed measured evidence to support the hypothesis.


----------



## BlackFlag (Oct 15, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...


^ such profound ignorace.  Incredible


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...



So let me guess...you believe that there is plenty of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...



Notice that Indiana Fun, Crepitus, ProgressivePatriot and Blackflag avoid honest debate?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


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



Of course they do....their debate skills are confined to name calling or insensate bleating.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2018)

What else would you expect from sheep?


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2018)

Mountains of observed, measured evidence that global warming is taking place and that the primary causes are anthropogenic:  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2018)

Crick said:


> Mountains of observed, measured evidence that global warming is taking place and that the primary causes are anthropogenic:  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to bring a single piece of it here...and why?  Because there is not a single piece of observed, measured data in existence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Prove me wrong.  If there are mountains of it, you should have no problem bringing just a single piece of it here.  

I predict you won't because you know perfectly well that it isn't there...but as always, you are willing to lie your ass off just because.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


Show me where a green house condition exists in earths atmosphere...

I'll wait..


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Is this something where we are saying greenhouse gasses work different in an "open" system vs closed?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


LOL..

Too Funny;

The earth is an OPEN system.. So tell me how it is a green house? And yes, this distinction matters in our atmosphere.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Is Venus hotter than Mercury?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


What is the thickness, make up and density of those atmospheres?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



So you have proved to me the greenhouse effect exists in open systems.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


No it doesn't..  Mass properties and how it physically effects  energy are all it proves.

Tell me, when you look at the LOG of CO2, what does it show us?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



But, you just proved to me the atmosphere of Venus has a greenhouse effect.  I guess we can liberally hope the earth doesn't but man, I'm kinda conservative.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


LOL

Nope...  Try again...


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 15, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Do I have to keep replying to show you that you didn't "un convince" me that the "heat holding" (saying greenhouse I guess makes ppl angry) effect of the gasses in Venus' atmosphere don't work the same as Earth's? 

How about I just reply when you convince me the open system on Venus works different than the open system on Earth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


Again... What are the make ups of those atmospheres?  What is their weight? Energy directly affects the mass and the rate of loss is effected by the type of mass... It is not a green house.  

A green house holds energy by a placed closed barrier which only allows energy one way. IN..  None of the atmospheres you cited are closed systems. Their weights and masses differ as do their chemical makeups. Something you fail to understand.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Look to the idea gas laws if you want to know why venus is hotter than mercury.  Here is a hint...it has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere.  The ideal gas laws and the incoming solar energy will tell you the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...the greenhouse gas theory will only tell you the temperature here, and then only if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor.  It can't even begin to tell you the temperatures of the other planets with atmospheres.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



No..the atmosphere of venus does not have a greenhouse effect.  The first requirement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is that IR from the warmed surface heats the atmosphere.  On venus, the atmosphere is so dense that almost no solar energy ever reaches the surface so the surface is not warmed by incoming energy.  

Then there is the fact that the dark side of venus is the same temperature as the light side even though night on venus is 58 days long.  Explain how a greenhouse effect, as described by climate science keeps the dark side of the planet the same temperature as the daylight side during a night that last 58 days.  Here on earth, the so called greenhouse effect starts bleeding energy even before the sun goes down...in fact, it starts bleeding energy as soon as the sun passes its zenith at "high noon".

The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science doesn't even begin to explain the temperature of venus...but the ideal gas law along with the incoming solar energy, predict its temperature very accurately....no greenhouse effect required.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 16, 2018)

AZGAL said:


> FYI: Not all conservatives think like robots and groupthink. Some conservatives follow a protocol of respect for God's green earth. It is also a good idea to listen to an effort by many scientists to inform humanity of important issues.


Well, today you have conservatives, and 'Conservatives'. The former I respect and can debate issues with. The latter are simply the Cult of Trump, and are extremely proud of their ignorance, and resent any intrusion of reality on that ignorance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 16, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Either you are extremely ignorant, or you are a liar. More than likely both are true.


----------



## Pilot1 (Oct 16, 2018)

The fact that they want to END the DEBATE, say the science is settled, and demonize those who don't blindly agree as "Deniers" tells me all I need to know.  It is a SCAM to push more big government, and economy choking taxes on fossil fuels, and products that use fossil fuels that run the world.


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No..the atmosphere of venus does not have a greenhouse effect.  The first requirement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is that IR from the warmed surface heats the atmosphere.  On venus, the atmosphere is so dense that almost no solar energy ever reaches the surface so the surface is not warmed by incoming energy.



And your explanation for the temperature of the Venusian surface would be what?




SSDD said:


> Then there is the fact that the dark side of venus is the same temperature as the light side even though night on venus is 58 days long.  Explain how a greenhouse effect, as described by climate science keeps the dark side of the planet the same temperature as the daylight side during a night that last 58 days.



Gosh.  It might make one think that atmospheric CO2 traps IR energy



SSDD said:


> Here on earth, the so called greenhouse effect starts bleeding energy even before the sun goes down...in fact, it starts bleeding energy as soon as the sun passes its zenith at "high noon".



Wrong.  The system takes in energy at dawn.  The rate at which it takes in energy increases till the zenith, then decreases through the afternoon, reaching zero once again at sunset.



SSDD said:


> The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science doesn't even begin to explain the temperature of venus...but the ideal gas law along with the incoming solar energy, predict its temperature very accurately....no greenhouse effect required.



Dear reader, this is where Same Shit, Different Day uses his insane contention that an atmosphere, compressed by gravity, generates an endless supply of energy and heats itself from its creation till the end of time, thus demonstrating that he flunked middle school physical science and never took another science class thereafter.  If any of you think this witless idiot knows what he's talking about, I've got a bridge to sell you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 16, 2018)

CO2 and CH4 are GHGs. Science settled. We are adding more of each to the atmosphere. Science settled. There is a warming trend going on right now. Science settled. The TSI from the sun is decreasing at present. Science settled. There are two factors determining the long term temperature on the surface of the Earth. The energy the Earth receives from the sun, and the energy it retains. Science settled. Given these facts, what can one conclude from them concerning the present warming?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 16, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> The fact that they want to END the DEBATE, say the science is settled, and demonize those who don't blindly agree as "Deniers" tells me all I need to know.  It is a SCAM to push more big government, and economy choking taxes on fossil fuels, and products that use fossil fuels that run the world.



Look man, some poster on here denying the greenhouse effect exists in an open system TOLD ME the atmosphere of Venus was why its hotter than Mercury (presumably because it holds heat). Then he told me the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.

I can get behind the idea we need to build tanks as fast as we can tobfight the Chinese or whatever.

That double talk though just sounds like a bad ex girlfriend I had.


----------



## Pilot1 (Oct 16, 2018)

Climate change is happening, and has always happened.  Any effect by Man is theoretical, and not yet proven.  The natural cycles of the Sun, and other factors are a huge contributor to weather, and climate change.  Man, I doubt very much.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that they want to END the DEBATE, say the science is settled, and demonize those who don't blindly agree as "Deniers" tells me all I need to know.  It is a SCAM to push more big government, and economy choking taxes on fossil fuels, and products that use fossil fuels that run the world.
> ...


Now this is truly funny.

You don't have even a basic grasp of the physics involved. I posted the LOG of your beloved CO2 a few posts back and you have yet to respond to my question, what does it show?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...




That's hilarious and based on failed modeling...

Get back to me when you have real observations and real science..  Nice piece of propaganda, very light on actual science or fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No..the atmosphere of venus does not have a greenhouse effect.  The first requirement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is that IR from the warmed surface heats the atmosphere.  On venus, the atmosphere is so dense that almost no solar energy ever reaches the surface so the surface is not warmed by incoming energy.
> ...


Where to start with this total misconception of facts...

The weight of the atmosphere is warmed with input and it cools at the rate the molecules can no longer retain energy and warm minus the mass/mass^2 thermal balance.

I don't have time to rehash your ignorance and try and teach you...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> CO2 and CH4 are GHGs. Science settled.



Really?  Guess that means you can provide a bit of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  Lets see it.

It is always interesting to see what passes for actual evidence in that little mind of yours.  Never fails to amuse.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> You don't have even a basic grasp of the physics involved. I posted the LOG of your beloved CO2 a few posts back and you have yet to respond to my question, what does it show?



What it shows is that he doesn't have any idea of what you are talking about.  His position, like all warmist's positions are based on their political leanings..not any actual evidence.

There is more evidence that Hillary Clinton is the most honest woman in the US than there is for man made climate change.


----------



## Pilot1 (Oct 17, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Now this is truly funny.
> 
> You don't have even a basic grasp of the physics involved. I posted the LOG of your beloved CO2 a few posts back and you have yet to respond to my question, what does it show?



It shows I don't need to respond to nonsense.


----------



## cnm (Oct 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Right now...cooler


Yeah right. It is well known that the history of global warming is a succession of cooling periods...





http://www.columbia.edu


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The first requirement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is that IR from the warmed surface heats the atmosphere. On venus, the atmosphere is so dense that almost no solar energy ever reaches the surface so the surface is not warmed by incoming energy.


That is not true. The surface is warmed during the Venus day. Here is a picture from a Venus lander. Lots of sun. Kind of cloudy though.







SSDD said:


> Here on earth, the so called greenhouse effect starts bleeding energy even before the sun goes down...in fact, it starts bleeding energy as soon as the sun passes its zenith at "high noon".


That is simply not true. The hottest time of day is around 3:00 PM. The zenith is at noon.


SSDD said:


> but the ideal gas law along with the incoming solar energy, predict its temperature very accurately....no greenhouse effect required.


That has been disproved long ago. It came from a blog with shoddy unaccepted science.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 17, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Look man, some poster on here denying the greenhouse effect exists in an open system TOLD ME the atmosphere of Venus was why its hotter than Mercury (presumably because it holds heat). Then he told me the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.
> 
> I can get behind the idea we need to build tanks as fast as we can tobfight the Chinese or whatever.
> 
> That double talk though just sounds like a bad ex girlfriend I had.


That poster has been here a long time spouting crap about Venus that he read in some blog.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 and CH4 are GHGs. Science settled.
> ...


That has been explained to you many many times. But you keep cross-posting the same crap because you don't believe modern physics.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That is not true. The surface is warmed during the Venus day. Here is a picture from a Venus lander. Lots of sun. Kind of cloudy though.



Let me guess...you think that picture was taken with a kodak.

Tell you what...you find how much energy is reaching the surface of venus from the sun...plug it into the greenhouse effect equation and tell me what it predicts the temperature will be...here is a hint....not even close.




Wuwei said:


> That has been disproved long ago. It came from a blog with shoddy unaccepted science.



Guess that's why it is the basis for the standard atmosphere...no greenhouse effect necessary.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



So again...that would be a no...you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Just as I said.  All the rest is nothing more than smoke screen to divert from the fact that you can't provide even one piece of real data to support your faith.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Tell you what...you find how much energy is reaching the surface of venus from the sun...plug it into the greenhouse effect equation and tell me what it predicts the temperature will be...here is a hint....not even close.
> 
> Guess that's why it is the basis for the standard atmosphere...no greenhouse effect necessary.


That's not what the experts say.
_Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide... (Taylor, Fredric W. (2014). "Venus: Atmosphere") 

The CO2-rich atmosphere generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 864 °F ( "Venus". Case Western Reserve University. 13 September 2006.)_​
Of course you want to believe fake science from a blog,


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 17, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...


climate inflation and deflation happens under anarcho-capitalism as we may understand it without better use of quantum theories.

i make a motion for a special battalion of mathematical engineers to pioneer better quantum mechanics such that mechanical engineers may develop better and more efficient technologies which may better help us cope with natural climate change, regardless.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So again...that would be a no...you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Just as I said. All the rest is nothing more than smoke screen to divert from the fact that you can't provide even one piece of real data to support your faith.


It was covered before. Ground measurements were made which observed the amount of back-radiation by CO2. Ask your favorite physicist, Prof Raeder about the physics of that.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 17, 2018)

StarGate Atlantis technology should be an event horizon.


----------



## hurricanewatcher (Oct 17, 2018)

Coldest September since 2012!!!!

There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That's not what the experts say.



Ahhh...the ignorance of experts.

I suppose asking you to use your brain for just a second is out of the question, but what the hell...someone who actually can think may read this.

Look into the atmosphere of Venus.  The temperature and pressure profiles from NASA tell us that at an altitude where the pressure is 1000mb (sea level on earth) the temperature is 339K, or 66C.  Warmer than earth which is about 15C or 288K.  Venus, however is closer to the sun and as such receives about 1.9 times more energy from the sun than we get here on earth.  

So do the math and tell me why, at a point in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, but is composed mostly of CO2, the temperature is not considerably warmer once you take into account the difference in incoming solar energy if the greenhouse effect behaves as climate science claims.

I suppose that you believe it is just a wild coincidence that one can accurately predict the temperature of all the planets with atmospheres just by using the ideal gas law and incoming solar radiation.  You really believe that, don't you?

The greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here and then only if you use an ad hoc fudge factor.



_



_​
Of course you want to believe fake science from a blog,[/QUOTE]


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So again...that would be a no...you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Just as I said. All the rest is nothing more than smoke screen to divert from the fact that you can't provide even one piece of real data to support your faith.
> ...



Sorry guy....the ground measurements you are referring to were made with pyrogeometers which are measuring nothing more than the amount and rate of change in an internal thermopile.  I asked for measurements of discrete bands of radiation emitted by CO2 made with instruments at ambient temperature.  Again, turn them towards the earth or horizontal to the earth and you don't need to cool them to measure discrete bands of radiation....turn them towards the sky and it is a different story...you can't measure radiation coming from above unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere. 

Nice of you to demonstrate once again how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.  You have lost this discussion over and over...do you think somehow you will win it this time with the same old bullshit arguments and zero observed measured evidence of what you believe is happening?  Good luck with that.


----------



## Flash (Oct 17, 2018)

AGW is the biggest scam (outside of socialism) ever inflicted upon humans.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Now this is truly funny.
> ...


Thank you for admitting that you do not have even a basic grasp on the physics of  the garbage your spewing...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2018)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Right now...cooler
> ...


Oh look another cherry picked snipet.... of just a warming period and not the cooling period that preceded it..

Do you idiots ever learn?


----------



## cnm (Oct 17, 2018)

hurricanewatcher said:


> There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.


Absolutely. After all, what this graphic shows is a series of declining temperature anomalies, one after another...





Global Temperature


----------



## deanrd (Oct 17, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...


Republicans believe Trump.
They can be fooled into anything.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2018)

deanrd said:


> Republicans believe Trump.
> They can be fooled into anything.



Not sure what this has to do with trump...or bush...or any other republican.  I was a skeptic back when climate science was telling us to gear up for a new ice age.  This is about observed, measured evidence....or the lack of it.  There is not a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

Since there is no actual observed measured evidence of the climate, which is certainly an observable, measurable, entity, that we are altering the global climate, exactly why would anyone, republican, democrat, or independent believe the claims that we are?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2018)

cnm said:


> hurricanewatcher said:
> 
> 
> > There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.
> ...


You have broken the dumbass meter...

Lets put your "snipet" in perspective..





The current rise is not unusual in earths cyclical cycle nor is it outside natural variation cause.  The fact *you CHOSE* to "snipet" only the section of warming calls you out a liar and a deceiver..

Now why would you leave out the end of the LIA?  because its meant to scare people into giving up their lives and freedoms. You far left radical socialists/communist liars need to be dealt with IMHO!

ETA: And yes the long term trend is COOLING..... Your simply and factually a liar as is the IPCC..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2018)

Given the cycle and slope, can you guess what is about to happen?  I can and its with 100% certainty..


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Look into the atmosphere of Venus. The temperature and pressure profiles from NASA tell us that at an altitude where the pressure is 1000mb (sea level on earth) the temperature is 339K, or 66C. Warmer than earth which is about 15C or 288K. Venus, however is closer to the sun and as such receives about 1.9 times more energy from the sun than we get here on earth.
> 
> So do the math and tell me why, at a point in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, but is composed mostly of CO2, the temperature is not considerably warmer once you take into account the difference in incoming solar energy if the greenhouse effect behaves as climate science claims.



If you want to use the atmosphere height on Venus at the point where the pressures are equivalent, I agree that is a reasonable baseline to test the “ideal gas law theory” of temperature as a function of altitude. That baseline altitude for Venus is about 50 KM. I would agree that the pressures from that baseline point up would be close because of the ideal gas law under the effect of gravity predicts that.

However, the interest here is in the temperature profile, or lapse rate. Compare the lapse rate for the two planets, earth starting at zero KM and Venus starting at 50KM. You see that they are entirely different quantitatively and qualitatively.

EARTH​




VENUS​





Notice at 50 KM above earth which is equivalent in pressure to 100 KM above Venus, the temperature of the earth is at a local maximum while the temperature of Venus is at a local minimum.

Also, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.

Is it coincidence that the Earth temperature is in the ball park of Venus at 50 KM? I couldn't begin to guess.

The ideal gas law fails miserably in predicting the lapse rate of those two planets which are wildly different in atmospheric content.

.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Look into the atmosphere of Venus. The temperature and pressure profiles from NASA tell us that at an altitude where the pressure is 1000mb (sea level on earth) the temperature is 339K, or 66C. Warmer than earth which is about 15C or 288K. Venus, however is closer to the sun and as such receives about 1.9 times more energy from the sun than we get here on earth.
> ...



On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.  

With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.

So the bottom line is that the ideal gas law damned near nails the temperature on venus just as it does on any other planet with an atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I asked for measurements of discrete bands of radiation emitted by CO2


No point in continuing this in two different threads. My response is in the thread,
_Wow some Yale/Harvard guy agrees.........._


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.
> 
> With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.
> 
> So the bottom line is that the ideal gas law damned near nails the temperature on venus just as it does on any other planet with an atmosphere.


That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.

In other words, your +10 K/km simply does not work for higher altitudes and even goes negative at certain ranges.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.
> ...


Physical rotation speed, Composition of the atmosphere, external gravity draws (moons) are all reasons why there is only one change in temp as the depth thickens..  While the weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature, there are mitigating factors which affect its circulations.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2018)

wuwei said:
			
		

> That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.



Actually, it doesn't change smoothly just once. 






sorry guy, the greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't predict the temperature of venus while the ideal gas law does...just as it predicts the temperatures of every planet with an atmosphere.

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp =* 737 K*

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = *~750 K*


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp =* 288 K*

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = *~294 K*


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = *165 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) =* ~169 K*


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = *134 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = *~133 K*


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = *76 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = *~77 K*

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp =* 72 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = *~73 K*

Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.
> ...


That quotation is not mine...

I was attempting to show why the circulation patterns are different.   On earth there are thermoclines which hold temperature due to earths rotation an combinations of makeup. On Venus the composition is such that there are no thermoclines.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> That quotation is not mine...



Sorry about that....corrected



Billy_Bob said:


> I was attempting to show why the circulation patterns are different.   On earth there are thermoclines which hold temperature due to earths rotation an combinations of makeup. On Venus the composition is such that there are no thermoclines.



Doesn't much matter to him...he can't accept that there is a real problem with the greenhouse hypothesis...and the fact that there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it is irrelevant to him...the model says its right and he is programmed to believe models over reality whenever he is asked to.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Oct 18, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...



I’d wouldn’t want to go through life as a frightened person, I’d hate to go through as an ignorant person. How does it feel for you to be both?


----------



## Pilot1 (Oct 18, 2018)

[QUOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 21013833, member: 50952
Physical rotation speed, Composition of the atmosphere, external gravity draws (moons) are all reasons why there is only one change in temp as the depth thickens..  *While the weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature,* there are mitigating factors which affect its circulations.[/QUOTE]

Now, I know you're just nuts. The weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature???  What about THE SUN???  Then there is Coriolis force, and a plethora of other NATURAL factors that have nothing to do with MAN.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Physical rotation speed, Composition of the atmosphere, external gravity draws (moons) are all reasons why there is only one change in temp as the depth thickens..  *While the weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature,* there are mitigating factors which affect its circulations.
> ...



LOL...

Way to go... Now your totally of the rails with alarmist bull shit..

Given the suns normalized output, which varies by just 1-2 watts/meter squared over centuries, at the planets upper atmosphere, it is a well known fact that each planet receives the same amount of energy at this level.  Thus, it is the planets atmospheric make up and depth which dictates surface temperature..


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?



Yes, I believe the formula of the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, accurately adheres to the measurements of different planets. The calculations you show assume the volume, V, is a constant cubic meter. That means there are 3 independent variables, P, n/V and T. The ratio n/V (a sort of number per unit volume) is proportional to the atmospheric density.

One problem that I had to grapple with is what happens if the sun doubles its energy. What does the formula show?

The pressure is caused by the gravitational mass of the air above the surface, which does not change (the number of air molecules is invariant.) If T increases because of a hotter sun, the density n/V must decrease. The pressure will decrease slightly because the decreasing density means the atmosphere expands to higher altitudes which have a weaker gravitational pull.

After equilibrium with the brighter sun, P and n/V have new values that match the same formula
P = n/V R. T.
Is that a remarkable accurate prediction of temperature without the greenhouse gas theory? I think not. It is the temperature change that is truly the independent variable. The temperature regulates the pressure and density. It is not the pressure and density that regulate temperature. Using the pressure and density to compute the temperature using the ideal gas law is simply not meaningful.

In short: The temperature of a planet can be caused by many things. The pressure and density simply follow the temperature according to the ideal gas law.

.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Is that a remarkable accurate prediction of temperature without the greenhouse gas theory?
> 
> .



Of course it is not a "remarkable" prediction of temperature without a greenhouse theory.  It is just business as usual for the ideal gas law. That is what it does.  Doesn't matter what the energy source, it will predict the temperature.  Not remarkable...not magic..just science.

Now the greenhouse gas formulas on the other hand does require magic...or at least an ad hoc (made up) fudge factor just to predict the temperature here and can't even get close to the other planets in the solar system that have atmospheres.  Care to hazzard a guess as to why that is?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Doesn't matter what the energy source, it will predict the temperature.



Suppose the sun doubled it's solar energy. How would you predict the temperature? It would be imperative to first know the values of the independent variables, density and pressure. But they must change in order to satisfy the ideal gas law with the higher energy input. But you need to know what the new values of density and pressure are to predict the new temperature.

It's circular. It is not a prediction method. It's just a validation method once all the variables have settled to their new values. If you know two values, you can compute the third.

To simplify, you need to know X and Y to compute Z, but you need to know Z to compute X and Y.

You need some physics outside the ideal gas law to predict anything. What might that be?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't matter what the energy source, it will predict the temperature.
> ...



Considering the proximity of Venus to the sun, if the solar output doubled, do you think there would be an atmosphere on Venus?  If you are going to invent useless mind experiments in an attempt to invalidate the ideal gas law, then at least try to make up something that makes sense.  Of course if you do that, then the ideal gas law itself will answer your question for you...

If you look at the calculations for the various planets above, you will see that the ideal gas law gets close to the actual temperature on each planet...there is a slight error which is corrected by solar input.

If you apply the greenhouse formula to each planet you will see that you won't even get close...and it isn't even close here without the ad hoc fudge factor.  Face it...the greenhouse hypothesis is a failure...it requires mucho magic in order for it to work.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Considering the proximity of Venus to the sun, if the solar output doubled, do you think there would be an atmosphere on Venus? If you are going to invent useless mind experiments in an attempt to invalidate the ideal gas law, then at least try to make up something that makes sense. Of course if you do that, then the ideal gas law itself will answer your question for you...



I agree the ideal gas law *is valid* in describing the state variables of the atmospheres of planets. I told you that already. 

Suppose the sun energy decreased by 10%. Please show how the ideal gas law is used to compute the new lower temperature of Venus that would result. It should be simple for you because you already explicitly showed how it applied to a number of planets.

.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2018)

hurricanewatcher said:


> Coldest September since 2012!!!!
> 
> There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.


Coldest September in the last six years? And you think that proves what? Damn, the longer they come, the more ignorant they get.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 223321
> 
> Given the cycle and slope, can you guess what is about to happen?  I can and its with 100% certainty..


Yessireeeeeeee...............................Bob. I surely can guess what is going to happen. Silly Billy is about to grace us with another of his laughable prognistications. LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 19, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 223321
> ...


Old fraud and his end of the world predictions..







Have we reached peak alarmism on climate change?


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2018)

How many times, Billy Boy, has it been explained to you how Greenland ice-core temperature data differ from global data?  Is there a reason you are either unwilling or unable to assimilate that FACT?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> How many times, Billy Boy, has it been explained to you how Greenland ice-core temperature data differ from global data?  Is there a reason you are either unwilling or unable to assimilate that FACT?


Again, Moron, the other data sets show it was GLOBAL..  Quit whining about being a loser..


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 20, 2018)

Long ago, climate change left the arena of science.

I love to hear the use of the term "peer reviewed" which only means that credentialled "experts" are just as politically inclined as your paper.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 20, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 223321
> ...



You mean like....Hillary will win big ?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I agree the ideal gas law *is valid* in describing the state variables of the atmospheres of planets. I told you that already.
> 
> Suppose the sun energy decreased by 10%. Please show how the ideal gas law is used to compute the new lower temperature of Venus that would result. It should be simple for you because you already explicitly showed how it applied to a number of planets.
> 
> .



You really haven't ever put much thought into this have you?  You just accept what you are told to accept by people you share a political position with...don't you?

Consider Saturn.  The amount of energy that Saturn receives is a fraction of what the earth receives and still, the ideal gas law accurately predicts the temperature there.

What you either can't understand or won't bring yourself to admit is that the ideal gas law is not just a handy means of calculating the temperatures of the planets....it is the reason that the planets are the temperatures they are.  

Each planet has a black body temperature.
The BB temperature for Venus, for example is 465k.  That is the planet without an atmosphere.  Add an atmosphere of at least 0.69kPa and the ideal gas law will tell you what the temperature  of the planet will be without regard to the composition of the atmosphere as the composition has little to do with the temperature beyond its mass.

I'm not inclined to spend a great deal of time with you on this...  Here is a link to a very good, in depth, relatively easy to understand published explanation.  The title is Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20180703.13.pdf

Unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, this paper is backed up by actual empirical evidence.  To date, there is no empirical evidence in support of the greenhouse hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> How many times, Billy Boy, has it been explained to you how Greenland ice-core temperature data differ from global data?  Is there a reason you are either unwilling or unable to assimilate that FACT?



Hey skid mark...how many references would you like from climate science telling us that the arctic is the "canary in the coal mine" and how the arctic goes, so goes the rest of the planet?  Here...have a few...

Canary in the Coal Mine: The Arctic as a National Imperative
Why the Arctic is climate change's canary in the coal mine - William Chapman
Melting Sea Ice: A Canary in the Coal Mine
Arctic Is the Canary in the Coalmine

Want to tell me that climate science was wrong and just scamming people with all that canary in the coal mine crap?  Well, of course they were scamming people, but your guys took that arctic and global are two different things argument from you.  Nice try.


----------



## Maggdy (Oct 21, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...




And

*5*. There are those who do not speak a lot about it but they act to prevent it.

*Bill Gates*, Chairman of Breakthrough Energy Ventures, said: "....._The scientists and entrepreneurs who are developing innovations to address climate change need capital to build companies that can deliver those innovations to the global market. Breakthrough Energy Europe is designed to provide that capital.”_


(European Commission and Bill Gates-led Breakthrough Energy launch €100 million clean energy investment fund.)

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES  - Press release - Climate change: European Commission and Bill Gates-led Breakthrough Energy launch €100 million clean energy investment fund


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2018)

Maggdy said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...



Prevent what?  Are you aware that they hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.  Did you know that?  So what, exactly is bill gates and his ilk trying to prevent?


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2018)

Are you aware that it has?  That would make you a willful liar.  Gee, what a surprise.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> Are you aware that it has?  That would make you a willful liar.  Gee, what a surprise.



Really?  Lets see it.  

Of course you won't be able to produce it, but I do believe that you actually thought that it had...being a dupe and all.

Here is a place to start..

Feldman, D. R., Collins, W. D., Gero, P. J., Torn, M. S., Mlawer, E. J., & Shippert, T. R. (2015). Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 519(7543), 339-343.

This guy thinks he found a forcing of 0.2 wm^2 from increasing CO2 in the 2000-2010 time period but even that is doubtful and good luck attributing any warming at all to less than a quarter of a watt per square meter.  And even if you did manage to demonstrate the 0.02wm^2 was actual forcing from CO2 and managed some mathematical magic and manage to attribute some small bit of warming to it, you would never be able to adequately demonstrate that the increase in CO2 from 2000 - 2010 was entire due to man.  

So in short, skid mark,  warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.

But is should be fun to watch you try to produce a published paper...and even more fun watching you realize that you can't.


----------



## Votto (Oct 21, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...



Well I get why you think that global warming is a problem, but what I don't get are the ways to fix it.

Taxes?  Really?

According to science, the Paris Accord Trump pulled out of was nothing short of a band aid on a cancer.

At least come up with a serious answer other than creating big pots of money for corrupt bureaucrats

Oh, and Al Gore leading the charge while flying jets all over the world and owning mansions all over the world to heat and cool and driving SUV's does not help you cause, IMO.


----------



## MaryL (Oct 21, 2018)

longknife said:


> *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> 
> 
> *Here’s what the author of this piece writes:*
> ...


You lose your bet. And we all lose. I bet I can find 4 reasons to believe in unicorns, too. Turn off your  computer, disconnect from the conspiracists paranoia  and breathe in deeply the air of reality. And open your eyes, man made climate change is damned obvious. Nobody needs the internet to see the changes.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2018)

MaryL said:


> You lose your bet. And we all lose. I bet I can find 4 reasons to believe in unicorns, too. Turn off your  computer, disconnect from the conspiracists paranoia  and breathe in deeply the air of reality. And open your eyes, man made climate change is damned obvious. Nobody needs the internet to see the changes.



You really are out of touch with reality, aren't you?  I have already demostrated to you that your memory of hail storms in denver was flawed, as well as your thoughts on drought.

It is unfortunate that people like you have been duped into believing the steaming pile of bullshit that is man made climate change, but there it is.

 The hard facts regarding man made climate change are that there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...and there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and last but not least, the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.

The fact is that the amount of actual science, as opposed to pseudoscience, media hype, and political grandstanding on the topic of climate science is precious little, but it is apparently more than enough to fool people who are either to stupid, or to damned lazy to actually do just a bit of research on their own and look for the facts.

Congratulations...you are what climate science generously refers to as a useful idiot.


----------



## MaryL (Oct 21, 2018)

Somebody is out of touch here. it isn't that hard, buckwheat. Um, perhaps you need glasses?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I agree the ideal gas law *is valid* in describing the state variables of the atmospheres of planets. I told you that already.
> ...



I read the article about the ideal gas model of planets given in the reference, you cited. The beginning of the paper was well thought out and I agreed with everything up to page 116.

The author is quite correct in stating a caveat,
_To be crystal clear about the limitations of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law; the nature of the formula means that it cannot in general be used to determine the *cause* of an atmospheric warming or cooling event._​
In other words, his ideal gas model of planets is, in principle, compatible with a CO2 generated temperature rise.

The author discusses a hypothetical 3 C rise predicted by IPCC by a doubling of CO2. He states the rise is consistent with his model only if there is an atmospheric pressure change, density change, or both.

I agree when he says the pressure does not change much by the added 400 ppm CO2 which adds a very minor amount to the air mass. That means the density must change. He says,
_The change in density required, if the pressure remained stable, would be a fall of 0.91%. This represents an *anomalous* change of twenty-three times that which the percentage change in atmospheric gas alone would logically indicate._​He is referring to the fact that if doubling CO2 decreases air density, by 0.91%, that is a value which is 23 times worse than the one given by his model.

However, that 0.91% change is not “anomalous” at all ! That percentage has already been experimentally observed and measured. ...( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air )

It's easy to see the ideal gas model would not be violated with GHG warming. Suppose CO2 doubled and the temperature of earth did increase by 3C. The density must decrease. If an alien dropped a probe on earth he would see the higher temperature is accurately predicted by the 0.91% lower density, and the slight increase in pressure. That conforms to the authors own calculation! The alien would be quite satisfied that his planetary ideal gas model was shown to work even though, unbeknownst to the alien, there was global warming. You can believe it or not that hypothetical GHG warming occurs. But it still remains consistent with the authors model.

The author himself says that the greenhouse effect is not precluded by the his model, as claimed incorrectly by many deniers. Although the author says point blank, “_There is no supporting scientific evidence for the existence of these large anomalous changes [atmospheric density] occurring in the atmosphere of Earth”, _he is wrong and has been disproved by observed and measured data in the wiki article mentioned above.

June of this year larger planes could not take off at the Phoenix airport because the temperature was 120F. The air density was too low for the planes to get lift on the short runway. That problem is predicted by the ideal gas model.
A physicist explains just why all those flights were grounded in Arizona...

.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 21, 2018)

MaryL said:


> Somebody is out of touch here. it isn't that hard, buckwheat. Um, perhaps you need glasses?



Mary, he clobbered you at the Al Gore Rain bombs thread where he showed that your unsupported "memories" were sadly lacking about hail damage claims:

From SSD's post 63

"Proving you are wrong is not that difficult. All one need do is look at the history of your area.

Here, from the Denver Post.

Hailstorms aren't more common in Colorado than before, but they are getting costlier as the state grows

Clip:
Despite the rash of storms that have hit the Front Range this summer, Colorado is not being pummeled by more hail than usual. And the size of hailstones that have fallen in the region is not unprecedented, according to weather experts.

In a state where the population has shot up by 1.3 million people since 2000, the hail is just dinging more cars, battering more rooftops and otherwise wreaking havoc that is taking a bigger and bigger bite out of more bank accounts. Like the hail, that trend isn’t likely to let up anytime soon.

“We’ve always been hail alley, but over the past three to five years we’ve really seen this volatile pattern of large hail hitting densely populated areas,” said Carole Walker, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association . “We have a booming population, more homes, larger homes, more cars out on the roadway. It’s unfortunately affecting insurance rates. What we pay out in claims is what people pay in premiums.”

So no....regardless of what your flawed memory tells you, you are not seeing more, or larger hail today than is normal for your state.

Do I also need to provide you with a long term (thousands of years) drought history of your region as well to show you that the drought you believe you are living through is neither unusual, nor unprecedented, and in fact, little more than a minor inconvenience in comparison to some of the droughts that have struck your region which lasted hundreds of years?

If you want facts, especially about something as ever changing as the weather, you probably shouldn't look to your own faulty memory."

After that you suddenly vanish from the reality SSDD Presented to you 

Snicker...…………..


----------



## Maggdy (Oct 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Maggdy said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...




Thanks. You compel me pause  for thought. You are right, I do not know much about it. I want to answer your first and last questions. But maybe, I did not use the right word therefore *Bill Gates* answer you  : " I’m optimistic that if we keep up this momentum, *we can stop climate change* and help those who are being hurt the most by it—all while meeting the world’s growing energy needs."
4 signs of progress on climate change | Bill Gates

I am sorry, I considered so: Bill Gates is one of the cleverest and richest person in the world, what he says is like a scripture. I hope you understand me.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

MaryL said:


> Somebody is out of touch here. it isn't that hard, buckwheat. Um, perhaps you need glasses?



Got em...and use em....and take the time to read with them.  You, on the other hand seem to be living in a fantasy world.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I read the article about the ideal gas model of planets given in the reference, you cited. The beginning of the paper was well thought out and I agreed with everything up to page 116.
> 
> The author is quite correct in stating a caveat,
> _To be crystal clear about the limitations of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law; the nature of the formula means that it cannot in general be used to determine the *cause* of an atmospheric warming or cooling event._​
> ...



Reading for comprehension is not your best thing...is it.  He is saying that a fall of 0.91% is 23 times greater than the gas laws predict.  Are you claiming that the gas laws are wrong.   You didn't bother to paste the rest of his thoughts on the matter for obvious reasons.  Here, lets help you out with the honesty deficit you are dealing with. 


The change in density required, if the pressure remained stable, would be a fall of 0.91%. This represents an anomalous change of twenty-three times that which the percentage change in atmospheric gas alone would logically indicate. Again, if the pressure fell as well, then the required fall in density would have to be even greater to compensate. While still large, the smallest individual anomalous changes required would be if the pressure rose and simultaneously, density fell by a similar percentage. Logically, this combination may be the unlikeliest of these three possibilities. A possible worked example is provided here;

T=101.85/(8.314 x 1.2197) 28.984)

Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.08% ≈ 291.16K

This scenario requires an anomalous change of 0.45% to pressure, combined with an anomalous change of 0.43% to density. These are eleven times and nine times respectively, the changes that would reasonably be expected. Evidence of anomalous changes due to the presence of GHG of this magnitude are not obvious in the gas data from any of the other planets, i.e. Venus, Titan. There doesn’t appear to be any particular class of gases which cause very significant anomalous changes in any of the gas parameters. This result is not surprising, since the ideal gas law, in all of its varieties, makes no distinction between classes of gases based on their radiative absorption properties. Consistent with this view is that strong negative feedbacks are evident in the climate system of Earth, and that there are convincing natural explanations for the recent period of global warming (see section 3).

And perhaps flawed models have "observed" such a change, it certainly has not been observed or measured out in the real world.



Wuwei said:


> It's easy to see the ideal gas model would not be violated with GHG warming.
> .



I suppose it is easy to see if you are looking through magical climate goggles, but if you are looking at the real world, it is not possible to see at all.  The author goes on to explain that if the greenhouse effect hypothesis is correct, then the ideal gas law must be wrong.  Are you suggesting that the ideal gas law is wrong?

*2.10. Why the Ideal Gas Law Directly Conflicts with the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis

It is known that the ideal gas law does not differentiate between gases, and so its derivative, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law cannot either. This fact brings the derivative into direct conflict with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the current, widely-accepted null hypothesis of climate change. Both of these hypotheses have at their core, a clear division between gases - those which cause atmospheric warming and those which do not. It has been shown that a gas which causes anomalous warming must also cause anomalous changes to pressure or density or both. Yet this violates the equivalence of gases which is fundamental to the ideal gas law. Therefore, either the ideal gas law is correct, or the greenhouse gas hypothesis of anomalous warming is correct; both cannot be correct.

A final proof that there can be no anomalous gas parameter changes due to ‘greenhouse gases’ is that it would be theoretically possible to change the pressure / density / molar mass in exactly the same way numerically – by using non- greenhouse gases to reach the same parameter results – and the same predicted planetary temperature. Only one combination of gases is permissible to reach the same parameter numbers. Therefore, the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the null hypothesis must be incorrect.

*
Sorry guy...in the end, you are going to be on the wrong side of this topic...as have so many in the past who blindly accepted the "consensus" science....history is literally littered with them.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

Maggdy said:


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



Sorry...while Bill Gates is certainly one of the riches men in the world, he is hardly one of the cleverest.  I suggest that you read a book called Outliers.  A whole chapter is devoted to Bill Gates.  While he is clever, he is actually a product of a remarkable confluence of events which have little to do with how "clever" he is.  And in case you should think that the author of Outliers may not know what the hell he is talking about, Gates himself promotes the book.

It sounds as if you are suggesting that if we throw enough money at a non problem, it can be solved.  Don't you think that throwing all that money at an actual problem might help the people who need help much more effectively?

The blog of Bill Gates        How Do Some Become so Successful? | Bill Gates

*How Do Some Become so Successful?*
By Bill Gates 
| September 14, 2011

This is an interesting look at how some people become high-achievers. Disclaimer: I'm mentioned in the book.

Here’s the publisher’s description for the book Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell:

In this stunning new book, Malcolm Gladwell takes us on an intellectual journey through the world of “outliers”—the best and the brightest, the most famous and the most successful. He asks the question: what makes high-achievers different?

His answer is that we pay too much attention to what successful people are like, and too little attention to where they are from: that is, their culture, their family, their generation, and the idiosyncratic experiences of their upbringing. Along the way he explains the secrets of software billionaires, what it takes to be a great soccer player, why Asians are good at math, and what made the Beatles the greatest rock band.

Brilliant and entertaining, Outliers is a landmark work that will simultaneously delight and illuminate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 22, 2018)

longknife said:


> First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind.



Okay, he could have stopped the article right there. 


He isn't a climate scientist. 

The people who ARE Client scientists who spend years studying these things say that there is a problem.


----------



## Crick (Oct 22, 2018)

I warn ANYONE considering taking SSDD as a source for valid scientific information that he is as bad a source as could be found. Try Wuwei, Old Rocks or Toddsterpatriot.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> He is saying that a fall of 0.91% is 23 times greater than the gas laws predict. Are you claiming that the gas laws are wrong. You didn't bother to paste the rest of his thoughts on the matter for obvious reasons. Here, lets help you out with the honesty deficit you are dealing with.
> 
> The change in density required, if the pressure remained stable, would be a fall of 0.91%.


Nobody is claiming the gas law is wrong. It is very simple if you understand the gas law. The 400 parts per million added  CO2 means the pressure barely increases The author said exactly that.
*
IF* the temperature does go up, then the density must go down proportionately. The author said that.

The fact is that the density has been experimentally observed and measured to go down by that very amount when the temperature goes up. The author agrees with experimental science.



SSDD said:


> A possible worked example is provided here;
> 
> T=101.85/(8.314 x 1.2197) 28.984)
> 
> ...


That example is not even hypothetical; it is wrong. There is no given reason to assume the pressure changes by 4.5%. The author is going against what he said earlier, the pressure change is tiny by an added 400 parts per million of CO2. That is 0.04% which is far smaller than 4.5%

It looks like he wants to split the difference between pressure change and density change. There is no physical reason for that.


SSDD said:


> *it would be theoretically possible to change the pressure / density / molar mass in exactly the same way numerically – by using non- greenhouse gases to reach the same parameter results – and the same predicted planetary temperature.*



The author is exactly correct here. In that scenario, if he wants to change the pressure / density / molar mass in the same way, the temperature must change the same way due to the ideal gas law. He forgot to mention the temperature change must be part of the scenario.

However, as the author implies, all that hypothetical change would certainly not be due to a green house effect. So it must be due to some other planetary or solar change.

So, there is no reason to say that the gas law on a green house planet is any different that a non-greenhouse planet. The author has not made his case.

.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> I warn ANYONE considering taking SSDD as a source for valid scientific information that he is as bad a source as could be found. Try Wuwei, Old Rocks or Toddsterpatriot.



Says the good who can't produce a shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....or a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere......or a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

What's the matter crick...frustrated because you can't find anything like actual observed, measured, empirical data to support your beliefs so you feel the need to lash out?....can you possibly be any more impotent?

Holding up wuwei, old rocks, or toddster as good sources for science?  Really?  A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous?  Or a known political whore?  Or a guy who has never actually defended or discussed an idea with anything more than inane one liners?  Those qualify in your mind as good sources for science?  You never fail to show people exactly why you are such a good little dupe.

Go look for some non existent empirical evidence to support your beliefs...that should take you a life time..and you will eventually die a failure.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> So, there is no reason to say that the gas law on a green house planet is any different that a non-greenhouse planet. The author has not made his case.
> 
> .



You forget saturn and jupiter...essentially no greenhouse gasses there and yet, the gas law works just the same.  You are in denial.

You keep ignoring the punch line of the whole paper.  What's the matter, the blinders built into those magical climate change goggles you wear automatically come down when you get to the part of the paper, where after much explanation, and demonstration, he says:  

_*It is known that the ideal gas law does not differentiate between gases, and so its derivative, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law cannot either. This fact brings the derivative into direct conflict with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the current, widely-accepted null hypothesis of climate change. Both of these hypotheses have at their core, a clear division between gases - those which cause atmospheric warming and those which do not. It has been shown that a gas which causes anomalous warming must also cause anomalous changes to pressure or density or both. Yet this violates the equivalence of gases which is fundamental to the ideal gas law.Therefore, *either the ideal gas law is correct, or the greenhouse gas hypothesis of anomalous warming is correct; both cannot be correct.
_
They can't both be true and since one is backed buy more empirical evidence than you can shake a stick at, and the other has yet to generate a single paper in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG....guess which one I will go with?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind.
> ...



And yet, they haven't produced a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor have they provided a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.....nor have they produced a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

Considering that they have nothing in the way of actual data to support their claims...exactly why would you believe them?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You forget saturn and jupiter...essentially no greenhouse gasses there and yet, the gas law works just the same. You are in denial.


*You are creating a strawman fallacy and a lie. I told you many times that I agree that the gas law must work on every planet.*



SSDD said:


> You keep ignoring the punch line of the whole paper.



I did not ignore the punchline. My point is that the punchline has no punch.



SSDD said:


> _either the ideal gas law is correct, or the greenhouse gas hypothesis of anomalous warming is correct; both cannot be correct.
> _
> They can't both be true and since one is backed buy more empirical evidence than you can shake a stick at, and the other has yet to generate a single paper in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG....guess which one I will go with?



I already told you *the author is wrong*!
The author himself said,
_To be crystal clear about the limitations of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law; the nature of the formula means that it cannot in general be used to determine the cause of an atmospheric warming or cooling event._​What he is saying means that the gas law does not preclude the greenhouse gas theory.

The author himself said,
_A simple formula with no reference to GHG in it would not be expected to accurately predict the average atmospheric temperature of eight such widely differing planetary atmospheres, by the measurement of just three common planetary gas parameters._​
That is *totally wrong*. The gas law is absolutely obligated to predict correctly any parameter when given the values of the others at any possible planet! I'm amazed that the author says it would not be expected! It is almost as though the author lost faith in the gas law. Applying the gas law when all the parameters are measured and known is a tautology. It is more of a test of the gas law than it is of planet climate.

Finally the author is *totally wrong* when he says the greenhouse gas theory and the ideal gas law cannot both be correct. In fact the greenhouse gas theory, no matter what it is, absolutely must follow the gas law anywhere it is applied.

The author fails to see that, and you were taken in by his fallacies. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> *You are creating a strawman fallacy and a lie. I told you many times that I agree that the gas law must work on every planet.*


*
*
What you haven't done is acknowledge that the greenhouse gas hypothesis only works here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.




Wuwei said:


> I already told you *the author is wrong*!
> The author himself said,
> _To be crystal clear about the limitations of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law; the nature of the formula means that it cannot in general be used to determine the cause of an atmospheric warming or cooling event._​What he is saying means that the gas law does not preclude the greenhouse gas theory.



What he is saying is exactly that the gas law precludes the greenhouse gas hypothesis...He states in no uncertain terms that if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is right, then the ideal gas law must be wrong...and vice versa...then he explains that if there is anomalous warming observed, then one must look somewhere other than the composition of the atmosphere for the cause of that warming,..which he then does in a fair amount of detail.



Wuwei said:


> The author himself said,
> _A simple formula with no reference to GHG in it would not be expected to accurately predict the average atmospheric temperature of eight such widely differing planetary atmospheres, by the measurement of just three common planetary gas parameters._​
> That is *totally wrong*. The gas law is absolutely obligated to predict correctly any parameter when given the values of the others at any possible planet! I'm amazed that the author says it would not be expected! It is almost as though the author lost faith in the gas law. Applying the gas law when all the parameters are measured and known is a tautology. It is more of a test of the gas law than it is of planet climate.



You either can't read, or you are one of the most dishonest people I have ever spoken with and that includes a group including crick, old rocks, and mamooth.

Rather than trying to cherry pick his statements and take them entirely out of context, why don't you paste the author's entire thought?

He said:

This IPCC reports’ view is of a climate sensitivity at this level, this is also backed by the ‘97% consensus’ [67]. Conversely, the new null hypothesis as presented here, predicts that both planets will have virtually identical temperatures. The dilemma is; how to determine which null hypothesis is correct? This puzzle appears to be solvable in the following manner.

_How could a simple formula such as formula 5, which contains no reference to the percentage of GHG in an atmosphere, accurately predict the temperature of a planet with a very specific percentage of GHG, such as planet E2? Perhaps it would be informative to be aware of the wide variation in the atmospheres of other planetary bodies - some with up to 96% GHG in their atmospheres (Venus, Titan) - and some others with virtually none (Jupiter, Saturn). A simple formula with no reference to GHG in it would not be expected to accurately predict the average atmospheric temperature of eight such widely differing planetary atmospheres, by the measurement of just three common planetary gas parameters.

And yet it does (Table 2, Figure 2).

The only way that is possible, if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct and these gases are special and cause strong warming, is that changes in the greenhouse gases’ percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure and/or density anomalously; - in such a way as to make formulae 5 fit.
_
He is saying that with the molar version of the ideal gas law, you don't even need to know how much energy is coming in from the sun...that is what he means by the phrase "baked in" which he uses several times.

_This formula proves itself here, to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others. The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned. Note that although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not used in the formula, it is proposed that these two are still what virtually determine an average near-surface_

_This formula proves itself here, to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others. The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned. Note that although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not used in the formula, it is proposed that these two are still what virtually determine an average near-surface_




Wuwei said:


> Finally the author is *totally wrong* when he says the greenhouse gas theory and the ideal gas law cannot both be correct. In fact the greenhouse gas theory, no matter what it is, absolutely must follow the gas law anywhere it is applied.



Actually, he is dead on.  But do feel free to apply the greenhouse hypothesis to the other planets and lets see how close it is.  Looking forward to seeing it work on saturn and jupiter where there are no so called greenhouse gasses to speak of.



Wuwei said:


> The author fails to see that, and you were taken in by his fallacies.
> 
> .



The only one taken in here is you..but you were taken in a long time ago by charlatans spewing pseudoscience...or actually, by politicians and the media spewing pseudoscience since the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I warn ANYONE considering taking SSDD as a source for valid scientific information that he is as bad a source as could be found. Try Wuwei, Old Rocks or Toddsterpatriot.
> ...



*A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous?*

Or the light from the Sun's surface not being spontaneous.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




It wasn't necessary, but thanks for making my point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



I'm happy to point out your confusion.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> What he is saying is exactly that the gas law precludes the greenhouse gas hypothesis...He states in no uncertain terms that if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is right, then the ideal gas law must be wrong...and vice versa.


I know what he is stating in no uncertain terms, but it is certain he is wrong.



SSDD said:


> The only way that is possible, if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct and these gases are special and cause strong warming, is that changes in the greenhouse gases’ percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure and/or density anomalously; - in such a way as to make formulae 5 fit.


Any temperature change from any source will alter the density. It has been carefully observed and measured. Planes can't take off when the temperature is high because the density is too low for lift. It is not an anomaly. It is applied physics.



SSDD said:


> Note that although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not used in the formula, it is proposed that these two are still what virtually determine an average near-surface


What he is saying here is that the gas law parameters are not enough to compute the temperature. You need to know the sun energy, etc, but he has no formula to compute the average near surface energy or temperature. Therefore the gas law alone is not complete in computing the temperatures of planets. So his theory has no meaning in computing temperature which is supposedly his goal. What he has done is simply show atmospheric data follow the ideal gas law. Of course it does. So what. There is no prediction given.



SSDD said:


> Actually, he is dead on. But do feel free to apply the greenhouse hypothesis to the other planets and lets see how close it is. Looking forward to seeing it work on saturn and jupiter where there are no so called greenhouse gasses to speak of.


It's simple. Don't make it complicated. Greenhouse gas models are not applicable if there are no greenhouse gases. That should have been obvious.

You were taken in by a charlatan. No question about that.

I wondered how a published paper could be so bad. Look at the upper left corner. It was published by Science Publishing Group. It's a web site. All you have to do is pay them $400 and they will publish your paper for everyone to read free of charge. Sort of like a diploma mill you pay the money they give you a diploma. Their papers are not peer reviewed. They are possibly internally reviewed but not by leading experts.

A professional journal never never charges the author. They charge the reader. It costs $10 to over $40 dollars for a reader to download a single professional journal paper or a $500 to over $900 a year for a subscription.

It is true that just because a paper is published for a price by a web mill, the paper still may be correct and informative, but the paper you cited is definitely not.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I know what he is stating in no uncertain terms, but it is certain he is wrong.{/quote]
> 
> Really?  Based on what observed, measured evidence.  Lets see it.  We both know no such evidence will be forthcoming so why not just admit that the thought of him being right is just to terrible for you to bear?
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I know what he is stating in no uncertain terms, but it is certain he is wrong.{/quote]
> ...



I'm not assuming a particular source of energy is required. It is a simple fact that any temperature change from any source will alter atmospheric density. It has been carefully observed and measured.

I didn't cherry pick a quote. These are two sentences in the same paragraph that you fully quoted:

Authors second sentence:
It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; *solar insolation* etc.

Authors last sentence:
it is proposed that these two [*solar* *insolation, *auto-compression] are still what virtually determine an average near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature.​
Do you see the self contradiction? The first sentence says the amount of sun energy is not necessary to calculate temperatures. In the last sentence he says it virtually determines the temperature.

He needs to rigorously  clarify what "baked-in" means in a physics equation. That is very sloppy science which makes no sense. Your interpretation of "baked-in" is contrary to the authors last sentence.

The author states his gas model alone does not calculate temperatures of any planet. Unless you can find it for me, he has no calculation of near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature. So the author is in essence saying that he has not achieved his goal of computing the temperatures of planets. It is much more complicated than he thinks.

As I said before, the only thing he accomplished is simply to show atmospheric data follow the ideal gas law. Of course it does. So what. There is no prediction given.

.


----------



## IanC (Oct 23, 2018)

The Ideal Gas Law operates under a set assumptions, idealized conditions.

The mechanics of GHG theory violate those assumptions. 

This does not mean that IGL or GHG theory is necessarily wrong, but simply incomplete.

Physics is often an exercise  in using the least amount of parameters to give an estimate that is close enough for the purpose. Factoring in the curvature of the earth is foolish for building a house but it would be foolhardy to ignore if you were constructing a two kilometre suspension bridge.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 23, 2018)

IanC said:


> The Ideal Gas Law operates under a set assumptions, idealized conditions.
> 
> The mechanics of GHG theory violate those assumptions.
> 
> ...



I didn't want to complicate the discussion with the points you are making because it would lead to endless quibbling by SSDD who jumps at any chance for a distraction. But you are right, the IGL may work well for some planets, but the earth has a major un-ideal substance: Water changes phase right and left (or should I say up and down.)

The paper SSDD cited ignores water phase changes which are not trivial, but air for the most part acts ideally very locally as in a cubic meter, except in a thunderstorm, etc.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2018)

IanC said:


> The Ideal Gas Law operates under a set assumptions, idealized conditions.
> 
> The mechanics of GHG theory violate those assumptions.



Laughable ian...absolutely laughable.  The "assumptions" are things like the gas consists of a large number of molecules, which are in random motion and obey Newton's laws of motion, and the volume of the molecules is negligibly small compared to the volume occupied by the gas.  The mechanics of the greenhouse gas hypothesis are entirely and completely composed of assumptions.  There is no empirical evidence to demonstrate a relationship between CO2 and warming in the atmosphere.  

All you have is a piss poor hypothesis which only works here, and only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor, and can't even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, and the opinions of scientists who have been seduced by money.  

You don't even have a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

In reality, what do you have ian?

Those "assumptions" the ideal gas LAW makes are applicable here and don't change a thing.  The fact is that the molar version of the ideal gas law is not just a handy means of predicting the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere, it is the reason the planet is that temperature.




IanC said:


> This does not mean that IGL or GHG theory is necessarily wrong, but simply incomplete.



The greenhouse gas hypothesis, and its red headed, bastard stepchild, AGW are wrong in every manner that you would expect a pair of interlocking piss poor hypotheses to be....beginning with the fact that there isn't the first whit of empirical evidence to support either despite billions upon billions of dollars having been spent on the boondoggle.



IanC said:


> Physics is often an exercise  in using the least amount of parameters to give an estimate that is close enough for the purpose. Factoring in the curvature of the earth is foolish for building a house but it would be foolhardy to ignore if you were constructing a two kilometre suspension bridge.



What physics isn't is fabricating a hypothesis out of whole cloth about an observable, measurable entity such as the atmosphere without the first piece of actual observational evidence to support it...especially for no better reason than political power and money.  You really want to se science prostitute itself out to the highest bidder?

Rejecting that the factors included in the molar version of the ideal gas law are the reason that the planets with atmospheres are the temperatures they are in in spite of the fact that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere in favor of a piss poor hypothesis without the first piece of empirical evidence in support of it even though it has been in dispute since its inception and billions upon billions upon billions of dollars having been spent isn't science ian...and it simply is not rational.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I didn't want to complicate the discussion with the points you are making because it would lead to endless quibbling by SSDD who jumps at any chance for a distraction.p.quote]
> 
> He had no point other than that the assumptions the ideal gas law make apply here and in every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere dense enough to compress.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I'm not assuming a particular source of energy is required. It is a simple fact that any temperature change from any source will alter atmospheric density. It has been carefully observed and measured.



CO2 is not an energy source and therefore any assumption based on an energy source can not include CO2.



Wuwei said:


> I didn't cherry pick a quote. These are two sentences in the same paragraph that you fully quoted:
> 
> Authors second sentence:
> It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; *solar insolation* etc.​



Of course you cherry picked...are you really daft enough to believe that you didn't?   By leaving out the next sentence, you are guilty of both cherrypicking, and changing the context of the statement.  The next sentence reads: 

_*The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned.*_

Now if you can manage just a wee bit of intellectual honesty, compare the meaning of the sentence you posted, with the idea the sentence was part of expressing.  Think you can manage even that much intellectual honesty?



_


Wuwei said:



			Authors.
		
Click to expand...

_


Wuwei said:


> last sentence:
> it is proposed that these two [*solar* *insolation, *auto-compression] are still what virtually determine an average near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature.



Again, refer to the sentence you deliberately left out in your impotent attempt to change the context of the statements.  Isn't it interesting how you man made climate change believers must invariably resort to such tactics?

Again..the author said:​It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others._*The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned.  *I_t is proposed that these two [*solar* *insolation, *auto-compression] are still what virtually determine an average near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature.[/quote]

It does not require parameters like solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content etc because?

And solar insolation and auto compression are what determine an average near surface temperature because?



Wuwei said:


> Do you see the self contradiction? The first sentence says the amount of sun energy is not necessary to calculate temperatures. In the last sentence he says it virtually determines the temperature.



I don't see a contradiction because there is no contradiction...of course, I am reading the entire thoughts the author is putting forward rather than reading for the purpose of cherry picking and taking individual sentences out of context.  The whole idea, explains, and demonstrates that the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun is not necessary because the parameters of the gasses are what they are because of the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun.  Needing the precise amount of energy incoming from the sun would be redundant because the parameters of the gasses are what they are because of the amount of energy incoming from the sun.

And of course it determines the temperature...and the parameters of the gasses prove it.  Move to a planet with a different atmospheric composition, and different density and different incoming solar energy and it still predicts the temperature because the precise amount of incoming solar energy is the reason that the parameters of the gasses on this different planet are what they are.  Add more solar energy or take away solar energy and the parameters of the gasses change.  It would, I suppose, be possible to determine the precise change in incoming solar energy by the change in those parameters.



Wuwei said:


> He needs to rigorously  clarify what "baked-in" means in a physics equation. That is very sloppy science which makes no sense. Your interpretation of "baked-in" is contrary to the authors last sentence.



He did...you were just so busy cherry picking and determining which sentences you could take out of context that you missed the larger point.  And how much more rigorous can you get than the precise application of a physical law?  Are you kidding?



Wuwei said:


> The author states his gas model alone does not calculate temperatures of any planet. Unless you can find it for me, he has no calculation of near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature. So the author is in essence saying that he has not achieved his goal of computing the temperatures of planets. It is much more complicated than he thinks.



You really didn't read the paper did you?  Refer to pages 110 - 113.  He calculates the temperatures for all the planets with sufficient atmospheres...and no, he didn't calculate the near surface temperature for saturn or jupiter for obvious reasons so are you going to discount the entire paper for that reason?  If so, then you must discount the greenhouse gas hypothesis for those very same reasons as well as a host of others.



Wuwei said:


> As I said before, the only thing he accomplished is simply to show atmospheric data follow the ideal gas law. Of course it does. So what. There is no prediction given.



And you don't see the significance of the fact that atmospheric data are what they are because of the parameters established in the ideal gas law?  Those parameters tell you every thing you need to know about why the temperature is what it is.  You don't see any significance in that versus a hypothesis that has been in dispute since it was first voiced and after 122 years still doesn't have the first piece of empirical evidence to provide as support?  You really aren't worth the effort of talking to....are you?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 24, 2018)

So this is what you think “baked in” means?


SSDD said:


> The whole idea, explains, and demonstrates that the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun is not necessary because the parameters of the gasses are what they are because of the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun.



I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. It is circular logic. It is as ludicrous as saying, It is what it is because that's what it is. That is not science. That is why I left it out of my "cherry picking." That idea of "baked in" is "half baked".

Planetary probes into a reasonable atmosphere will always find the gas law works. Have we learned anything new that explains atmospheric science on a planet or earth? Not by a long shot. It only shows that the gas law works as advertised. The author did not create a model of the physics of the atmosphere. It cannot compute what the temperatures might be if insolation changes. If that happens the author's "theory" can only remeasure and re-verify the state variables and again say "it is what it is."



SSDD said:


> It would, I suppose, be possible to determine the precise change in incoming solar energy by the change in those parameters.



No, no, that is opposite of what an earth atmospheric theory should attempt to do. Why would you want to compute the solar energy when you can actually see it. If the energy influx is expected to change because of some event such as an asteroid or massive volcano, or back radiation, you want to be able to estimate and then predict what the temperature would be, not the incoming energy flux.

You should start with the things you know or can easily find out.  The insolation can be estimated. The pressure and molar fractions are already known. Use that to compute the temperature due to an energy influx change.

.


----------



## IanC (Oct 25, 2018)

The Ideal Gas Law only ''works" for totally elastic collisions of non reacting molecules under conditions of relatively low density and high temperature. It also assumes no outside long range forces acting on the cohort being observed. Only kinetic energies are considered and potential energies like the gas containment vessel formed by gravity on large enough planets is ignored.

A step up is the Equipartition Theorum, which acknowledges long range forces and the back and forth conversion of energy between kinetic, potential and radiation forms.


Why is SSDDs IGL method of determining surface temperature correct but useless? It is circular reasoning. The information is already there before you manipulate the terms. Not only that but there is a wide range of temperatures possible for any one amount of energy inputted from the Sun. And all of those temps would satisfy the IGL within the accepted accuracy.

Eg...If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere then a fairly large fraction of surface radiation would directly escape to space instead of being aabsorbed by the air. The atmosphere would be cooler and it would sink towards the surface causing the density to increase. The IGL would still be fufilled even though the surface temperature had dropped by roughly 5K.

Edit. I will .respond to a counter point to something that I said, so please include the quoted price.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> So this is what you think “baked in” means?
> 
> 
> SSDD said:
> ...



You are funny...saying what is and isn't science arguing for a hypothesis which after 120 years still hasn't a single shred of observed measured evidence to offer up as support.  You think that is science?  

I contacted the author and asked him what was implied by the term "baked in"  His response is as follows"

_Hi XXXX,

Thanks for your interest in the paper.
"Baked-In" simply refers to the fact that all influences (whether long term or short term) which affect gas density, pressure and molar mass are automatically, instantly and fully represented in thick atmospheres. If they weren't, an accurate gas temperature could not be calculated by the use of these three parameters alone - as it clearly is.
Kind Regards,

Robert Holmes 
Email; r.holmes@federation.edu.au

Now, do such things as incoming solar energy, albedo, etc., etc have any effect on gas density, pressure, and molar mass?  _

You can deny as much as you like....but failing to offer up any observed, measured evidence that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is right, and the ideal gas law is wrong leaves you wanting.  Sorry.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

IanC said:


> The Ideal Gas Law only ''works" for totally elastic collisions of non reacting molecules under conditions of relatively low density and high temperature. It also assumes no outside long range forces acting on the cohort being observed. Only kinetic energies are considered and potential energies like the gas containment vessel formed by gravity on large enough planets is ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> "Baked-In" simply refers to the fact that all influences (whether long term or short term) which affect gas density, pressure and molar mass are automatically, instantly and fully represented in thick atmospheres. If they weren't, an accurate gas temperature could not be calculated by the use of these three parameters alone - as it clearly is.



That first sentence simply says, it is what it is because of something unknown. 
His second sentence is another way of saying that the ideal gas law works. It would be a contradiction if it didn't.

I totally agree with Holmes, but he does not add any physics insight to anything. It is a vacuous paragraph. That is still circular. He is saying the gas parameters result from the insolation, and the insolation drives the gas parameters. A full circle.

Ask Holmes how would he predict a new resulting temperature if a massive super volcano or large asteroid radically changed the nature of the global atmosphere chemically and physically. 

That is what climate science should do: attempt to predict the nature and resulting temperature of a solar influx disaster so efforts can be taken to survive it. All his "theory" can do is measure the gas parameters weeks or months after it's too late, again ignore the cause, and again say, it is what it is. It's vacuous science.


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2018)

50,000 years from now, when we are in the middle of the next ice age, the Ideal Gas Law will still be functioning, still giving the right surface temperature.

So what?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That first sentence simply says, it is what it is because of something unknown.
> His second sentence is another way of saying that the ideal gas law works. It would be a contradiction if it didn't.



You really aren't very bright are you?  What do you suppose are the factors that might influence gas density, pressure and molar mass?  Any guesses?  Are those factors really unknown to you?  



Wuwei said:


> Ask Holmes how would he predict a new resulting temperature if a massive super volcano or large asteroid radically changed the nature of the global atmosphere chemically and physically.



This really is all just way over your head...isn't it.  If a volcano, or an asteroid radically changed the nature of the atmosphere, do you think that perhaps it would have an effect on the incoming solar energy...albedo...etc..and do you think changes in those parameters might have an effect on the gas density, pressure, and molar mass of the altered atmosphere?

You just don't seem to get past the fact that those parameters aren't just for predicting the temperature...they are the reason for the temperature..no matter the nature of the energy source, or the composition of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

IanC said:


> 50,000 years from now, when we are in the middle of the next ice age, the Ideal Gas Law will still be functioning, still giving the right surface temperature.
> 
> So what?



And the ice age, or warming will have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gasses.  You still have exactly squat. Unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable, unsupportable models and nothing else.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That first sentence simply says, it is what it is because of something unknown.
> ...



Holmes still made a circular argument. He is sure no Sherlock. You are thinking in circles too.

Yep, the changed atmosphere of global disasters sure does change the atmospheric parameters, but how does Holmes try to compute those changes without waiting for the dystopian changes to occur. Did you ask him yet?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Holmes still made a circular argument. He is sure no Sherlock. You are thinking in circles too.



Sorry, but alas it is you who is thinking in circles...nothing can explain the temperature of the earth except the greenhouse effect because the greenhouse effect is responsible for the temperature of the earth...without regard for the fact that there is no physical evidence for the greenhouse effect.



Wuwei said:


> Yep, the changed atmosphere of global disasters sure does change the atmospheric parameters, but how does Holmes try to compute those changes without waiting for the dystopian changes to occur. Did you ask him yet?



Which dystopian change are you talking about?  If you know the change in incoming energy then you can know the effect it is going to have on the parameters necessary to calculate the temperature with the molar version of the ideal gas law.  Unlike the models of the greenhouse hypothesis which have an absolutely miserable record for predicting anything.

The fact is that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.  If you are so sure there is, then lets see some actual observed, measured evidence that supports it, and lets see it predict the temperature somewhere other than here.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry, but alas it is you who is thinking in circles...nothing can explain the temperature of the earth except the greenhouse effect because the greenhouse effect is responsible for the temperature of the earth...without regard for the fact that there is no physical evidence for the greenhouse effect.


You are digressing. What I personally think is immaterial to the subject. The subject is Holmes and you thinking in circles. 



SSDD said:


> Which dystopian change are you talking about?


The dystopian change was clear: the aftermath of a cataclysmic event.



SSDD said:


> If you know the change in incoming energy then you can know the effect it is going to have on the parameters necessary to calculate the temperature with the molar version of the ideal gas law.


Right, but Holmes does not give a way of even attempting to do that. He says the result is already half-baked in. 

The rest of your post is digression away from Holmes paper.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are digressing. What I personally think is immaterial to the subject. The subject is Holmes and you thinking in circles.



No..the subject, as always is the abject failure of the greenhouse hypothesis and your inability to provide any evidence to support your position.  My position is fully supported by any physical law you care to name.



SSDD said:


> The dystopian change was clear: the aftermath of a cataclysmic event.



Not sure what your point is.  If any parameter effecting the atmosphere changes, then the temperature changes will be predicted by the molar version of the ideal gas law...whatever change you care to make is going to be compensated for.  All you have to do is look at the wide range of atmospheres, and distances from the sun you find across the solar system and the temperatures are predicted by the ideal gas law.  



SSDD said:


> Right, but Holmes does not give a way of even attempting to do that. He says the result is already half-baked in.



Altering his statements do not change anything and they certainly don't make you cute....as I said, if you want to take the known parameters and the temperature, you can work backwards to figure what caused the parameters to be what they were; be it albedo, incoming solar energy, etc.  

Sorry guy...face it.  You are wrong...there is no actual evidence to support your hypothesis and there never will be.


----------



## Crick (Oct 27, 2018)

God are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.



You believe in a hypothesis that has been in dispute for over 120 years and still doesn't have the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it, you believe in its bastard stepchild, AGW for which not a single piece of observed, measured evidence exists that supports it over natural variability and the hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of AGW, has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.

Your belief in such a piss poor hypothesis...with no evidence to offer in support seems pretty stupid to me.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> as I said, if you want to take the known parameters and the temperature, you can work backwards to figure what caused the parameters to be what they were; be it albedo, incoming solar energy, etc.



As I said, that is opposite of what an earth atmospheric theory should attempt to do. Why would you want to back-compute the solar influx when you can actually observe and measure influx after some catastrophic event such as an asteroid or massive volcano, etc. It is very important for survival to be able to estimate how the temperature will change as time goes on. You already have a handle on the incoming energy flux.

Holmes theory totally unable to do that. All it can do is wait for the catastrophe to evolve, and then verify that the gas law works. Of course it does.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> As I said, that is opposite of what an earth atmospheric theory should attempt to do. Why would you want to back-compute the solar influx when you can actually observe and measure influx after some catastrophic event such as an asteroid or massive volcano, etc. It is very important for survival to be able to estimate how the temperature will change as time goes on. You already have a handle on the incoming energy flux.



This really is beyond your understanding isn't it?  Your belief in your piss poor hypothesis blinds you to everything else...such as, the fact that you can back compute the solar influx, albedo, pressure change etc, tells you what actually caused the temperature...and it isn't some half baked, unsupported, piss poor hypothesis with no empirical support after 120 years.



Wuwei said:


> Holmes theory totally unable to do that. All it can do is wait for the catastrophe to evolve, and then verify that the gas law works. Of course it does.



What catastrophe you hand wringing hysterical ninny???  Catastrophic CO2 climate change?  I am laughing.....big honking donkey laughs in your big stupid face.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> This really is beyond your understanding isn't it? Your belief in your piss poor hypothesis blinds you to everything else...such as, the fact that you can back compute the solar influx, albedo, pressure change etc, tells you what actually caused the temperature...and it isn't some half baked, unsupported, piss poor hypothesis with no empirical support after 120 years.


The subject is that author Holmes does not have a cogent theory of how to compute near surface temperature given a new large change in solar influx.

Furthermore, you are wrong that Holmes has a cogent theory that can back compute solar influx. I didn't see any of that in his article. The author said it is baked in. He has absolutely no science behind it. 



SSDD said:


> What catastrophe you hand wringing hysterical ninny??? Catastrophic CO2 climate change? I am laughing.....big honking donkey laughs in your big stupid face.


Geez SSDD, I explicitly said, *asteroid or massive volcano, etc*. It's right there quoted in your previous post #185. 

Again, your post is replete with emotional anger ..... _beyond your understanding.... piss poor.... hand wringing ninny.... big honking donkey.... stupid face.  _
When you get angry you never think straight, and have no cogent reply. Chill out.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The subject is that author Holmes does not have a cogent theory of how to compute near surface temperature given a new large change in solar influx.



You get stupider and stupider.... the observable evidence proves you wrong.  There is a wide range of solar influx across the planets in the solar system with atmospheres and the molar version of the idea gas law accurately calculates each and every one of them.....regardless of the solar influx.

On the other hand, there has been considerable change in solar influx over the recent decades which the greenhouse hypothesis entirely missed and climate scientists completely ignored in favor of blaming CO2 for changes in temperature.









Wuwei said:


> Furthermore, you are wrong that Holmes has a cogent theory that can back compute solar influx. I didn't see any of that in his article. The author said it is baked in. He has absolutely no science behind it.



Some things are so basic that they need not be explained.  Go ask ian.



Wuwei said:


> Geez SSDD, I explicitly said, *asteroid or massive volcano, etc*. It's right there quoted in your previous post #185.



Again, since the formula works across the solar system with a very wide range of solar influx, and atmospheric types and conditions, the fact that it instantly compensates for and calculates changes in solar influx, and every other factor that might alter the parameters necessary for the molar version of the ideal gas law is self evident.  No alteration is needed in the formula to account for variations across the solar system.



Wuwei said:


> Again, your post is replete with emotional anger ..... _beyond your understanding.... piss poor.... hand wringing ninny.... big honking donkey.... stupid face.  _
> When you get angry you never think straight, and have no cogent reply. Chill out.



Stupidity on the level you are exhibiting does not warrant patience.  You get straight cogent replies, and in answer you descend to a whole new level of stupidity.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The subject is that author Holmes does not have a cogent theory of how to compute near surface temperature given a new large change in solar influx.
> ...


Holmes does not provide any new science. He simply shows how various atmospheric layers in different planets obey the gas law. So what. Nobody is challenging the ideal gas law here. You were taken in by a "science" charlatan.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known...that being why the temperature is what it is...charlatans have attempted to make a gas which is incapable of causing warming at atmospheric concentrations and pressures into a means of procuring money and political power...alas, you are the one who has been taken in by charlatans...and a quaint 19th century hypothesis which has been disputed by no less than Maxwell, Carnot and Clausius...since it was first put upon the table, and after 120+ years, still can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence in its support.  You have been had by charlatans and not even good charlatans at that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...



Can you post the lab work showing the link between temperature and an increase in CO2 from 280PPM to 400?

Thank you


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...




These guys aren't much for posting evidence of any sort to support their position...so it goes when you are talking to people about their faith....and only a heretic would question their faith....you are just a bad filthy heretic who deserves to be burned upon the altar of their green goddess.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Maybe they missed the request the first 20,000 times we asked?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.


Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.
> ...


So, what is the expected temperature increase when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.
> ...


You state this but you still believe in CAGW?  HOW???


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.
> ...



Which is probably why Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius, all men of far higher scientific standing that Arrhenius said that is quaint greenhouse hypothesis was not worth the paper it was written on...and now, 120+ years later, their opinion of the greenhouse hypothesis stands vindicated by the absence of even a single piece of observed, measured evidence to stand in its support.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that the greenhouse hypothesis has any value at all by using it to predict the temperature of any other planet in the atmosphere with an atmosphere.  If it has any validity at all, it should be able to do that basic task...lets see it.

I predict that ONCE AGAIN AS ALWAYS, you will have nothing but your belief and alas, that amounts to exactly squat.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



They don't want to talk about that...in fact, they can't really talk about it since the 
hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.

What they have are lots of opinion pieces and failed models...no actual observed, measured evidence whatsoever...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Faith my son...blind, unmitigated, relentless, undiluted faith.  He believes and his faith provides him with a set of blinders that no amount of truth could ever penetrate.  He has far too much of himself and his self worth invested into his belief to ever even acknowledge the remote possibility that he has been duped.  He is the penultimate useful idiot.....


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


I'm not arguing about the GHE. I simply said that Holmes' paper is vacuous, and now you are changing the subject.


----------



## Edgar (Nov 2, 2018)

So many lies that do not understand where the truth


----------



## PredFan (Nov 2, 2018)

Oh for fuck's sake!

There are TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS here. Keep them straight.

1. Climate change - The climate may be changing (Ignoring the fact that the climate NEVER stays the same).

2. Man-made climate change - The belief that man is causing climate change has zero facts to back it up.

Many people on the left and right can't keep these two very different points separated.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2018)

Climate change happens, regardless; we need engineered solutions.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



Except that it isn't....it accurately predicts the temperatures of every planet in the solar system with sufficient atmosphere for auto compression...hardly vacuous.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

PredFan said:


> Oh for fuck's sake!
> 
> There are TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS here. Keep them straight.
> 
> ...



The left likes to keep away from the man made part where evidence is concerned...they like to show some evidence of change and simply assume that we are to blame...and suggest that skeptics don't accept that the climate is changing rather than get into the discussion regarding the science necessary to establish that we have anything at all to do with global climate.


danielpalos said:


> Climate change happens, regardless; we need engineered solutions.



We are the most adaptable species that has ever lived on this planet...When we need solutions, there will be solutions...right now, we have a host of problems that are actual problems with actual solutions...hunger, pollution, bad land use, over use of certain resources...etc etc etc..and none of which can be addressed because the climate change scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers.....they literally want trillions of dollars...what could be accomplished with all that money?  and what has been accomplished with the thousands of billions of dollars which have already been flushed down the climate hole...name one actual accomplishment that has made any of that expense worth it.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


Nope. It's vacuous. NASA measured all the state variables and showed that the gas law was not violated. That is not a prediction of anything.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. It's vacuous. NASA measured all the state variables and showed that the gas law was not violated. That is not a prediction of anything.




Vacuous: adj. -  without contents; empty.

So lets see that observed. measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis...and how about we see how well it predicts the temperatures of the other planets.  

Oh...that's right...there is no observed, measured evidence that supports it and it only works here and only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Here is some news for you sparky...that is, by definition, vacuous.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. It's vacuous. NASA measured all the state variables and showed that the gas law was not violated. That is not a prediction of anything.
> ...



You have to believe the accurately tested models of quantum mechanics before anybody can talk to you about the atmosphere. You also have to use the accepted scientific definitions of terminology. Since you don't abide by either, there is no language of science that can be used to communicate with you.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



So I guess that's a no....you can't provide any observed, measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis, and you can't demonstrate that it has any predictive power in the atmospheres of other planets with atmospheres...

And you suggest that somehow, that is ok because I don't place much faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.  Tell me, what does my belief in anything have to do with your inability to produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis or its inability to predict the temperatures of other planets?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So I guess that's a no....you can't provide any observed, measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis, and you can't demonstrate that it has any predictive power in the atmospheres of other planets with atmospheres...
> 
> And you suggest that somehow, that is ok because I don't place much faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models. Tell me, what does my belief in anything have to do with your inability to produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis or its inability to predict the temperatures of other planets?



You were provided evidence time and again that the laws of physics allows GHGs to backscatter from the atmosphere to earth. You even agreed that backscatter exists to a LN cooled spectrometer. But you never gave any physical reason that the GHG backscatter stops dead in it's tracks where the earth is warmer. You disagree with the entire body of science and scientists. You invent your own laws of physics and your own terminology. You disparage the use of mathematical models, yet you latch on to models to attempt to deny backscatter.. 

Your lack of understanding science precludes you from understanding the scientific evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

No I wasn't...I was provided with clear proof that you don't have any idea what evidence might look like...you provided proof that you are easily fooled by instruments....you provided proof that you neither know what instruments are measuring nor how they achieve those measurements....

You provided nothing more than evidence of how easily you are fooled.  Do I need to even come back?  Is it going to be more of the same never ending temper tantrum because I won't believe in your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models?


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".
> 
> https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf


Yeah...you posted a big chunk of it HERE...and when I asked you to point out any where within it a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked for you to point out a single piece of observed measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked you to point out a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming resulting from human activities was measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, YOU COULDN'T DO IT.

You are being pwned skidmark...the more you talk, the more opportunity I have to point out that you couldn't produce even a shred of the evidence you claimed existed..,I can do it all day...till I have to leave to play a gig this afternoon anyway...


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

More lies


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> More lies



Point out the evidence I asked for in the steaming pile of excrement you wasted bandwidth providing...or hell, go look somewhere else.  I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing it...no one is providing it and it certainly isn't out there in the literature...where, exactly is the evidence I am asking for.

Do you believe that asking for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability is to much to ask for?

Do you think it is unreasonable to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Do you think it is outrageous to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?  

Are those things really to much to ask from a hypothesis regarding entities as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the climate?


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

Asked and answered


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Posting your bullshit on every thread is not fooling anyone crick...anyone with any capacity to think at all knows that if you had posted even a single piece of evidence that I had asked for, it would be that evidence that you would be posting on every thread...rather than a weak, impotent, mewling, lying dodge that no one is falling for.

You lost a lot of face today and you aren't getting it back unless you can post the evidence you claimed existed and are now dishonestly claiming that you posted...and we both know that it isn't going to happen.

You are laughing stock...how do you like it?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No I wasn't...I was provided with clear proof that you don't have any idea what evidence might look like...you provided proof that you are easily fooled by instruments....you provided proof that you neither know what instruments are measuring nor how they achieve those measurements....
> 
> You provided nothing more than evidence of how easily you are fooled. Do I need to even come back? Is it going to be more of the same never ending temper tantrum because I won't believe in your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models?


Naw, it's you that has no idea of what evidence looks like since you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Naw, it's you that has no idea of what evidence looks like since you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.



It isn't me who has repeatedly been corrected as to how instruments work, what they are measuring, and how they are measuring it.

Just recently you claimed that a spectrometer works like this...and I quote:

"A detector doesn't measure the difference between input radiation and it's own internal radiation. It measures the sum of those two. As you lower the temperature of the detector all that's left is the external radiation, and that more accurately represents what you are trying to measure."

and you said it HERE

Now a spectrometer is a pretty basic piece of equipment....and it operates nothing like the description you gave.  Clearly, you know very little about what instruments are measuring, and how they are measuring them, and what goes into producing the output.  Because of your lack of knowledge of instrumentation, you are easily fooled by it....combine that with your willingness to disregard what instruments tell you in favor or your belief in models over reality and you are left with very little credibility when you discuss science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Naw, it's you that has no idea of what evidence looks like since you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.
> ...



*Just recently you claimed that a spectrometer works like this...and I quote:*

_ "A detector doesn't measure the difference between input radiation and it's own internal radiation. It measures the sum of those two. As you lower the temperature of the detector all that's left is the external radiation, and that more accurately represents what you are trying to measure."_

That's weird, he didn't use the word spectrometer, he said detector.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2018)

Climate change is no hoax.  Technology can save us.  State Capitalism all the way!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Climate change is no hoax.  Technology can save us.  State Capitalism all the way!




Cimate change is no hoax...the climate changes all the time and we, being the most adaptable creatures to ever inhabit the planet will do just fine...man made climate change is a very expensive scam...but do feel free to provide some observed, measured evidence to the contrary.  You would be the first.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 4, 2018)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?*
> ...



So a forest fire is a sign of global warming?  So it's getting so hot trees are spontaneously combusting? Man it must be hot as fuck out there. And here I always thought forest fires were caused by dry conditions and cigs or lightening. I mean even Smokey the fucking bear tells me only I can prevent forest fires. So by definition every forest fire is my fault. I'm fucked. 

To deny climate change is to deny the historical facts we know. The climate has always changed, always will. Climate is dynamic. Hell yesterday it was pouring down rain and now its sunny. But what I do not believe is that man has caused it. Considering we have records of climate change dating back BILLIONS of years BEFORE the first homo walked the Earth shows that it has nothing to do with us.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change is no hoax.  Technology can save us.  State Capitalism all the way!
> ...


lassaiz-faire is for the lazy.   Our Founding Fathers were wise with the patent power regarding our use of Capitalism "for propulsion".


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

danielpalos said:


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



Not sure what you are getting at.  Care to elucidate?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


Modern economics technologies can save us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



He smokes a lot of weed. His ramblings should be ignored.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

danielpalos said:


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



Save us from what?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Naw, it's you that has no idea of what evidence looks like since you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.
> ...


I repeat, you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.

Tod made my point a few posts ago. I was talking about detectors in general.

Here is one famous experiment that illustrates that point. In 1965 Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias were testing a radio telescope with a LN cooled detector at 4 degrees K. The telescope aimed at the sky had a noise equivalent temperature higher than the 4 K. Their hypothesis was that the extra energy was from the cosmos.

The thermal energy hitting the detector was the sum of the LN temperature plus the CMB.

That radio telescope was basically a spectrometer. They looked at different incoming frequencies and found the the signal in excess of the LN 4K followed the black body radiation spectrum for a cosmic background radiation of around 3 K.

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I repeat, you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.
> 
> Tod made my point a few posts ago. I was talking about detectors in general.
> 
> Here is one famous experiment that illustrates that point. In 1965 Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias were testing a radio telescope with a LN cooled detector at 4 degrees K. The telescope aimed at the sky had a noise equivalent temperature higher than the 4 K. Their hypothesis was that the extra energy was from the cosmos.



Yeah...that is a good one showing that you really don't have a clue...you are claiming that microwave background radiation was received with a radio telescope...your claim is that microwaves were received with a receiver capable of receiving frequencies between the upper limit of audio and the lower limit of infrared...good one.

Resonant radio waves...not CMB....sorry that this is all so far over your head...it is clear that you simply can't grasp what is being said.  If you need a refresher, revisit the original thread or the one after that or the one after that...I won't rehash the topic again...it is pointless because it is over your head.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat, you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.
> ...



*you are claiming that microwave background radiation was received with a radio telescope..*

Only because it was.

*The Large Horn Antenna and the Discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation*

_As part of the APS historic sites initiative, on December 9, 2008, APS Vice-President Curtis Callan presented a plaque to Bell Labs to commemorate the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that provided evidence for the Big Bang. Bell Labs radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using a large horn antenna in 1964 and 1965 to map signals from the Milky Way, when they serendipitously discovered the CMB. As written in the citation, "This unexpected discovery, offering strong evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, ushered in experimental cosmology." Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 in honor of their findings._

_The CMB is "noise" leftover from the creation of the Universe. The microwave radiation is only 3 degrees above Absolute Zero or -270 degrees C,1 and is uniformly perceptible from all directions. Its presence demonstrates that that our universe began in an extremely hot and violent explosion, called the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago._

_In 1960, Bell Labs built a 20-foot horn-shaped antenna in Holmdel, NJ to be used with an early satellite system called Echo. The intention was to collect and amplify radio signals to send them across long distances, but within a few years, another satellite was launched and Echo became obsolete.2

With the antenna no longer tied to commercial applications, it was now free for research. Penzias and Wilson jumped at the chance to use it to analyze radio signals from the spaces between galaxies.3 But when they began to employ it, they encountered a persistent "noise" of microwaves that came from every direction. If they were to conduct experiments with the antenna, they would have to find a way to remove the static._

_Penzias and Wilson tested everything they could think of to rule out the source of the radiation racket. They knew it wasn’t radiation from the Milky Way or extraterrestrial radio sources. They pointed the antenna towards New York City to rule out "urban interference", and did analysis to dismiss possible military testing from their list.4_

_Then they found droppings of pigeons nesting in the antenna. They cleaned out the mess and tried removing the birds and discouraging them from roosting, but they kept flying back. "To get rid of them, we finally found the most humane thing was to get a shot gun…and at very close range [we] just killed them instantly. It’s not something I’m happy about, but that seemed like the only way out of our dilemma," said Penzias.5 "And so the pigeons left with a smaller bang, but the noise remained, coming from every direction."6_

_At the same time, the two astronomers learned that Princeton University physicist Robert Dicke had predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred, there would be low level radiation found throughout the universe. Dicke was about to design an experiment to test this hypothesis when he was contacted by Penzias. Upon hearing of Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery, Dicke turned to his laboratory colleagues and said "well boys, we’ve been scooped."7_

_Although both groups published their results in Astrophysical Journal Letters, only Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the CMB._

_The horn antenna was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1990. Its significance in fostering a new appreciation for the field of cosmology and a better understanding of our origins can be summed up by the following: "Scientists have labeled the discovery [of the CMB] the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century."8_

_©2009, Alaina G. Levine

Arno Penzias and Robert  Wilson

​_*Resonant radio waves...not CMB...*​​DERP!​


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yeah...that is a good one showing that you really don't have a clue...you are claiming that microwave background radiation was received with a radio telescope...your claim is that microwaves were received with a receiver capable of receiving frequencies between the upper limit of audio and the lower limit of infrared...good one.


That's rather arrogant saying Penzias and Wilson never had a clue and yet they won the Nobel Prize. OK, now I suppose you will come back with some comment denigrating the Nobel Prize. It's so curious to see you lashing out at science like that.



SSDD said:


> Resonant radio waves...not CMB....sorry that this is all so far over your head...it is clear that you simply can't grasp what is being said. If you need a refresher, revisit the original thread or the one after that or the one after that...I won't rehash the topic again...it is pointless because it is over your head.


Ha! The troll speaks again. You've got to resort to ad hominem.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects.  If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there.  I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.

I get it...you believe in models...you believe in them to the extent that you will ignore observed measured reality in favor of them.  I don't.  Since you can't produce any observed, measured examples to demonstrate what you believe, it remains in the realm of belief.  When you can bring them out into reality with observed MEASURED examples, let me know.

And logical fallacies don't constitute argument...


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


from becoming a third world economy.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects. If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there. I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.
> 
> I get it...you believe in models...you believe in them to the extent that you will ignore observed measured reality in favor of them. I don't. Since you can't produce any observed, measured examples to demonstrate what you believe, it remains in the realm of belief. When you can bring them out into reality with observed MEASURED examples, let me know.


Since you cross-posted this in other threads, I will cross-post my reply.

You are bored? You incorrectly think the second law of thermodynamics says that there is no type of energy that can spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer body. Many experiments show you are totally wrong. No scientist agrees with you.

Here is the bottom line. We all agree that radiation can mediate energy flow. Aim a detector at the hot object, you see it is radiating energy. Aim the detector at the cold object, you see it radiates less energy. No observed measured experiment has shown they cannot radiate simultaneously.

Observed, measured principles of physics say they do. Many here have given you measured observed examples that show you are wrong – the CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. You counter those examples with made up non-“science” that is totally inconsistent with all other science which you openly and vehemently disparage. None of your “science” can be found in the literature and you are aware of that. You are alone in your belief. So you are bored? I think you are intellectually exhausted.


----------



## BookShaka (Nov 5, 2018)

There are just as many, if not more, reasons to think the climate change scare is a bunch of hooey. Is our climate changing? Yes. Is it man-made? Probably a little. Is it really as bad as they say? I seriously doubt it. 

I do believe in climate change to a certain degree. Do I believe it warrants my constant concern? No. There are lots of other things to worry about.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2018)

technology can "save us"!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects. If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there. I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.
> ...




Nothing but your belief...so in essence...nothing.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Nothing but your belief...so in essence...nothing.


Nope. Not just belief.  Many here have given you *measured observed* examples that show you are wrong – the CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. You counter those examples with made up non-“science”.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Your knowledge base is very shallow, and very sketchy....you are obviously easily fooled...none of those things represent the spontaneous movement of energy from a cool (low energy) object to a warm (higher energy) object...as much as you wish it, I am afraid that you are just wrong again...sorry.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Your knowledge base is very shallow, and very sketchy....you are obviously easily fooled...none of those things represent the spontaneous movement of energy from a cool (low energy) object to a warm (higher energy) object...as much as you wish it, I am afraid that you are just wrong again...sorry.



Wish it? Everyone knows evidence was given that your idea of smart photons simply don't exist. Now your'e just being a troll and liar.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your knowledge base is very shallow, and very sketchy....you are obviously easily fooled...none of those things represent the spontaneous movement of energy from a cool (low energy) object to a warm (higher energy) object...as much as you wish it, I am afraid that you are just wrong again...sorry.
> ...



Smart photons are not my invention...you wack jobs invented them because you apparently believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...Yet another example of you simply making up arguments, ascribing them to someone else, and then railing against them.

The cooled, and uncooled spectrometers are observed, measured evidence that support my position...you have no empirical evidence....sorry, 

You are so easily fooled that talking to you is nothing more than a tedious series of repetitive episodes explain how what you think you are seeing.....isn't. If I believed that anyone else would derive any benefit from seeing all your foolishness debunked, I might continue with it, but frankly, I don't think anyone else around here is obsessed with finding a way around the second law of thermodynamics in some misguided attempt to prove their crazy science knows all religion. So no...I am not going around on your crazy merry go round any more...if you feel the need to repeat the same thing over an over again, simply re read this gibberish the first 3 times you posted it.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Smart photons are not my invention...you wack jobs invented them because you apparently believe that theoretical particles must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...Yet another example of you simply making up arguments, ascribing them to someone else, and then railing against them.
> 
> The cooled, and uncooled spectrometers are observed, measured evidence that support my position...you have no empirical evidence....sorry,


Nope. You made up the idea of smart photons that have the smarts to sense warmer areas and avoid them completely. Tod is the one who gave a convenient name for them. 

So back to spectrometers? You already agreed that they detected the emission frequencies of greenhouse gases. That evidence supports the position of all scientists -- that greenhouse gases do cause radiation back to earth.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. You made up the idea of smart photons that have the smarts to sense warmer areas and avoid them completely. Tod is the one who gave a convenient name for them.



So you can provide the post where I supposedly came up with the idea of smart photons?  You just claimed that I made up the idea so lets see the post...

What's that?  There is no such post?  So you lied.  You are a liar and make shit up....yeah..that's what I have been saying.



Wuwei said:


> So back to spectrometers? You already agreed that they detected the emission frequencies of greenhouse gases. That evidence supports the position of all scientists -- that greenhouse gases do cause radiation back to earth.



If you were only bright enough to grasp the ramifications of spectrometers only being able to measure discrete frequencies of radiation from objects that are warmer than them selves.  If you want to measure radiation coming from the atmosphere, you must cool the spectrometer to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...put an uncooled spectrometer right next to it, pointed at the same open sky and you can measure no spectrum...it isn't rocket science...the uncooled spectrometer isn't measuring a spectrum because no energy from the cooler atmosphere is radiating to it...if it were, then it would measure a spectrum...it doesn't care what the nature of the radiation it is measuring is...it measures all of it indiscriminately...but it can't measure what isn't radiating towards it. 

You are perfectly willing to ignore what the observed, measured evidence is telling you in favor of believing that something must be wrong with the spectrometer, or that it is interference (which would show up as a measurement at lest) or any number of other fantasy problems rather than admit to yourself that the models aren't jibing with reality.

There is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the earth as evidenced by the fact that it can't be detected till such time as you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you can provide the post where I supposedly came up with the idea of smart photons? You just claimed that I made up the idea so lets see the post...


Any post where you claimed one way radiation does the trick. Your photons are smart when they avoid radiating in some direction that depends on remote conditions. 

Yes, cold detectors have a better SNR. When you take away the detector facing up, there is no reason for the GHG radiation to stop when you remove the detector, unless the photons are smart and eschew the earth. It's as simple as that.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you can provide the post where I supposedly came up with the idea of smart photons? You just claimed that I made up the idea so lets see the post...
> ...



So that would be a no...you can't provide any post where I suggested smart photons...you can provide posts where you and others apparently suggest that in order for theoretical particles to obey the laws of physics they must possess some form of intelligence....but you can't provide a post where I made up smart photons.

That's what I thought.

by the way, we aren't talking about uncooled spectroscopes pointed at open sky detecting a poor spectrum...or a degraded spectrum of infrared radiation from the so called greenhouse gasses...we are talking about an absence of them.  Supposedly more than 300Wm2 is being radiated back towards the surface and no spectrum from so called greenhouse gasses is detected unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the so called greenhouse gasses...explain that in rational scientific terms, which you can then back up with observed, measured results.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*you and others apparently suggest that in order for theoretical particles to obey the laws of physics they must possess some form of intelligence....but you can't provide a post where I made up smart photons.*


When your photon (or its emitter) has to know the location and temperature of matter billions of light years away, billions of years in the future, intelligence isn't what it needs, it's omniscience.

*we aren't talking about uncooled spectroscopes pointed at open sky detecting a poor spectrum...or a degraded spectrum of infrared radiation from the so called greenhouse gasses...we are talking about an absence of them.*

Right, because the gas in the atmosphere simply can't emit toward warmer matter.
And you're the only one who knows that.

Hilarious!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So that would be a no...you can't provide any post where I suggested smart photons...you can provide posts where you and others apparently suggest that in order for theoretical particles to obey the laws of physics they must possess some form of intelligence....but you can't provide a post where I made up smart photons.


We went through that many times. Todd's answer above is correct. "Smart photons" is simply a very succinct way of stating your flaw in thinking of one-way flow in the SB equation, etc.



SSDD said:


> by the way, we aren't talking about uncooled spectroscopes pointed at open sky detecting a poor spectrum...or a degraded spectrum of infrared radiation from the so called greenhouse gasses...we are talking about an absence of them. Supposedly more than 300Wm2 is being radiated back towards the surface and no spectrum from so called greenhouse gasses is detected unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the so called greenhouse gasses...explain that in rational scientific terms, which you can then back up with observed, measured results.


Your ideas about down-welling spectra can't be explained in rational terms because what we are saying is that there is nothing rational about your smart photons.

.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2018)

climate changes regardless of Man's input to the environment.  we should require new technology regardless.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> We went through that many times. Todd's answer above is correct. "Smart photons" is simply a very succinct way of stating your flaw in thinking of one-way flow in the SB equation, etc.



So again...smart photons are the invention of you guys...not me.

Point your spectrometer at a radiator that is cooler than the instrument and you can not measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from the radiator to the instrument...warm the radiator to any temperature above that of the instrument and you start measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the radiator to the instrument.  

What does that mean to you?  The instrument isn't broken...it isn't malfunctioning...it measures anything that it receives from a radiator...why then, does it measure no discrete frequency of radiation coming from a cooler body?  How do you interpret that observed, measured evidence?



Wuwei said:


> Your ideas about down-welling spectra can't be explained in rational terms because what we are saying is that there is nothing rational about your smart photons.
> 
> .



I don't have any particular ideas about downwelling spectra...I am saying that you can't measure any discrete frequency of radiation with an instrument that is warmer than the radiator.  The instrument measures anything that comes in and has no requirements regarding temperature...why doesn't it detect discrete frequencies of radiation from objects that are cooler than itself?  If radiation were entering the device, the device would measure it...that is what it does...if nothing is coming in then there is nothing to measure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > We went through that many times. Todd's answer above is correct. "Smart photons" is simply a very succinct way of stating your flaw in thinking of one-way flow in the SB equation, etc.
> ...



*So again...smart photons are the invention of you guys...not me.*

Smart photons, smart emitters.
Two different flavors of your unique misinterpretation.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Got a measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation from a radiator that is cooler than the instrument?  Didn't think so.  Interesting how your faith requires you to interpret the real world and what does and doesn't happen in it.  But feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2018)

Man made climate change is no hoax; terraforming technologies is what we need to develop anyway.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*Got a measurement of a discrete frequency of radiation from a radiator that is cooler than the instrument? *

Got proof that radiation that is below the sensitivity of an uncooled instrument doesn't exist?
That the radiation measured below hit only the cooled instrument and no other point in 
all of Oklahoma?




The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

The entire atmosphere, only radiating down to that tiny target, that's a magic emitter, eh?
But feel free to post a real source that proves your targeted emissions claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Point your spectrometer at a radiator that is cooler than the instrument and you can not measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from the radiator to the instrument...warm the radiator to any temperature above that of the instrument and you start measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the radiator to the instrument.


Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were successful at doing just that. 


SSDD said:


> I don't have any particular ideas about downwelling spectra.


You said many times that back radiation doesn't happen. That is down-welling.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were successful at doing just that.



Really?  What sort of spectrometer did they point at clear sky? And where is the spectrum they recorded.   I was under the impression that they were using a radio telescope...and I know for a fact that they detected a resonant radio frequency...not actual CMB...sorry you don't grasp the concept.

It isn't as if the concept were that hard to grasp....Natural frequencies are frequencies that any system will vibrate at if it is disturbed.

Resonant frequencies happens when a system is systematically disturbed at the same period as one of its natural frequencies.  Even very small perturbations will reinforce energy stored in the system and cause the amplitude of the disturbance to increase. 



Wuwei said:


> You said many times that back radiation doesn't happen. That is down-welling.



Right..and I don't have any particular ideas about leprechauns or unicorns either...what sort of serious ideas should one have regarding fictions..and there is no downwelling radiation...if there were, you could measure their spectrum without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Really? What sort of spectrometer did they point at clear sky? And where is the spectrum they recorded. I was under the impression that they were using a radio telescope...and I know for a fact that they detected a resonant radio frequency...not actual CMB...sorry you don't grasp the concept.
> 
> It isn't as if the concept were that hard to grasp....Natural frequencies are frequencies that any system will vibrate at if it is disturbed.
> 
> Resonant frequencies happens when a system is systematically disturbed at the same period as one of its natural frequencies. Even very small perturbations will reinforce energy stored in the system and cause the amplitude of the disturbance to increase.


I already told you. You are playing dumb.



SSDD said:


> Right..and I don't have any particular ideas about leprechauns or unicorns either...what sort of serious ideas should one have regarding fictions..and there is no downwelling radiation...if there were, you could measure their spectrum without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.


I really can't help you since you don't believe nor understand physic. It is called back radiation and the scientists that measured it knew what they were doing. But you don't.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I already told you. You are playing dumb.



So you think a radio telescope is a spectrometer?  Considering how little you seem to know about instrumentation, that doesn't surprise me.



Wuwei said:


> I really can't help you since you don't believe nor understand physic. It is called back radiation and the scientists that measured it knew what they were doing. But you don't.



I understand the physics fine..which is why I can state with perfect certainty that you are not going to ever be able to provide a spectrum of discrete emission frequencies from so called greenhouse gasses made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you think a radio telescope is a spectrometer? Considering how little you seem to know about instrumentation, that doesn't surprise me.


They used it as a spectrometer by sampling different frequencies to discover it followed the BB radiation curve.


SSDD said:


> I understand the physics fine


No you don't. You think it's fairy dust. You don't believe modern physics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> They used it as a spectrometer by sampling different frequencies to discover it followed the BB radiation curve.



A cooled spectrometer?...and after the fact of receiving that resonant radio frequency?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 12, 2018)

Well, SSoDDumb has hijacked another thread. However, one might ask the people of California about climate change being a hoax.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 12, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, SSoDDumb has hijacked another thread. However, one might ask the people of California about climate change being a hoax.



Dummy is dumber than a box of rocks, but claiming these fires are happening because of CO2 makes him look smart.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > They used it as a spectrometer by sampling different frequencies to discover it followed the BB radiation curve.
> ...


The detector was warmer than the signal reflecting from an even warmer ambient temperature dish. Again, they didn't receive a resonant radio frequency, it was a resonant amplifier.

The whole concept is similar to listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Your antenna receives all stations in your vicinity. It is your radio that has the resonant amplifier to tune different stations. It is not the plethora of incoming EM signals that has any resonance. Your radio can receive any other station by changing the radio tuner. 

Furthermore you should be listening to NPR rather than Rush Limbaugh.


----------

