# Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change



## ScienceRocks (Jun 24, 2014)

*Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*

Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress


> When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, climate change deniers often draw upon the conspiracy that its is a fabricated theory invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Texas-based physicist is turning that notion on its head by offering $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can disprove mainstream, accepted climate science.
> 
> Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, says in his blog post that the rules are easy: there is no entry fee, participants must be over 18, and the scientific method must be employed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jun 24, 2014)

I believe it has more to do with the actual severity of climate change lies...by now California and New York City would be underwater if you were idiot enough to listen to the Democrats.

Now if he was willing to stand by the estimates from the left wing fruit loops in the not to distant past, we'd all be $10,000 richer.

btw. is this physicist in line for a Nobama grant or what..?


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 24, 2014)

my gawd , have we come down to this?

You know what, they got through the Great dust bowl without people like him, I'm sure we'll manage to ADAPT with handing the scary we are all going to die (climate change) without PEOPLE/politicians like him and just HAND over our money to blow on whatever fantasy  they come up with

didn't they have us living under domes on the moon before? 

or we can go and live like fish in the oceans after they figure out how to put us there

or they could just send us all to gas chambers...that is more simple

of course it would be DENIERS first in line then all you "climate change" cult members will be next kicking and a screaming saying, how could you I was LOYAL


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2014)

The hypothesis has failed...how much more proof does he need?  Hot spot in the troposphere was supposed to be the human fingerprint on the smoking gun...where is it?


----------



## Crick (Jun 24, 2014)

Then go get your ten grand.

ps: the human fingerprint is the isotopic analysis that says all 120 ppm added since the IR came from the combustion of fossil fuel.

The rest of it is contained in those CO2 absorption spectra that we've all seen.  

Do you have a refutation for either of those two data?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2014)

Stoopid......the AGW crowd still hasn't proven its case. Why would anybody take this bet? You cant disprove a theory!!!


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 24, 2014)

The insanity is ratcheting up. 

"Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn&#8217;t real. &#8220;They are even free to find proof on the Internet and cut and paste it,&#8221; he said."

The climate has always changed and $1,000 isn't $10,000 unless he's using some kind of quantum physics fuzzy math.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2014)

The Coming Revelation Of The 'Global Warming' Fraud Resembles The Obamacare Lie - Forbes



The level of desperation is getting ePiC!!!!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jun 24, 2014)

Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative. It is on those who assert that need to provide proof of claim. Anyway, who would be dumb enough to try and disprove climate change. It's been happening for a lot longer than humans have even been around.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 24, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.



Trivial to do. I can easily prove there are no elephants in my living room. Only the logically deficient -- that is, nearly every denier -- say you can't prove a negative.



> It is on those who assert that need to provide proof of claim.



Done and done, over and over. That's why the burden of proof is on you now, just as it's on anyone who would want to deny gravity or the round earth theory. So, do it, and collect your easy cash.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 24, 2014)

Is it $1,000 or $10,000?

What exactly is he looking for, it's not very clear. He mentions a lot of catch phrases but if all we have to do is "disprove mainstream, accepted climate science" then he de facto has to pay any submission because there is no accepted climate science using the scientific method


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 24, 2014)

Hmmmm I'd like to make a million dollar bet with this Physicist
it would do more good to help more people and resolve more conflict
by PROVING how spiritual healing works naturally and PROVE it is based on forgiveness.

This Forgiveness factor can be applied to political conflicts
to allow any groups to reconcile on any issue and form solutions,
even if they still disagree on other points. The key is Forgiveness.

That would be more beneficial to the future of humanity to prove!
And yes, the process and factor of forgiveness/unforgiveness
can be demonstrated, measured and predicted by statistics to follow a pattern.



Matthew said:


> *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*
> 
> Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress
> 
> ...


----------



## Little-Acorn (Jun 24, 2014)

Matthew said:


> *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*



Yet another snake oil salesman tryng to pretend the debate is over "climate change" rather than the real subject, which is "*manmade* climate change"?

These leftists know they lost the argument long ago, over whether man's activities are affecting the climate. In 40 years of fearmongering and caterwauling, they have been unable to produce the slightest proof that man had anything to do with the climate changes that have been happening.

But they're desperate to keep the gravy train of government dollars flowing into their pockets, so they change the subject and leave out the "manmade" part, and try to pretend they have some mighty battle going on against dark forces who believe the Ice Ages didn't happen etc.

I should apologize to genuine sellers of snake oil, for calling these "climate change" liars snake oil salesmen.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jun 24, 2014)

[ame=http://youtu.be/pjLoB9edmGc]Global Warming Fear Mongering - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 24, 2014)

How do you disprove a negative?  His premise is predicated on the idea that man made climate change is proven when it very clearly is not.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.
> ...



Prove bigfoot doesn't exist.



> It is on those who assert that need to provide proof of claim.





mamooth said:


> Done and done, over and over. That's why the burden of proof is on you now, just as it's on anyone who would want to deny gravity or the round earth theory. So, do it, and collect your easy cash.



Nope.  The burden of proof is always on those making the claim.  You claim to understand science, but you just posted two claims that demonstrate you don't know the first thing about it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2014)

1) The idiot violated Scientific Method in the set-up of the proposition.

2) There is no STANDARD DEFINITION of the Global Warming theory, because* there is NO CONSENSUS ON WHAT IT IS*.. OR any specific QUANITIZED projections.

3) Leftists love to chant and do street theatre.. It's what they are good at..

I'm thankful that the vast of majority of folks here have been following along and recognize this as a "cheap" act of hubris.. Rather than anything to do with a physicist asking for debate..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2014)

Crick said:


> Then go get your ten grand.
> 
> ps: the human fingerprint is the isotopic analysis that says all 120 ppm added since the IR came from the combustion of fossil fuel.
> 
> ...



All well and fine..except that the claim is false.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> 1) The idiot violated Scientific Method in the set-up of the proposition.
> 
> 2) There is no STANDARD DEFINITION of the Global Warming theory, because* there is NO CONSENSUS ON WHAT IT IS*.. OR any specific QUANITIZED projections.
> 
> ...



Chanting and street theater is about the only way to sell snake oil.  If you present it for what it is and try to sell it on its merits...who the hell wants it?

I just read a pretty good article regarding the demise of climate science...talks about the fact that climate science is eager to argue with skeptics but don't bother to point out obvious and egregious errors made by the press and don't bother to admit when they have made errors or publicly admit failed predictions....or that they just don't know.  As a result, public trust and more importantly, interest in the climate is waning fast.  You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop hearing you.  Maybe funding will fall off to the point that climate science can only afford to try and find out what drives the climate rather than waste its time on alarmism.  I can't remember where I read but someone was listing factors that probably outweigh the so called greenhouse effect....or might, together comprise the so called greenhouse effect...among them were the fact that the oceans retain heat overnight, the atmosphere's weight due to gravity restrict the ocean's ability to evaporate, near the surface the atmosphere has a higher heat capacity due to gravity and the resulting increased pressure, and the fact that the oceans spread heat towards the poles...there were a few more factors but I can't recall them.  Till we have a handle on how energy moves through the system we aren't going to know what is driving the climate at different times...it is however a sure bet that one thing isn't driving it all the time and a wisp of a trace gas in the atmosphere is never driving it anytime.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 25, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> 1) The idiot violated Scientific Method in the set-up of the proposition.
> 
> 2) There is no STANDARD DEFINITION of the Global Warming theory, because* there is NO CONSENSUS ON WHAT IT IS*.. OR any specific QUANITIZED projections.
> 
> ...






Yep.....tens of thousands of scientists talk about this all the time.......this violation of the scientific method. To climate scientists, statistical error doesn't exist!! How fucking bogus?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The idiot violated Scientific Method in the set-up of the proposition.
> ...



The #1 reason for the failure of the propaganda to ignite the public is the piss poor job that the media and the press have done in covering (or ignoring) the scientific debate. When they see CBS putting up a graphic about boiling oceans or blaming GW for the war in Syria -- they RECOGNIZE that as leftist street theatre not honest debate. 



> I can't remember where I read but someone was listing factors that probably outweigh the so called greenhouse effect....or might, together comprise the so called greenhouse effect...among them were the fact that the oceans retain heat overnight, the atmosphere's weight due to gravity restrict the ocean's ability to evaporate, near the surface the atmosphere has a higher heat capacity due to gravity and the resulting increased pressure, and the fact that the oceans spread heat towards the poles...there were a few more factors but I can't recall them.  Till we have a handle on how energy moves through the system we aren't going to know what is driving the climate at different times...it is however a sure bet that one thing isn't driving it all the time and a wisp of a trace gas in the atmosphere is never driving it anytime.



Heard just this week that the heat the oceans ate is coming back to get us soon. This is based on little more than black magic since we know too little about how the heat goes into and comes out of storage. But that doesn't stop a good a good fiction writer from spinning a yarn.. Climate science needs to go wild.. Stop being a domesticated group on patronage. And start figuring out the hard questions..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The idiot violated Scientific Method in the set-up of the proposition.
> ...




GWarming doesn't even make it to the level of a theory.. 

In the case of Global Warming, EVEN THE HYPOTHESES tested and STATEMENTS of RESULTS defy the scientific method because there are no SPECIFIC projections for the warming or climate disruption. And hardly any that match empirical observations or fit the claims. *"could be's", mights and maybe's are OPINIONS, not falsifiable statements.* A theory that is short of falsifiable statements is a BELIEF -- not a theory to be disproven..


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.
> ...









Dude, you can't even figure out if you're a avionics tech or a non existent "nuclear watch officer", I doubt you could prove there are elephants in Burma, much less Africa.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2014)

Deniers, consider Westwall to be an object lesson. If you follow him down the path of crazy obsession, you'll end up just like him. And I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, consider Westwall to be an object lesson. If you follow him down the path of crazy obsession, you'll end up just like him. And I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.



What is the AGW Theory anyway?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The hypothesis has failed...how much more proof does he need?  Hot spot in the troposphere was supposed to be the human fingerprint on the smoking gun...where is it?



Just sent old Ari a request to first prove that 120PPM increase of CO2 drives climate, and if he can't he can pay me.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, consider Westwall to be an object lesson. If you follow him down the path of crazy obsession, you'll end up just like him. And I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.
> ...


Frank, go to his page on the link and request that he first prove that120 PPM increase of CO2 drives climate or affects ph in the oceans and if he can't provide that proof, then he owes you 10 grand.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


no, no, ask him to prove that CO2 drives climate and if he can't you've proved him wrong.  Go ask him.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 25, 2014)

Look at all the experts and scientists lining up to get their $10K.

Oh wait ...  There's nobody. 

But, not surprisingly, there are plenty ignorant RWs making excuses.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Look at all the experts and scientists lining up to get their $10K.
> 
> Oh wait ...  There's nobody.
> 
> But, not surprisingly, there are plenty ignorant RWs making excuses.



I sent my request for 10 grand in.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 25, 2014)

Notice how the far left/AGW Cult want someone to prove a negative..

Once these people grow up then maybe we can move forward in politics and actual start to practice science again.


----------



## Politico (Jun 25, 2014)

10k lol.


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Look at all the experts and scientists lining up to get their $10K.
> 
> Oh wait ...  There's nobody.
> 
> But, not surprisingly, there are plenty ignorant RWs making excuses.








When it comes to ignorance you lead the way nuddly.  HE has to PROVE his theory.  That's how the null hypothesis works.  He hasn't been able to show one shred of empirical data to support it so he's trying to rewrite the scientific method to cover his ass and you're so ignorant you don't understand.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 25, 2014)

I have yet seen the AGW cult prove their religion through actual science.

Still not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. 

If that hack James Hansen can not produce this, I full expect that the AGW cult members can not either.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2014)

Deniers.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, consider Westwall to be an object lesson. If you follow him down the path of crazy obsession, you'll end up just like him. And I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.
> ...



If you do an informal survey, there are about a dozen of them.  Warmers and luke warmers seem to subscribe to quite a few....none of which seem to jibe with the IPCC version.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2014)

Oh?  So you're aware there's an IPCC version?  Then what, exactly, are you babbling about?


----------



## Kosh (Jun 26, 2014)

This person should not be allowed to be called a scientist much less comment on science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2014)

He should have offered $10K for anyone *who could exactly define* the Global Warming theory and it's "scientific resolution".. It doesn't exist.. NOT EVEN in the sum total of IPCC reports.. 

What is the issue to be explored? 
What is the Hypothesis?
What are the statements that RESOLVE that hypothesis.
Show your numbers and work... 

AND THEN offer another reward for a better hypothesis with a better explanation of the original stated 
problem.. 

He'd need to pay me more than $10K tho for that. That's less than my normal "general" consulting rate.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 26, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> He should have offered $10K for anyone *who could exactly define* the Global Warming theory and it's "scientific resolution".. It doesn't exist.. NOT EVEN in the sum total of IPCC reports..
> 
> What is the issue to be explored?
> What is the Hypothesis?
> ...



James Hansen commands $20,000 per half hour of speaking/consulting.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2014)

Kosh said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > He should have offered $10K for anyone *who could exactly define* the Global Warming theory and it's "scientific resolution".. It doesn't exist.. NOT EVEN in the sum total of IPCC reports..
> ...



EXACTLY !! He wants to hire cheap labor, he should go troll the Home Depot parking lot..


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2014)

Wimps.


----------



## TheJedi (Jun 26, 2014)

Kosh said:


> I have yet seen the AGW cult prove their religion through actual science.
> 
> Still not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.
> 
> If that hack James Hansen can not produce this, I full expect that the AGW cult members can not either.



You are not very bright, are you?

I posted this here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/359836-climate-change-resources.html

Start here and educate yourself. If you are not willing to put in the time to actually understand the fucking science, your opinion does not matter one iota. Republican talking points are not science.

From Jake Hansen's Wiki: James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A year later, Hansen joined with Rahmstorf and colleagues comparing climate projections with observations. The comparison is done from 1990 through January 2007 against physics-based models that are independent from the observations after 1990. They show that the climate system may be responding faster than the models indicate. Rahmstorf and coauthors show concern that sea levels are rising at the high range of the IPCC projections, and that it is due to thermal expansion and not from melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.[42]
> 
> Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[43] However, in 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[44] *Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming is occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it*


----------



## Kosh (Jun 26, 2014)

TheJedi said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet seen the AGW cult prove their religion through actual science.
> ...



Hansen is an AGW hack! He lets his belief over ride any science and does not have the source code to prove that CO2 drives climate.

He has his belief system based in neo-Nazi environmentalism.

Hansen is a Hack and I have told him so.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2014)

TheJedi said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet seen the AGW cult prove their religion through actual science.
> ...



If you think this little historical anecdote ended the dissent, you've haven't read much of the story.. That little disagreement was resolved and now BOTH the sat and ground data show that the models are performing miserably.. Largely because the effects of CO2 and exaggerated "accelerations" predicted have failed to track the catastrophic predictions of the 80s and 90s.. 

MANY of the natural contributions to Climate change have been PURPOSELY underestimated and the "magic multipliers" in your "settled science" are looking more fictitious as time goes on.. What's the temperature anomaly gonna be in 2050???


----------



## Kosh (Jun 26, 2014)

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

Kosh said:


> People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.



Complete nonsense.  The point is widely discussed.



Kosh said:


> When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.



If you were going to get on someone's case for being deceptive, you ought to jump on wherever you got that bit of deviousness.  _Increasing_ temperatures are caused by _increasing_ levels of greenhouse gases.  The proportion of the INCREASE in greenhouse gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution attributable to human activity is very close to 100%.



Kosh said:


> Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.



More bullshit, I'm afraid.  That water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas has been known since the mid-1800s when the theory of greenhouse warming was first proposed.  There is no "growing number of scientists" adapting this view.  It is the universal view of everyone with sufficient knowledge on the topic to avoid being taken in by crap like this.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jun 27, 2014)

If all liberals/Democrats gave up their vehicles, home heating and air conditioning, didn't ride planes, trains and buses, bought only natural products, didn't consume electricity, bought no industrial products, lived in holes in the ground etc. , think how much better the environment would be.

They could lead by example and show they actually lived by their supposed convictions ... who knows, it might catch on


Btw if Democrats control 66.6 % of the federal elected power much longer, we might all be living like that too soon...sheesh


----------



## Kosh (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.
> ...



See the AGW cult has only their faith in their religion and zero science to backup their comments. It is only their faith in their religion and the faith n the scribes that controls the bulk of the grants that gives their religious hold over the science community.






The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2014)

TheJedi said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet seen the AGW cult prove their religion through actual science.
> ...



LOL, see, we're all waiting for the evidence that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.  None of which any of you have.  You can post all the links in the world, but we're looking for that one.  You don't have one right?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.
> ...


----------



## indiajo (Jun 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.
> ...



No, you can't and you will never be able to do so. As you will never be able to proof that there is no black swan or no unicorn. In your living room or elsewhere.
It's the principle of falsification. Read Popper.
As long as you are not in a position to put scientific sound arguments you better be careful talking about logical deficiency.


----------



## Mertex (Jun 27, 2014)

Lumpy 1 said:


> If all liberals/Democrats gave up their vehicles, home heating and air conditioning, didn't ride planes, trains and buses, bought only natural products, didn't consume electricity, bought no industrial products, lived in holes in the ground etc. , think how much better the environment would be.
> 
> They could lead by example and show they actually lived by their supposed convictions ... who knows, it might catch on
> 
> ...



Yeah right.....because Bush (Conservative) didn't waste billions on 2 stupid wars, and conservatives like Ted Cruz don't waste any of our tax money chasing frivolous rabbits.

Your Kool-Aid is working really good.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > If all liberals/Democrats gave up their vehicles, home heating and air conditioning, didn't ride planes, trains and buses, bought only natural products, didn't consume electricity, bought no industrial products, lived in holes in the ground etc. , think how much better the environment would be.
> ...



way to stay on topic! LOL, that's all you got?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2014)

Matthew said:


> *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*
> 
> Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress
> 
> ...



The climate changes. My backyard was once under a mile of ice.

*When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming,*

97%? If you mean 75/77, you should say so.


----------



## Mertex (Jun 27, 2014)

Because our conservatives in Congress are so scientific.......


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Because our conservatives in Congress are so scientific.......



Still nothing!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Because our conservatives in Congress are so scientific.......



Obama stopped the rise of the oceans, just by winning the Dem nomination.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jun 27, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > If all liberals/Democrats gave up their vehicles, home heating and air conditioning, didn't ride planes, trains and buses, bought only natural products, didn't consume electricity, bought no industrial products, lived in holes in the ground etc. , think how much better the environment would be.
> ...



I guess you have forgotten that Democrats voted, supported and funded for these wars,  even after they found a way to use our soldiers as fodder to win elections. 

Have you checked the national debt and federal unfunded liabilities since Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

btw Obamacare has been a disaster if you haven't noticed and has wasted far more of the taxpayers money, gads and this is only the beginning

thanks for the laugh, notice that I'm capable of saying thanks where as you freeload threads and can't.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.
> ...



So I get AGW scripture and zero science to back up the claims of the AGW cult members.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Because our conservatives in Congress are so scientific.......
> ...



ThunkProgress loves them those sweeping meaningless statements. NOBODY is denying that the Climate changes. Nobody is denying that the Earth hasn't warmed over the last 1000 yrs. 

The debate is over whether 1 or 2 degC from increased CO2 will magically multiply into a 4 or 7 degC change because the Earth's Climate System is unstable and has a death wish. 
And secondarily -- how much of that TRIGGER is due to man and how much is due to natural causes purposely underestimated by the perverted search for a politically correct answer.. 


DO YOU GET THAT PART?? YOUR THEORY requires you to believe that ANY temperature trigger of a couple degrees will set in motion feedbacks that will destroy life on the planet.
When you political retards TRIVIALIZE the debate as those graphics do -- you just demonstrate how little you folks care about the science. DENYING science is settled is FAR PREFERABLE to IGNORING science completely and relying on partisian sound bites.


----------



## elektra (Jun 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.
> ...



mamooth lives in a barn, hence its easy to build strawmen.


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming
4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance
5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth
7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW.  And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another.  So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so.  They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW.  And they haven't.  And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> 
> 1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
> 2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
> ...



8) Show that despite ever higher CO2 levels over the last 15 years, temperatures stopped rising.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> 
> 1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
> 2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
> ...



WOW! The ol' prove something does NOT exist!

More proof that the AGW cult is not about science, but promotion of a religion.






Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jun 27, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> ...



I tried to rep you but it seems I have to wait...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> 
> 1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
> 2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
> ...



All seven of your items only indicate that man has contributed to GHouse emissions and that the GHouse effect is solid science.. It IS NOT AGW theory.. They do not state anything about the Magic Multipliers that AMPLIFY the effects of CO2 into the Earth destroying, ocean boiling, hurricane twisting calamities that your religion preach. The temperature run-up during the 20th Century IS NOT particularly significant if you inspect the historical record, and the 1 to 2 degC due to CO2 doubling alone would not even be enough to make a Slow Sunday story on NPR. 

You have to have projections that EXCEED the raw warming power of CO2 and believe that the Earth Climate system is unstable and will experience thermal runaway in the presence of any minor forcing. Historical evidence of a suicidal Climate like that --  is not available.

If the debate was over the basics of GHouse physics, we'd have been done with this decades ago..


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> 
> 1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
> 2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
> ...










1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
*
Demonstrate with empirical data that the GHG's do as you claim*

2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared

*Show that the greenhouse effect operates as you claim it does.*

3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming

*Show that it is occurring.  The so called "smoking gun" has yet to appear.*

4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance

*Please do so.*

5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

*Show that it has not happened before without the benefit of CO2 increases.*

6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth

*Show that those same frequencies are not dwarfed by the water vapor extant in the atmosphere.*

7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

*Already done.*


Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW.  And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another.  So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so.  They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW.  And they haven't.  And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.[/QUOTE]




And it's already been done.  Co2 levels are much higher than they were 17 years ago and the temperature is the same.

The world has been MUCH warmer without the benefit of increased CO2.  We are STILL not as warm as it was during the MWP.....and there was no industrial revolution to drive that warmth.

You fail.....


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> 
> 1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
> 2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
> ...



Sceptics of the AGW abracadabra don't need to falsify a theory that hasn't been proved.  Furthermore, the theory has already been falsified numerous times.  Just consider the fact that none of the claims of the AGW Chicken Littles have turned out to be anything close to reality.

BTW, anyone who uses the term "denier" is a jackass in my book.  You will be treated accordingly.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 27, 2014)




----------



## TheJedi (Jun 27, 2014)

Kosh said:


> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Dude, really? You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The is the best right-wing racket in the game. If it makes sense, it must be a socialist, neo-nazi, eco-terrorist plot to kill Jesus and eat white babies.

LOL


----------



## TheJedi (Jun 27, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



I didn't it say it settled it. The climate is changing, there is no doubt about that. That's the thing about science. As technology and methods evolve, the numbers can change. No rational person doubts evolution but we keep getting more info that changes how we understand it. No one doubts Newton's Laws of Gravity but even that understanding changes as new discoveries are made.

There is no doubt that our climate is changing. We see this as weather patterns and ocean currents begin to shift. I have poured through all the data. Most of it anyway, over the years, and we are definitely contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. As the frozen tundras and glaciers thaw, methane is released into the atmosphere amplifying he effect. I have seen with my own eyes people lighting mud on fire just under the snow line.

Weather and climate are two very different things. The earth is getting warmer.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years













> There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 27, 2014)

Matthew said:


> *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*
> 
> Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress
> 
> ...



He is an idiot. He asks others to prove the negative when he is the asshole with the burden or persuasion and he and his dopey ilk have NEVER shown that global climate cooling, warming, moderation change has anything to do with human-kind.


----------



## TheJedi (Jun 27, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


>



Let's add to this for effect:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0]Jefferson Airplane -White Rabbit- - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*
> ...



It's his money. He can make whatever requirements he likes.  And this stuff about proving a negative is nonsense.  You all need a little education in basic logic.  As Mamooth pointed out, it's trivial to prove there are no elephants in his living room.  I listed seven different ways you could falsify AGW.  Of course none of them will do so, but that is not because of bad logic.  It's because AGW is a good theory.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2014)

If however the elephant observation includes a prediction that no elephant will be present in the living room this year,  THEN you have a more accurate GW analog.... Because the hysteria is about ficticious events hundreds of years into the future..


----------



## Crick (Jun 28, 2014)

There is no hysteria though I dare say I wouldn't mind a move by the common opinion in that direction.  And the theory is not a prediction of future events.  It says that AGW has been taking place since 1750 when we started increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and began seriously deforesting the planet.  

I've twice now listed multiple ways in which you could falsify AGW.  Let's try again and get down to the basics:

1) Prove that CO2 does not trap infrared *OR* that it does not trap any of the infrared that the Earth radiates *OR* that it is not trapping the infrared already being scooped up by water vapor
2) Prove that humans are not responsible for the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 - that it has some other source
3) Prove that the Earth has not warmed since 1750
4) Prove that some other cause for the observed warming has better evidence and better reasoning than AGW


----------



## Kosh (Jun 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> There is no hysteria though I dare say I wouldn't mind a move by the common opinion in that direction.  And the theory is not a prediction of future events.  It says that AGW has been taking place since 1750 when we started increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and began seriously deforesting the planet.
> 
> I've twice now listed multiple ways in which you could falsify AGW.  Let's try again and get down to the basics:
> 
> ...



Another prove a negative request from the AGW cult:






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.






Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Your repetition of these graphics and text is starting to look like SPAM.

As to proving a negative, here are three perfectly valid means of doing so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Your repetition of these graphics and text is starting to look like SPAM.
> 
> As to proving a negative, here are three perfectly valid means of doing so:
> 
> ...



Well if it looks like spam, because I use real science to refute your AGW religion, then who is the true spammer?

It means that you have nothing to refute real science other than AGW scripture.

Where is that link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

Ever going to post it?

or are you finally going to admit that you can not?


----------



## elektra (Jul 1, 2014)

CO2 is dry ice.


----------



## IanC (Jul 1, 2014)

elektra said:


> CO2 is dry ice.



dry ice is cool, but dont pick it up with wet fingers or try to eat it


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Where is that link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?
> 
> Ever going to post it?
> 
> or are you finally going to admit that you can not?



You are the lyingest piece of shit I have ever met.

I would like to call out others on this board to correct this poster's lies.  FlaCalTen, SSDD, Westwall, IanC - which of you believe Kosh speaks truth when he claims I have never presented him data and source code?  And, of course, we have the record.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> There is no hysteria though I dare say I wouldn't mind a move by the common opinion in that direction.  And the theory is not a prediction of future events.  It says that AGW has been taking place since 1750 when we started increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and began seriously deforesting the planet.
> 
> I've twice now listed multiple ways in which you could falsify AGW.  Let's try again and get down to the basics:
> 
> ...



Don't have to. Atmos physics says the warming that we've seen is concommitant with 1degC per doubling of CO2.. It's the EXTRAORDINARY FANTASIES of your CATASTROPHIC global warming AMPLIFICATIONS that are driving the debate. All PROJECTIONS of anything SERIOUS from GWarming "science" are highly fictional and exaggerated.. Therein lies your problem Bullwinkle. *No matter how many times you regurgitate basic GHouse theory from the Wiki --- you are NOT EVEN CLOSE to describing the scientific debate over the MAGNITUDE of expected climate changes.. 
*
Get that difference -- or be ignored...


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

They are an order of magnitude less than the amplifications you would have required for TSI.  Yet you claimed TSI was responsible.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Where is that link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?
> ...



Well you didn't ask me, but you presented data, but it isn't what was asked for.  So technically he's correct and you are lying.

Also, everyone of those you listed including me have been asking you for the same proof.  Yet still haven't presented it.  So, either after the umpteenth hundredth time, you can't provide it I will assume you have no evidence.  So further data without evidence is mute.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

Another liar.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Another liar.



did you want something?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Another liar.



Are you finally admitting it?

Are you coming out of the liars closet?


----------



## elektra (Jul 1, 2014)

CO2 is carbonization in Cold Beer, how can that be?


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Another liar.
> ...



Glad to see you know when you're called.

Some honesty would be a welcome change.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Yes it would, when are you going to post some?


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

elektra said:


> CO2 is carbonization in Cold Beer, how can that be?



Take the most basic general science class you can find, and find out.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is carbonization in Cold Beer, how can that be?
> ...



How would you know, since you do not believe in science?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Yes it would, so why not provide the experiment we asked you for.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> They are an order of magnitude less than the amplifications you would have required for TSI.  Yet you claimed TSI was responsible.



You don't even know what your religion states do you? There are no amplifications involved in the recent past temp record. No empirical evidence for it.. The temp rise is EASILY explained by a combination of natural factors and CO2.. And the observed evidence points to CO2 being responsible for less than 1/2 of the warming. Which is what PHYSICS says about the BASIC warming power of CO2. 

Your bible states that CO2 is merely the "TRIGGER" that will cause the amplifications. That a 1 or 2 degC rise in surface temp. is enough to trigger CASTASTROPHIC (ie run-away) warming. That is what the MODELS predicted and that is what is NOT HAPPENING right now. But the whole CIRCUS TENT REVIVAL that you support is predicting 4 or even 8degC before this current CO2 doubling is over.. That's not likely to ever happen. Because the Magic Multipliers are gospel, not science.. 

So you are wasting everyone's time challenging skeptics on the basic physics of the GHouse. Mostly a shame for YOU -- because I can ignore you.. But until you address the apocalyptic projections your elders are PREDICTING and what science supports THOSE CLAIMS -- You and Nancy Pelosi don't have a case against skeptics.. 

Explain to me how a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm will raise temperatures 5degC and cause killer storms, droughts, snow, no-snow, disease and METERS of ocean rise.. 
THAT is what I'm skeptical about. Because according to basic science -- CO2 doesn't have those superpowers..


----------



## elektra (Jul 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is carbonization in Cold Beer, how can that be?
> ...



I know, it hurts, its also dry ice, CO2 is dry ice, pure C02, sucks, huh. 

We could use CO2 as insulation in homes right? Maybe they should use CO2 in Triple Pane windows instead of Argon. At least where its cold, right?


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2014)

Maybe you could make a comment with some significance.  If you want to babble, speak to your children.


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > They are an order of magnitude less than the amplifications you would have required for TSI.  Yet you claimed TSI was responsible.
> ...



I don't need a case against deniers.  Deniers need a case against mainstream science.  And so far, that's been something completely lacking.

It's simple enough.  When the vast majority of climate scientists reject AGW, I will too.


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Probably 90% of my college education was science.  I've spent the last 30 years working in naval research & development.  

How about you Koos?  How much science education have you had?  How much science do you use in your typical day?

ps: have you figured out what to do with that source code and those data files yet?  I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 2, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Now that's funny, I have very little science in my years in school and I know more than you.  Now that's not saying much for the college you went to.  See CO2 is not a sun and cannot add warming.  If it could see, you'd have provided that nice little experiment that proves your point.  Didn't they teach you that in college?


----------



## elektra (Jul 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> Maybe you could make a comment with some significance.  If you want to babble, speak to your children.



an insult to include my family, glad to see I have your attention and that you took the opportunity to display that you are an asshole as well as an idiot not to mention a hypocrite, seeings how your comment has zero relevance to the thread.

Making Biscuits releases CO2, comes from baking soda and baking powder, should we not ban Biscuits to save the World?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 2, 2014)

Matthew said:


> *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*
> 
> Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress
> 
> ...



Actually, he is offering a $30,000 reward:

?Physicist offers $30,000 reward to disprove climate change - CBS News

 Get to work, deniers.


----------



## MaxGrit (Jul 3, 2014)

Climate change is caused by time change. Stop time change and naturally climate stops changing.

Did you know?

Time change causes all humans deaths know to man. No lie.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 3, 2014)

It is impossible to disprove climate change. All you have to do is drive from Texas to Colorado and the climate changes. Seriously, it is like pinning jello to a wall. The climate changes from day to day, year to year. We have had many changes throughout history. Big deal. 

The only thing that has changed for certain is the title that they use for their sham. It used to be called "Global Warming" but when they realized that we began having record breaking cold weather they "changed" it to "Climate Change." 

It's all about the money.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2014)

Crick said:


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



And you should get your money back as they did not teach you any science..

And more proof that your religion trumps any science that you claim to have had..

All I will tell you is I have had dealing with the hack James Hansen, so probably more real science than you have ever seen in one minute of your life.

And I am still waiting for that link to the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate, the entire basis for your religion.

If you truly believed in science you would know that AGW is bunk!

So if you truly have had all this "science" then you are nothing more than a Hack!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*
> ...



Wow even more hack scientists. It really is time to take these people down and have them removed and never be allowed to call themselves scientists.

Just like James Hansen is a Hack and should never been allowed to teach anything that was related to science.


----------



## asterism (Jul 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.
> ...



Actually you can't.  Perhaps someone can corroborate that there are no elephants in your living room but you can't actually prove it.

That said, notice how this guy isn't offering money to disprove Anthropogenic Climate Change.  Of course the climate is changing, it always has and it probably always will.


----------



## asterism (Jul 3, 2014)

> MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Defying predictions, the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season ended with a whimper rather than a bang on Thursday, without a single hurricane hitting U.S. shores.
> 
> Only three tropical storms made landfall, a welcome relief from the previous two years, when nearly a dozen hurricanes battered the country.
> 
> ...



2006 hurricane season bows out quietly - CNN.com


Just to remind folks, these "experts" don't really ever get it right.


----------



## asterism (Jul 3, 2014)

Mann's take on Climate Change and hurricanes back then (but before the 8 year quiet period we're in now).

ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/EOS_mann_emanuel_2006.pdf


You decide if he was accurate.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> 
> 1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.



You must first prove that increased CO2 causes warming.  CO2 has increased steadily for damned near the past 20 years and the climate hasn't warmed...in fact, it may have cooled a bit.



Crick said:


> ) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared



So called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit...that is neither trapping and doesn't cause warming.  Quantify the greenhouse effect, show actual observed measurements of it in the atmosphere.



Crick said:


> ) ) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming



Show that any IR is being trapped.  TOA measurements show that outgoing long wave is increasing...absorption and emission do not equal trapping...and do not equal warming.  



Crick said:


> ) ) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance



There has been no warming now for almost 2 decades and perhaps some cooling while CO2 has increased...LW escaping at the TOA is increasing which coincides with the cooling over the past 2 decades



Crick said:


> ) ) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.



The temperature has a been increasing for 14K years....the industrial revolution coincides with that increase.  Most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were "safe"



Crick said:


> ) ) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth



Prove that absorption and emission equal warming.



Crick said:


> ) ) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect



Show that absorption and emission cause warming...quantify the so called greenhouse effect, and provide some actual atmospheric measurements.



Crick said:


> )  ANY of these points would falsify AGW.  And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another.  So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?



They are all false and yet, you believe.  Are you stupid?


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> 
> 1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.





SSDD said:


> You must first prove that increased CO2 causes warming.  CO2 has increased steadily for damned near the past 20 years and the climate hasn't warmed...in fact, it may have cooled a bit.



You don't seem to get how this works.  Several of you have repeatedly charged that AGW was so ill-defined that it was unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscience.  I was listing here, as I have done elsewhere, obvious falsifications of AGW.  I was not making a case for AGW.  I was proving that it is easily falsifiable - were it false.  Showing that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases would falsify the theory's contention that human activity is the primary cause of our observed warming.  That you cannot show any of these tests to fail is not the fault of the test, it's the fault of your position.  AGW is valid.  



Crick said:


> Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared





SSDD said:


> So called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit...that is neither trapping and doesn't cause warming.  Quantify the greenhouse effect, show actual observed measurements of it in the atmosphere.



This mantra of yours: "absorbing and emitting is not warming" is specious and has become tiresome. I asked you some time back to explain how radiative heat transfer works in SSDD-world, but I didn't see a response.  Let's make this simple.  I've put a turkey in the oven.  All three heat transfer functions will take place: conduction, convection and radiation.  But we'll just concentrate on radiation for now.  The burner at the bottom of the stove is red hot, perhaps 1500F.  The turkey is initially at room temperature.  Both are radiating but, of course, there's a lot more energy going from the burner to the bird than vice versa.  So the bird, not being that perfectly mirrored version they sold down at Sharper Image, absorbs a significant amount of infrared radiation.  This radiative transfer takes place solely at the skin of the bird, since neither did I pick up the transparent turkey so fashionable last year.  But the increased temperature of the skin is transferred inward via conduction.  So that absorbed radiation causes the bird's temperature to rise.  
  Even when it was room temperature, the bird radiated to its surroundings.  Now that its temperature is rising, the amount of IR radiation its emitting is increasing.  Fortunately for those of us who don't like our turkey bloody pink, it is not radiating away heat as quickly as it's picking it up.  Some of this has to do with the heat its also picking up through conduction from the air in the stove, but mostly it has to do with the continuing delta-T between the skin of the turkey and that 1500F burner element sitting underneath it.

Despite the fact that it is both absorbing and emitting IR (;-)), the bird DOES accumulate thermal energy and its temperature does rise.  Your meme is crap.  Your batting average at basic and fundamental functions of physical science is still a perfect .000.



SSDD said:


> Show that any IR is being trapped.



Okay.






AND








SSDD said:


> TOA measurements show that outgoing long wave is increasing.



That only indicates that, Surprise!  Surprise!, the Earth is getting warmer.   The imbalance between energy in and energy out shows, irrefutably, that the Earth is accumulating solar energy and is warming.  See Net radiative imbalance and ocean heat content increase in POGA-H and HIST. : Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling : Nature : Nature Publishing Group



SSDD said:


> ..absorption and emission do not equal trapping...and do not equal warming.



I'd love to hear you try to explain this meme someday, but for now, it's still specious and even more tiresome.



SSDD said:


> There has been no warming now for almost 2 decades and perhaps some cooling while CO2 has increased...LW escaping at the TOA is increasing which coincides with the cooling over the past 2 decades



Bullshit.








SSDD said:


> The temperature has a been increasing for 14K years....the industrial revolution coincides with that increase.



Increasing?

[Present time at left side of graph]





I think not.



SSDD said:


> Most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were "safe"



A large portion did take place between 1900 and 1940 (recall its not the absolute CO2 level, it's the change in level - so it wasn't "safe"), and you're cherry-picking to take advantage of the significant cooling period between 1941 and 1979.  But even if we look at the absolute numbers we will find more heating between 1980 and 2000 (a 20-year period) than we will between 1900 and 1940 (a 40 year period).  So you're both irrelevant and wrong.



SSDD said:


> Prove that absorption and emission equal warming.



I (and several others) have already explained the basics of radiative heat transfer to you.  It's your turn.  Explain to us what radiative heat transfers you believe take place when I put that turkey into my oven.



Crick said:


> Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect





SSDD said:


> Show that absorption and emission cause warming...quantify the so called greenhouse effect, and provide some actual atmospheric measurements.



Take your mantra and shove it up your ass.  As for actual atmospheric measurements, see the first two graphics above.  You've seen them before on more than one occasion.  Makes me wonder why you're asking for them again.  Do you think they cease to exist when you stop looking at them?



Crick said:


> ANY of these points would falsify AGW.  And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another.  So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?





SSDD said:


> They are all false and yet, you believe.  Are you stupid?



All false?!?!?  You haven't shed the slightest iota of doubt on *ANY* of them.  In your entire post you did not make a SINGLE CORRECT STATEMENT.  For christ's sake dude, get back in touch with reality.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 5, 2014)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Fortunately, ignorant asses like you do not get to decide who is and is not a scientist. Those of us that actually see scientists in universities on a daily basis from Sept. to June find that virtually all accept AGW as valid on the basis of evidence. 

You 'Conservatives' keep flap-yapping about this scientist or that one, completely ignoring that within the scientific community, there is no debate at all as to whether the GHGs that we create are changing the climate. A scientific community that is worldwide. You can post silly tirades denigrating Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann all you want, they are not noticed or considired relevent by anyone within the scientific community. Both men have international stature as scientists, considered leaders in their respective fields. And you and I are but posters on a board not relevant to the science involved in the study of the ongoing climate change.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 5, 2014)

How come we haven't heard of anyone collecting the $10K?


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 5, 2014)

So the global warming thing went tits up, so the discussion shifts to "climate change", which cannot be shot down since climates have never been fixed or constant.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2014)

Hey you guys, so where's that experiment showing CO2 drives climate? LOL mumbo jumbos all you got.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jul 5, 2014)

crick/abe-y displays boundless ignorance.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Another AGW Hack who has no clue about science.






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth


----------



## mamooth (Jul 5, 2014)

asterism said:


> Actually you can't.  Perhaps someone can corroborate that there are no elephants in your living room but you can't actually prove it.



Yes, I can most definitely prove it.

A -> B means !B -> !A. 

If there is an elephant in my living room, I will see a huge grey pachyderm.

I do not see a huge gray pachyderm, therefore there is no elephant in my living room.

Not every negative can be proven, but they can be proven in cases where A always leads to B.


----------



## BobPlumb (Jul 5, 2014)

If there were a clear statement of exactly what must be disproved and an unbiased judge to determine success, then this so called challenge might mean something.


----------



## Crick (Jul 5, 2014)

I think if you could disprove that:

1) Humans are responsible for more than 75% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750

or that

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

or that

3) Added CO2 is responsible for more than 75% of the global warming experienced since 1750

I think you could, at the very least, talk a judge into handing the money over to you.  But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Crick (Jul 5, 2014)

Was  this:



IlarMeilyr said:


> crick/abe-y displays boundless ignorance.



supposed to have some relevance in response to this?



			
				Crick and SSDD said:
			
		

> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > There are numerous ways to falsify AGW.  I've listed several before.  Let's see:
> ...



If you think so, why don't you and I get into depth on some of the details?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> Was  this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, yesterday in Chicago land the temperature was 85 degrees the real feel with relative humidity was 95 degrees. hmmmm...why isn't there a reading for CO2 real feel and instead H2O.  See, humidity you can measure and guess what humans have nothing to do with it.  You all crack me up!  None of you alarmist have any idea of what you write.  

Oh and one other thought, what is more violent a tornado or a dangerous tornado?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So, yesterday in Chicago land the temperature was 85 degrees the real feel with relative humidity was 95 degrees. hmmmm...why isn't there a reading for CO2 real feel and instead H2O.



Each time I think you can't possibly get dumber, you throw another jaw-dropper our way.

Our mere earth logic can't explain where you come up with this stuff. I don't even try to figure it out. Your thinking is just too alien compared to our ways, and it would risk madness to try to duplicate your thought patterns. I just sit back and enjoy the comedy of it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2014)

Prove there's no Bigfoot


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So, yesterday in Chicago land the temperature was 85 degrees the real feel with relative humidity was 95 degrees. hmmmm...why isn't there a reading for CO2 real feel and instead H2O.
> ...



Well while I watch the comedy from my chair you still haven't once provided the proof of your claim, now that is extremely funny.  Hilarious, because I know you can't, and that H2o in the atmoshpere has more to do than CO2.  It must suck to know you're wrong!


----------



## IanC (Jul 7, 2014)

There is aguest essay over at WUWT that states my position quite well, if I were more focused and eloquent. AGW is real but a minor factor, and the theory and conclusions of CO2 theory are exaggerated and proven false by examination.


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

There are a lot of guess essays at WUWT.  Is this one subtitled "IanC's Position"?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 7, 2014)

IanC said:


> There is aguest essay over at WUWT that states my position quite well, if I were more focused and eloquent. AGW is real but a minor factor, and the theory and conclusions of CO2 theory are exaggerated and proven false by examination.



That fact that you even bother reading, much less believing anything at WUWT says all I need to know about you.  Congratulations, Ian.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There is aguest essay over at WUWT that states my position quite well, if I were more focused and eloquent. AGW is real but a minor factor, and the theory and conclusions of CO2 theory are exaggerated and proven false by examination.
> ...



The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!



Have you heard the phrase "one-trick pony"?  Is there ANYTHING else on the topic of the _environment_ you feel capable of discussing?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!
> ...



Since that is the one thing that the AGW cult revolves around...it is the one thing you need to prove....and yet....you can't.....nor will you ever.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 8, 2014)

jc456 said:


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



So you agree that the climate is changing.  That's a start.  So what mechanism do you see as a viable alternative explanation to that which 97% of the world's climate scientists subscribe to?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!
> ...


Nope, because dude, without that evidence everything, and I mean everything you post is meaningless to the argument at hand here.  It is your claim that 120 PPM taints the temperature of the world.  I say prove it.  You claim it so prove it.  You haven't, debating anything else is immaterial.  Your failure is your failure, I will not stop asking as long as you keep posting your lies.

BTW, that means you haven't answered the question.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



prove the 97% claim AGW!


----------



## whitehall (Jul 8, 2014)

Now they are playing with semantics. Don't you watch the Weather Channel, climate changes every day. The question is whether the poor people in West Virginia who have had the coal mines shut down are responsible for droughts in Africa.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 8, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isnt real.


No one can possibly win that and he knows it. The Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years. Even before human beings showed up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isnt real.
> ...



Yeah, but that change was good.
The change now is bad.
Because people are bad.


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn&#8217;t real.
> ...



That should make it easier.  If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match.  That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.  

Show us that the changes taking place today are being caused by the same forcing factors that have driven climate change throughout its pre-industrial history.  Show that the unique new climate behavior that human forcing must produce has not taken place.

C'mon, that money's just waiting for you...

ps: there's also:

1) Show that humans are not responsible for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show there is no additional CO2 in the atmosphere
3) Show that CO2 does not produce a greenhouse effect
4) Alternatively, show that no gas produces a CO2 effect
5) Show that the Earth has not warmed
6) Show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century
7) Show that some other forcing mechanism has a superior correlation with temperature and a physical mechanism superior to AGW

Each of these may be accomplished in multiple ways.  I don't really understand the hold up.  This is easy money folks.  Go for IT.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> That should make it easier.  If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match.  That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.



So what do you think is happening in the climate today that hasn't happened in the earth climate before?



Crick said:


> Show us that the changes taking place today are being caused by the same forcing factors that have driven climate change throughout its pre-industrial history.  Show that the unique new climate behavior that human forcing must produce has not taken place.



Can you show any actual evidence that the warm up leading to the holocene maximum, the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, or the Medieval warm period were in any significant way different than the present warm period...other than the fact that they were warmer than the present while CO2 was supposedly at safe levels?



Crick said:


> 1) Show that humans are not responsible for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere



You must first show proof that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.



Crick said:


> 2) Show there is no additional CO2 in the atmosphere



Irrelevant till you prove #1



Crick said:


> 3) Show that CO2 does not produce a greenhouse effect



The onus is upon you to show that it does.  Lets see the proof.



Crick said:


> 4) Alternatively, show that no gas produces a CO2 effect



What effect are you talking about?  Absorption and emission?  Show that absorption and emission equal warming.



Crick said:


> 5) Show that the Earth has not warmed



It has been warming for 14K years with multiple periods warmer than the present...prove that man is in any way responsible for any of it.




Crick said:


> 6) Show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century



Prove that correlation equals causation.  Show that there is no correlation between  the so called consensus and funding...  




Crick said:


> 7) Show that some other forcing mechanism has a superior correlation with temperature and a physical mechanism superior to AGW



Neither you, nor climate science has yet to prove AGW..  We skeptics keep asking for proof and you can't deliver.


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2014)

Crick said:
			
		

> That should make it easier. If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match. That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> So what do you think is happening in the climate today that hasn't happened in the earth climate before?



1) Both atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature have been rising faster than they have risen in _at least_ 800,000 years
2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising without forced heating to drive it out of solution, ie, CO2 is leading heating.
3) Sea levels are rising faster than at any time in this interglacial period.







See that steep ramp from ~7,000 years BP to ~14,000 years BP?  The rate of rise there is approximately 1.33 mm/year.  The current rate is in excess of 3.5mm/year

4) The current global temperature is unprecedented in the Holocene Epoch.



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> Show us that the changes taking place today are being caused by the same forcing factors that have driven climate change throughout its pre-industrial history. Show that the unique new climate behavior that human forcing must produce has not taken place.





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Can you show any actual evidence that the warm up leading to the holocene maximum, the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, or the Medieval warm period were in any significant way different than the present warm period...other than the fact that they were warmer than the present while CO2 was supposedly at safe levels?



"Other than the fact"???  You've answered your own question and admitted my point.  The difference in the modern era is that CO2 has been driven up by human activities rather than the warming of the planet



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> 1) Show that humans are not responsible for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> You must first show proof that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.



No, I do not.  Just as in every prior occasion in which I identified potential AGW falsifications, you fail to catch on to what's happening.  These are YOUR tasks, not mine.  AGW explicitly contends that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is due to human activity.  Show that point to be incorrect and you will have falsified AGW.



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> 2) Show there is no additional CO2 in the atmosphere





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Irrelevant till you prove #1



It is not irrelevant and it is not dependent on any other contention.  This point is a core facet of AGW.  Show it to be false and you falsify AGW.



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> 3) Show that CO2 does not produce a greenhouse effect





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> The onus is upon you to show that it does. Lets see the proof.



How did you get this stupid?



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> 4) Alternatively, show that no gas produces a CO2 effect





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> What effect are you talking about? Absorption and emission? Show that absorption and emission equal warming.



I see I flubbed that one.  That should have read "Alternatively, show that no gas produces a greenhouse effect".  But, then, you knew that.  And if you'd really like to discuss radiative heat transfer, I want to hear how it works in SSDD-World.  I've asked you to explain your position several times and I've yet to see a single word from you.  If you have and I've missed, point me to it as I'd really love to see it.



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> 5) Show that the Earth has not warmed





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> It has been warming for 14K years with multiple periods warmer than the present...prove that man is in any way responsible for any of it.



If you think you can make the argument that there has been no significant change in the rate of warming from 14,000 years BP to 08 July 2014, have at it.  My data shows a very slow rate of change supplanted by a meteoric rise in temperatures beginning about 150 years ago.  If you've got something different, let's see it.  Again, this would falsify AGW because AGW explicitly claims exceptional warming beginning in 1750.



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> 6) Show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Prove that correlation equals causation. Show that there is no correlation between the so called consensus and funding...



I have to do none of these things.  These are directions to attack AGW, not me.



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> 7) Show that some other forcing mechanism has a superior correlation with temperature and a physical mechanism superior to AGW





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Neither you, nor climate science has yet to prove AGW.. We skeptics keep asking for proof and you can't deliver.



And, o n e   m o r e   t i m e: theories in the natural sciences don't GET proven.  Try to keep this in your mind.  Whenever you consider using the word prove or proof in these discussions, alarm bells should go off upstairs.  Evidence, experimentation, reason and logic, yes.  Proofs?  No.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> __________________
> Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth



It's good to see you recognize Mamooth's discernment here and are willing to admit your own errors and broaden your intellectual horizons.  Statistics _is_ the underlying mechanism behind thermodynamics.  For that matter, on a more recent topic, it is also the fundamental mechanism behind the ideal gas law you so profoundly misunderstand.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dood --- You gotta quit hanging out at shiftyscience.com. It's rotting you brain.. 



> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
> 
> 
> 
> A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1).



YOU might need a calculator..  But the rest of can figure that in our heads. 20Meters in a 1000 yrs?? That's 20mm/yr ... 

And THAT if the proxy evidence can even MEASURE intervals within 1000 years. 
Don't some kind of alarm bells go off in your head when you look at that graph and make a claim like that??


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


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



Does Meltwater Pulse 1A extend from 7k-14k BP?  

No.  

So, was I talking about Meltwater Pulse 1A?  

No.  

Are you thinking of contending that todays situation is a glacial meltwater pulse?  Cause, it might be difficult to contend that the world's ice isn't melting and that sea levels aren't rising at an exceptional rate if you want to simultaneously say we're undergoing a meltwater pulse.

I wanted folks looking at that graphic to be aware how much steeper is the current rate of rise than the graph displays for the last 7-8,000 years.  Several of you keep trying to contend that the warming we've been experiencing the last 150 years is simply the tail end of the the last 14,000 year's warming, when it quite obviously shows a very dramatic acceleration for which your side of this argument has absolutely no explanation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> 1) Both atmospheric CO2 levels and the global temperature have been rising faster than they have risen in _at least_ 800,000 years



And yet another string of lies, picked cherries, and misinformation from abraham.

Which proxy data set is giving you sharp enough resolution to determine what sort of temperature changes happened within a 1 or 2 century interval?




Crick said:


> ) Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising without forced heating to drive it out of solution, ie, CO2 is leading heating.
> 3) Sea levels are rising faster than at any time in this interglacial period.



As to the CO2 levels, bullshit...As far as sea levels go, learn to read a chart.



Crick said:


> ) The current global temperature is unprecedented in the Holocene Epoch.



Of course it isn't...but even if it were, how could a sane person possibly suppose that the holocene (a short interglacial) represents the "normal" climate of planet earth?








Crick said:


> Other than the fact"???  You've answered your own question and admitted my point.  The difference in the modern era is that CO2 has been driven up by human activities rather than the warming of the planet



You have yet to prove that CO2 has anything more than a coincidental relationship to temperature increases.



Crick said:


> No, I do not.  Just as in every prior occasion in which I identified potential AGW falsifications, you fail to catch on to what's happening.  These are YOUR tasks, not mine.  AGW explicitly contends that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is due to human activity.  Show that point to be incorrect and you will have falsified AGW.



Yes, that is what AGW contends...the contention has yet to be proven.   Repeating a point as proof of your argument, when that point remains proven is a logical fallacy...do you need to be reminded which one?



Crick said:


> It is not irrelevant and it is not dependent on any other contention.  This point is a core facet of AGW.  Show it to be false and you falsify AGW.



Yes, it is a core facet of AGW...and it remains to be substantiated with the first piece of actual empirical evidence.  The fact that the temperature has not increased in 2 decades while CO2 has increased should give you pause regarding the claim if you were a thinking person not mesmerized by pseudoscience.    And before you drag out your idiot ocean heat content chart, be prepared to explain why the rate of increase has not changed in a very long time...and describe the mechanism which you believe would cause warming to switch from the atmosphere to the deep oceans...and explain why, if the amount of heat you believe to be accumulating in the deep oceans is really there, why we are seeing a decreased rate of sea level rise as opposed to the expected increase due to thermal expansion.



Crick said:


> How did you get this stupid?



A true mark of cultish thinking...deriding someone who expects you to prove your claims.




Crick said:


> I see I flubbed that one.  That should have read "Alternatively, show that no gas produces a greenhouse effect".  But, then, you knew that.  And if you'd really like to discuss radiative heat transfer, I want to hear how it works in SSDD-World.  I've asked you to explain your position several times and I've yet to see a single word from you.  If you have and I've missed, point me to it as I'd really love to see it.



Do you really believe that the surface of the earth absorbs twice as much energy from the cooler atmosphere than it does from the sun?




Crick said:


> If you think you can make the argument that there has been no significant change in the rate of warming from 14,000 years BP to 08 July 2014, have at it.  My data shows a very slow rate of change supplanted by a meteoric rise in temperatures beginning about 150 years ago.  If you've got something different, let's see it.  Again, this would falsify AGW because AGW explicitly claims exceptional warming beginning in 1750.



Your data are wrong...your data are based on tampered records...your data are lies.  This is how the IPCC represented the temperature of the past 1000 years in 1995.  What work is the new temperature representation based on that is sufficient to overturn the literally hundreds of papers from all over the world that the earlier chart represented?








Crick said:


> I have to do none of these things.  These are directions to attack AGW, not me.



Of course you don't.  It is clear that you are content to continue to lie, misrepresent, mischaracterize, cherry pick, and did I say lie...yes, I did but with you it warrants being said again.





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Neither you, nor climate science has yet to prove AGW.. We skeptics keep asking for proof and you can't deliver.





Crick said:


> And, o n e   m o r e   t i m e: theories in the natural sciences don't GET proven.  Try to keep this in your mind.  Whenever you consider using the word prove or proof in these discussions, alarm bells should go off upstairs.  Evidence, experimentation, reason and logic, yes.  Proofs?  No.



And hypotheses in climate science don't get falsified..the data simply get changed, fabricated, or discarded as necessary to continue to support the hoax.




Crick said:


> It's good to see you recognize Mamooth's discernment here and are willing to admit your own errors and broaden your intellectual horizons.  Statistics _is_ the underlying mechanism behind thermodynamics.  For that matter, on a more recent topic, it is also the fundamental mechanism behind the ideal gas law you so profoundly misunderstand.



Good of you to admit to being as stupid as mammoth.  Statistics is not a mechanism.  Statistics is a means to attempt to describe how a mechanism may act, or what result a mechanism may cause, but it is not a mechanism itself.   It is such fundamental misunderstandings that label you as a poser mr fake engineer.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



dude........DUDE......still no proof of CO2 driving temperatures.  *WHERE IS IT?*

All of this is unnecessary, merely provide the proof!  pssst...I know you don't have any.  Why not just admit it and let's move on.  

Lastly, do you have physical evidence to prove CO2 drives temperatures?  Yes.....or....No.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2014)

jc456 said:


> dude........DUDE......still no proof of CO2 driving temperatures.  *WHERE IS IT?*
> 
> All of this is unnecessary, merely provide the proof!  pssst...I know you don't have any.  Why not just admit it and let's move on.
> 
> Lastly, do you have physical evidence to prove CO2 drives temperatures?  Yes.....or....No.



You know it doesn't exist...I know it doesn't exist...even he and his cronies know it doesn't exist...but telling the truth isn't part of who they are so the lies, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and did I say lies...yes the lies will continue so long as they hold out any hope that someone...anyone reading their posts will believe or be swayed.  They aren't actually talking to skeptics any longer..that debate was lost long ago and they know it...they are simply spray painting propaganda on the wall hoping that someone reads it and is influenced by it.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Good of you to admit to being as stupid as mammoth.  Statistics is not a mechanism. Statistics is a means to attempt to describe how a mechanism may act, or what result a mechanism may cause, but it is not a mechanism itself. It is such fundamental misunderstandings that label you as a poser mr fake engineer.



Yes, we've heard this before from you. The past century of physics is all totally wrong, because your liars' cult says so. Meanwhile, the field of Statistical Mechanics still says that statistics is the mechanism behind the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I got a "B" in Statistical Mechanics, Junior year.

Have you settled on a final kook version of the 2nd law? I'm just trying to figure out how your "a gas under pressure constantly generates heat" loopy claim works with the rest of your bizarre thermodynamics. You need to publish a grand stupid unified theory that unites all of your crazy revisionist physics.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Really simple Bullwinkle.. I have yet to see you read and interpret a SINGLE graph correctly.. You said  ----  



> *See that steep ramp from ~7,000 years BP to ~14,000 years BP?  The rate of rise there is approximately 1.33 mm/year.  The current rate is in excess of 3.5mm/year*.



*You were off by MORE than a factor of ten..* Because at 13,500 yrs ago, the seas had just risen at a rate closer to 20mm/yr.. And that's probably on the low side because of low temporal resolution of the data.

You gave the wrong answer to your own question cause MWaterPulse 1A IS in that period of time as are several other pulses that are well documented to be an order of magnitude HIGHER than today's rate. And because you fail EVERY FUCKING TIME at reading graphs, there is NO indication on that graph of ANY RATES to compare to the present.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Have you settled on a final kook version of the 2nd law? I'm just trying to figure out how your "a gas under pressure constantly generates heat" loopy claim works with the rest of your bizarre thermodynamics. You need to publish a grand stupid unified theory that unites all of your crazy revisionist physics.



Nah, I am fine with the second law as it is written...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.  How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?  How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the ocean absorbs from the cooler atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Have you settled on a final kook version of the 2nd law? I'm just trying to figure out how your "a gas under pressure constantly generates heat" loopy claim works with the rest of your bizarre thermodynamics. You need to publish a grand stupid unified theory that unites all of your crazy revisionist physics.
> ...



*...energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.*

Which is why I can't see anything below the temperature of my eyeball.

You really should stop.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You mean visible light?  How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces?  It is you who really should stop.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative. It is on those who assert that need to provide proof of claim. Anyway, who would be dumb enough to try and disprove climate change. It's been happening for a lot longer than humans have even been around.



Hey prove you didn't beat your wife.  ROFL


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



No difference in the rules for propagation of InfraRed. Granted you need to cool an IR camera to see very small IR flux from cold objects. But that action doesn't change the flux coming from the object. It's a matter of detection threshold --- not EM propagation..

Clearly it's the balance of the EXCHANGE of IR photons that determines the direction of heat flow.. There is no go/nogo threshold for the exchange based on temperature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*You mean visible light?*

Yes, my eyeball works best with visible light.

*How warm is the source of the light reflecting off of those cooler surfaces? *

Is this an Amendment to the 2nd Law you've discovered?

*Energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects, if the cooler object was warmed by something hot?*

LOL!

*How much energy do you believe the warmer surface of the earth absorbs from the cooler atmosphere? *

Wasn't the atmosphere warmed by the Sun?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 10, 2014)

According the the SSDD theory, if I shine my nice cool LED flashlight at the door of a hot oven, the light can't go through the glass, because the oven inside is hotter than the flashlight.

But when we do the experiment, the light clearly does go through the glass. We can see the light hitting the back of the hot oven and reflecting back out.

Hence, the SSDD theory of "energy can't flow from cool to hot!" is decisively refuted.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2014)

photons dont give a shit about the temperature of where they were produced, where they end up being absorbed, or the intervening space between the two.

SSDD has a simplistic and immature view of thermodynamics but he is not going to listen to any criticism of it, so you are wasting your time. all of us have blind spots of one sort or another, this is one of his.


using LED, chemical florescence, etc in an example of energy transfer by temperature gradient does not disprove that simple law, it only shows that there are complexities and exceptions to everything.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


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



Are you sure that the IR flux is moving towards the camera before it is cooled?  I mean, you can't see it till the camera is cooled...then bingo...there it is.  Where was it before?  The camera should be able to see it if it were there, right?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is this an Amendment to the 2nd Law you've discovered?



No...just the second law.  If you are seeing cool objects then it is because light from a source warmer than your eye is reaching your eye.  You aren't receiving any energy, visible or otherwise from the object that is cooler than your eye.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects, if the cooler object was warmed  something hot?*
> 
> If you are seeing the object, you are seeing it because of reflected light from a warmer source are you not?
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Is this an Amendment to the 2nd Law you've discovered?
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects, if the cooler object was warmed  something hot?*
> 
> If you are seeing the object, you are seeing it because of reflected light from a warmer source are you not?
> 
> ...



*If you are seeing cool objects then it is because light from a source warmer than your eye is reaching your eye.*

Unless it's light from a source cooler than my eye.

*If you are seeing the object, you are seeing it because of reflected light from a warmer source are you not?*

Reflected? I think you mean absorbed and re-emitted. 

*Think it is time for you to stop yet?*

No, I will continue pointing out your error.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



Having designed a bunch of IR cameras, I can tell you that the photons are there. If you INTEGRATED long enough -- you'd see them. We COOL to get shorter exposures and clearer pictures at LOWER levels of IR.. You can clearly detect cooler objects on a 70degF sensor. The issue is if camera reaches 90 or above or if you need better signal/noise of a 40degF source on a 80degF camera. 

It's largely a matter of dynamic range against the spatially STATIONARY noise on the sensor that increases with thermal noise.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Reflected? I think you mean absorbed and re-emitted.



Better think again....or better think at all.  When you see a red apple, why do you see it as red...why not some other color of the spectrum? Do you think it is because it is absorbing all of the colors of the spectrum and then emitting only red?  My bet is you see it as red because it is absorbing all of the colors of the spectrum except for the color(s) you are seeing which it is reflecting from the object..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> According the the SSDD theory, if I shine my nice cool LED flashlight at the door of a hot oven, the light can't go through the glass, because the oven inside is hotter than the flashlight.



Ever look at an LED light?  Guess not.  Here is a small one like you might find in your "nice cool" LED flashlight.  See that massive heat sink?  Any idea why it might be there?  Does it raise any questions in that tiny hairball clogged brain of yours why your LED light might feel cool to your touch compared to a standard light bulb with no massive heat sink?  You can't beat the second law hairball...no matter how much you wish you could.









mamooth said:


> , the SSDD theory of "energy can't flow from cool to hot!" is decisively refuted.



Well, someone here is decisively refuted...not me though.  Here is a wiki article..you trust wiki...right?....on the topic of keeping LED lights cool.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_management_of_high-power_LEDs



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> (LEDs) can use 350 milliwatts or more in a single LED. Most of the electricity in an LED becomes heat rather than light (about 70% heat and 30% light). If this heat is not removed, the LEDs run at high temperatures, which not only lowers their efficiency, but also makes the LED less reliable. Thus, thermal management of high power LEDs is a crucial area of research and development. It is highly necessary to keep the junction temperature below 120°C to run the LED's for maximum lifetime.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Having designed a bunch of IR cameras, I can tell you that the photons are there. If you INTEGRATED long enough -- you'd see them.



Well, you would see something...not energy coming from the cool object to the warm sensor though.


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


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



I am glad to see this discussion taking place between the two of you, but I have to ask: when you say "Having designed a bunch of IR camera", do you not mean that you designed IR camera-bearing systems or IR camera applications or IR camera setups?  I suspect that an IR camera, like any camera, is designed by a large number of very specialized people who do almost nothing else.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



I have a white hot piece of metal, in the shade.

I have a huge chunk of ice, nearby, in full sunlight.

How much energy is the metal going to absorb from the ice?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Is the white hot metal warmer than the source of light lighting the ice?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > According the the SSDD theory, if I shine my nice cool LED flashlight at the door of a hot oven, the light can't go through the glass, because the oven inside is hotter than the flashlight.
> ...



Yes. In my little penlight, there is no heat sink at all. It's clearly not running at 400F, like my oven. I know this because I can actually touch the LED itself.

But keep going, for our amusement. Tell me how hot my LED penlight is actually running at, and then explain why it's not burning me when I touch the LED.

And clarify for us. The LED does shine on a cool piece of metal. According to your theory, as we heat the metal, there will come a point when its temperature rises above that of the LED. At that point, the light from the LED will magically do a U-turn and refuse to touch the metal, right?

It's an easy thing to setup in a lab. You should do so, and collect that Nobel Prize.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



No, the metal is not hotter than the Sun.


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2014)

The sunlight and shade make no difference to the amount of energy that radiates from the ice to the metal.  The ice and the metal each radiate according to their temperature.  Obviously the metal is radiating more energy than is the ice, but the ice is still 273C above the temperature at which all matter begins radiating energy.

In basic thermodynamics, for radiated energy, you learn that all you have to do is compute the algebraic sum of all the radiant energy moving around.  The ice radiates heat in all directions. Some of it hits the metal.  The metal radiates in all directions.  Some of it hits the ice.  Since there is so much more energy coming from the metal than the ice, the NET FLOW is from the metal to the ice.  That does NOT mean no energy is moving the other way.  If you pretend it is not, you will come up with an incorrect answer.

Here.  From Wikipedia.

*All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero*. The radiation represents a conversion of a body's thermal energy into electromagnetic energy, and is therefore called thermal radiation. It is a *spontaneous process* of radiative distribution of entropy.

Conversely *all normal matter absorbs electromagnetic radiation to some degre*e. An object that absorbs all radiation falling on it, at all wavelengths, is called a black body. When a black body is at a uniform temperature, its emission has a characteristic frequency distribution that depends on the temperature. Its emission is called black-body radiation.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


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


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


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



I really want to hear SSDD's response to this.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*
> 
> Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress
> 
> ...



Every day I think the left can't possibly get more idiotic..... and they prove me wrong.
*
1.    No one on the right, or ANYWHERE, is denying that there is "climate change".   In fact, we claim there has always been climate change.

2.    No one on the right, or ANYWHERE, is denying that man-made gasses do not have some effect.*

The difference in our perspective, is on the scale of effect.

A Gerbil consumes oxygen.

Do I buy fifty million tons of poison, and run around to pet stores killing off Gerbils, and Hamsters, and every animal I can find?

*GASP!  But we might run out of Oxygen!....*

No, it consumes a tiny tiny tiny shred of a fraction of the Oxygen in our atmosphere.

*GASP!  Are you saying they don't have an effect!?!?*

No, it does.... but it is so small as to be irrelevant.
*
GASP!  You are denying scientific evidence that Gerbils consume Oxygen!!*

No, you are an idiot, that is too ignorant to discuss this topic scientifically.

Yes, humans emit a itty bitty tiny amount of CO2.   Yes that CO2 does have some tiny addition to the greenhouse effect.

No, that effect is far far too tiny to be of any relevance to global temperatures.

"$100000000 Billion dollars to the person who proves man made CO2 doesn't cause the Greenhouse effect"

Dur....  no one is going to take you up on that, because no one ever denied it.

Here's the bet I want to see....

'Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Man Made CO2 Is A Significant Portion Of The GreenHouse Effect'

Because someone would provide evidence of that, and real fast.  Which is why he didn't make that offer.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 12, 2014)

This thread is proof beyond  shadow of a doubt that AGW is a religion not based on science.


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> Every day I think the left can't possibly get more idiotic..... and they prove me wrong.
> 
> 1.    No one on the right, or ANYWHERE, is denying that there is "climate change".   In fact, we claim there has always been climate change.



Big whoop.  They (and you) are denying anthropogenic global warming.  That is our disagreement.  Mischaracterizing the disagreement marks you as deceptive or incompetent. Or both.



Androw said:


> 2.    No one on the right, or ANYWHERE, is denying that man-made gasses do not have some effect.[/B]



We need look no further than the handful of people on this board to falsify that statement.



Androw said:


> The difference in our perspective, is on the scale of effect.



That is true for some, but not all on your side of this argument.



Androw said:


> A Gerbil consumes oxygen.
> 
> Do I buy fifty million tons of poison, and run around to pet stores killing off Gerbils, and Hamsters, and every animal I can find?
> 
> ...



If this was supposed to be analogous to CO2 and global warming in some way, it failed. The production of CO2 by the combustion of fossil fuel is not part of any natural cycle as is the O2/CO2 of the flora and the fauna.  



Androw said:


> GASP!  Are you saying they don't have an effect!?!?[/B]
> No, it does.... but it is so small as to be irrelevant.
> GASP!  You are denying scientific evidence that Gerbils consume Oxygen!![/B]
> No, you are an idiot, that is too ignorant to discuss this topic scientifically.



I looked up "irony" in Websters and it gave Androw's text above as its first example.



Androw said:


> Yes, humans emit a itty bitty tiny amount of CO2.   Yes that CO2 does have some tiny addition to the greenhouse effect.
> 
> No, that effect is far far too tiny to be of any relevance to global temperatures.



And you have some science, some actual numbers and calculated forcing factors to support that contention, right?  And you have some OTHER cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years, right?



Androw said:


> "$100000000 Billion dollars to the person who proves man made CO2 doesn't cause the Greenhouse effect"
> 
> Dur....  no one is going to take you up on that, because no one ever denied it.



Welcome to the USMB Environment forum.  Meet the gang.  A fair number of them deny precisely that.  



Androw said:


> Here's the bet I want to see....
> 
> 'Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Man Made CO2 Is A Significant Portion Of The GreenHouse Effect'
> 
> Because someone would provide evidence of that, and real fast.  Which is why he didn't make that offer.



What evidence would that be?


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Yes I do.  SSDD, you out there?


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2014)

IanC said:


> photons dont give a shit about the temperature of where they were produced, where they end up being absorbed, or the intervening space between the two.
> 
> SSDD has a simplistic and immature view of thermodynamics but he is not going to listen to any criticism of it, so you are wasting your time. all of us have blind spots of one sort or another, this is one of his.
> 
> ...



SSDD?  Anything to say here?


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


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



Eh?  Anything?  How about you FCT?  Did you stop this discussion just because I said I was glad to see it?  Are you now willing that we should assume you're okay with SSDD's thermo?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Then it is receiving no energy from the ice itself but is receiving light reflected from the light source.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Yes. In my little penlight, there is no heat sink at all. It's clearly not running at 400F, like my oven. I know this because I can actually touch the LED itself.



Here is a typical penlight LED bulb...note the large heat sink (within the rear housing).  LED light bulbs generate a tremendous amount of heat...70% of the energy they use is converted to heat...30% to light.  It takes a heat sink is 10 to 15 times larger than the light itself in order to keep the operating temperature below 110 or so.






You would be amusing if you had something other than bitter to offer with your ignorance.

Or do you really think you have the only LED light ever produced that has no heat sink and violates the laws of thermodynamics?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



Would light from a source cooler than the metal also be allowed to reflect toward the hotter metal?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2014)

SSDD said:
			
		

> It takes a heat sink is 10 to 15 times larger than the light itself in order to keep the operating temperature below 110 or so.



So, you're saying the operating temperature is below 110F.

Yet it's shining into a 400F oven.

Hence, your theory fails.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Second Law of Thermodynamics


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, that's not what I am saying at all.  The temperature of the LED, at the point the light is being produced is far above 400...the heat sink bleeds off the heat that exists to keep from burning up the light.  You really are a stupid woman, aren't you?



mamooth said:


> , your theory fails.



Ask flacalten to explain heat sinks to you.  the fact that the light source is so hot is why a heat sink is necessary...it doesn't make the source any cooler...it only bleeds off the heat that the source is creating to keep it at an effective temperature.

I have no theory..I just have the second law of thermodynamics and it hasn't been proven wrong yet.  The fact that you have no clue as to what a heat sink does certainly doesn't revoke the second law.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 14, 2014)

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has  cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the   United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a   15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with  solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*Energy doesn't move from cool to warm.*

I thought we were talking about reflection?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Of course sunlight would reflect from the ice to the metal...the sun being warmer than the metal...No energy from the ice is being absorbed by the metal.  If twisting your opponents argument, and misrepresenting what he is saying is the only way you see to continue...then you have lost already.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The temperature of the LED, at the point the light is being produced is far above 400...



You just told us the LED doesn't work at high temps. Now you say it's running at above 400F. You can't keep your conspiracy theory consistent from sentence to sentence.

Let's go with your latest flipflop. You've said the LED operates at above 400F, but you've neglected to provide any evidence for that startling claim. I'm sure the semiconductor industry would love to have semiconductors that work at 400F. Can you tell them how it's done, and thus collect your Nobel Prize?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



Now we have a perfect blackbody, in the sunlight, let's say -50°C and a perfect blackbody, in the shade, at 400°C.

How much energy will the cooler object send to the warmer?


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> No, that's not what I am saying at all.  The temperature of the LED, at the point the light is being produced is far above 400...the heat sink bleeds off the heat that exists to keep from burning up the light.  You really are a stupid woman, aren't you?



The heat sink?  The heat sink?!?!?  What heat sink?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm having fun watching SSDD walk further and further into crazyland. I know I shouldn't encourage him, but it's hard to resist.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's not what I am saying at all.  The temperature of the LED, at the point the light is being produced is far above 400...the heat sink bleeds off the heat that exists to keep from burning up the light.  You really are a stupid woman, aren't you?
> ...



You don't know what a heat sink is?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The temperature of the LED, at the point the light is being produced is far above 400...
> ...



I provided you with an article from a source that you trust stating explicitly that 70% of the energy used by a LED is converted to heat.  

Your car's operating temperature is about 210 degrees F.  Do you think that the fuel igniting in the combustion chamber is 210 or less?  You really are a stupid woman.  No man could be so ignorant (except crick who may be a whiny little girl also).  So as I was saying, your car's operating temperature is 210 degrees or so but the temperature within the combustion chamber can approach, or exceed 3000 degrees.....just as the operating temperature of your led is in the 100 degree range.  Operating temperature, however does not say what the maximum temperature within the device is, it only says what the temperature must be held to in order to continue to operate properly...I guess a stupid woman such as yourself shouldn't be expected to know such things, but you did claim to be a nuclear watch officer so when you make such foundational errors, it only highlights your previous lies.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I'm having fun watching SSDD walk further and further into crazyland. I know I shouldn't encourage him, but it's hard to resist.



All you are doing is bringing attention to your own abject ignorance.  Clearly, since you have no idea what a heat sink is, or what it does, it follows that you lied when you claimed to have any knowledge concerning nuclear reactors.  Do you think the operating temperature of a nuclear reactor is the same temperature that the rods would reach were they not immersed in water?

Good of you to be willing to publicly display the depth of your ignorance though....thanks.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I provided you with an article from a source that you trust stating explicitly that 70% of the energy used by a LED is converted to heat.



But you haven't told us the temperature of the LED, or shown any evidence to back up your insane claims. You've just pouted a lot.

Again, tell us what temperature an LED flashlight is operating at. The part that emits the light. I keep asking that, and you keep running from the question.

Needless to say, you'll need to provide the references or calculations as to where you got that number.

Oh, nice to see you join the vet-spitters. That matches well with your treason-based lifestyle.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I provided you with an article from a source that you trust stating explicitly that 70% of the energy used by a LED is converted to heat.
> ...



If 70% of the energy used to produce light is converted to heat, then knowing the amount of energy coming in from the source, and the area of the LED, and the output of the LED one should be able to calculate the temperature of the light producing surface of the LED.

Admit publicly that you, a claimed nuclear watch officer, can't handle that small bit of relatively simple math and I will provide you with an answer and have a new quote to add to my tag line....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



Now we have a perfect blackbody, in the sunlight, let's say -50°C and a perfect blackbody, in the shade, at 400°C.

How much energy will the cooler object send to the warmer?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Where did you get this perfect blackbody?  Do you actually have a perfect blackbody or are we pretending....which, by the way is the primary problem with post modern science and all of climate science.  All pretending all the time and no actual science.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> If 70% of the energy used to produce light is converted to heat, then knowing the amount of energy coming in from the source, and the area of the LED, and the output of the LED one should be able to calculate the temperature of the light producing surface of the LED.



If it's so simple, then you should be able to calculate it. So calculate it. I keep asking, and you keep finding new creative reasons to not give an answer.

Of course, it's not simple. One would also have to know heat capacity and heat conductance of all the materials, the exact physical layout, then set it up the heat flow model and run the program. The result would be a curve over time rising up to an equilibrium temp, as a opposed to a single temperature. Specific temperature would also vary depending on how close any point was to the heat sink.

Seriously, you don't have a clue about heat flow.



> Admit publicly that you, a claimed nuclear watch officer, can't handle that small bit of relatively simple math and I will provide you with an answer and have a new quote to add to my tag line....



So you're saying it's my responsibility to prove your insane theories. That would not be how it works. I'm not the one claiming it's totally simple. You are, so show us.

Of course, we all know you're actually not capable of doing the calculation, which is why you're going to give us a new reason to avoid doing so. If you'd like to prove me wrong, just do the calculation for us.

I'll get you started. A 5mm white LED draws 20 mA at 3v. That's 60 mW total, so 42 mW of heat. Assume the light-emitting surface is a 1mm square. You take it from there, being you say it's so easy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*Do you actually have a perfect blackbody or are we pretending*

Your smart photons don't work if we pretend?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2014)

Real simple guys.. Put your IR Remote control in the freezer for 10 minutes. 
Aim it at your TV quickly.. If the TV turns on --- Physics is vindicated.. 

Don't forget it's in there !! 

Tomorrow -- the ultimate test of CO2 physics using 20 cans of beer...


----------



## Kosh (Jul 15, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Real simple guys.. Put your IR Remote control in the freezer for 10 minutes.
> Aim it at your TV quickly.. If the TV turns on --- Physics is vindicated..
> 
> Don't forget it's in there !!
> ...



You mean methane don't you?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2014)

Kosh said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Real simple guys.. Put your IR Remote control in the freezer for 10 minutes.
> ...



If the beer you've been consuming is fizzed with methane --- That would 
explain a lot !!!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 15, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Isn't methane the by product of drinking beer?


----------



## Crick (Jul 18, 2014)

I think the methane could still explain a lot.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> I think the methane could still explain a lot.



Yes that you had to much Taco Bell?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



You okay?

I was afraid you tried the TV remote experiment and offed yourself when you finally saw your error.


----------



## IanC (Jul 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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





SSDD will never change his position on the SLoT. he has too much invested into it. not unlike the climate scientists who find it hard to back away from their failed CO2 theory no matter how much evidence piles up.


----------



## warwulf (Jul 20, 2014)

HA! That's nothing! The Institute for Historical Review is offering $100,000 for anyone who can provide a single body that was gassed from WWII. To date, not one gassed body has ever been presented. 
  Awww........


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2014)

IanC said:


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



Specifically what CO2 theory do you believe has failed and what evidence has piled up?


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2014)

warwulf said:


> HA! That's nothing! The Institute for Historical Review is offering $100,000 for anyone who can provide a single body that was gassed from WWII. To date, not one gassed body has ever been presented.
> Awww........



Gassed in what way?  Mustard gas on the battlefield or phosgene in the showers?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> warwulf said:
> 
> 
> > HA! That's nothing! The Institute for Historical Review is offering $100,000 for anyone who can provide a single body that was gassed from WWII. To date, not one gassed body has ever been presented.
> ...



I don't believe his post deserved a response.  But that's just me.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2014)

Crick said:


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



That CO2 does NOT control climate..

But then again you keep proving that your AGW cult programming will not allow real science to be a part of your life..


----------



## IanC (Jul 21, 2014)

Crick said:


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



basically all of it, after a trivial amount of warming due to restricted egress of some wavelengths of IR. CO2 is a minor factor not the control knob of climate.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD will never change his position on the SLoT. he has too much invested into it. not unlike the climate scientists who find it hard to back away from their failed CO2 theory no matter how much evidence piles up.



Like the experiment you would like to see showing that a small increase in CO2 causes warming..which doesn't exist...I would like to see a measured observation of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object at ambient temperature....which would include a measured observation of the warmer object actually absorbing energy.

Let's see it..and no side show slight of hand like the warmers like to use in an effort to prove their invalid point.  If the earth is actually absorbing more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun as climate science likes to claim, it should be easy to find a measured observation...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD will never change his position on the SLoT. he has too much invested into it. not unlike the climate scientists who find it hard to back away from their failed CO2 theory no matter how much evidence piles up.
> ...



Use your TV remote.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



What is the temperature of the IR emitter in that remote?  If there were actual measurements of energy moving from cool objects to warm objects and those warm objects actually absorbing it in violation of the second law, you wouldn't find yourself having to make such stupid suggestions....just as if there were actual experiments showing that a 100, or even a 200 ppm increase in CO2 could cause warming in the atmosphere, the warmers wouldn't have to resort to side show slight of hand in an attempt to prove their point.

I have looked for the actual measurements of energy doing what luke warmers claim it does...none to be found because their claim is nothing more than an artifact of a mathematical model...not observable in reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*What is the temperature of the IR emitter in that remote?*

The temperature of the freezer, silly.

*If there were actual measurements of energy moving from cool objects to warm objects and those warm objects actually absorbing it in violation of the second law,*

Since every object emits constantly, we know that energy moves from cool objects to warm objects. Which of course explains why I can see an ice cube. With no violation of the second law. Which is why an LED flashlight can illuminate the interior of a hotter oven. With no violation of the second law.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The temperature of the freezer, silly.



Better think again.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> every object emits constantly, we know that energy moves from cool objects to warm objects.



We know it but just can't seem to measure it....right . 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> of course explains why I can see an ice cube.



Place the ice cube in a place where only it's energy can reach your eye and tell me what you see.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which is why an LED flashlight can illuminate the interior of a hotter oven. With no violation of the second law.



I provided a link stating that 70% of the power used by a LED is converted to heat and 30% to light.  Further you might consider the fact that in an LED, heat is being converted to light.  As much as you wish you were right, alas, you are wrong.


----------



## Crick (Jul 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I provided a link stating that 70% of the power used by a LED is converted to heat and 30% to light.  Further you might consider the fact that in an LED, heat is being converted to light.  As much as you wish you were right, alas, you are wrong.



LEDs convert heat to light?

Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The temperature of the freezer, silly.
> ...



*Better think again. * 

Please let me know how hot that TV remote gets when I push the button.

*I provided a link stating that 70% of the power used by a LED is converted to heat and 30% to light.*

Are you saying the LED can't light an oven That's 600 F? Or one that's 800 F?
What about one that's 1000 F?


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2014)

SSDD,

From having made mistakes myself, I can guarantee you that the best thing to do is admit it and move on.  And remember.


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD will never change his position on the SLoT. he has too much invested into it. not unlike the climate scientists who find it hard to back away from their failed CO2 theory no matter how much evidence piles up.
> ...



we have been over this many times in the past so what could be different this time?

for those readers who have not been through this before-----

SSDD believes that the wording of the Second law of Thermodynamics is sacrosanct and is to be taken literally even though it was written by scientists in the 19th century who had no knowledge of the microscopic world, only the macroscopic world. loosely speaking they found that heat always went from hot to cold unless work was being done.

the explosion of quantum mechanics in the 20th century developed an explanation of the SLoT based on quantum mechanical statistics. they said that movement of energy etc was not prohibited in any way but that the odds for various outcomes was overwhelmingly large when more and more particles were examined.

all objects above absolute zero produce (blackbody) radiation from the molecular collisions that occur. the 'temperature' is simply shorthand for how fast the molecules are moving on average. one molecule in empty space does not have a 'temperature' no matter how fast it is going because it is not colliding with anything.

all objects are made up of molecules with different velocities, which are constantly changing with every collision, and every collision turns some of the momentum transferred into radiation because of the temporary deformation of the electron cloud. the range of radiation is quasi-normal and dependent on the temperature. that is why the Planck curve for every temperature is similar in shape.







all three curves have the same shape, it is only the choice of range on the x-axis that makes any difference.

it is obvious that the actual range of photon wavelength produced overlaps substantially even when the objects are quite different in temperature. it is also obvious that warmer objects radiate more (the area under the curve). when two objects of different temperatures radiate towards each other the common area under the curve results in no net exchange of energy (actually in real life there would be a slight transfer of momentum which precludes a 'perpetual motion machine'). the area between the two curves is the amount of energy available to transfer heat. 

any one molecule in either object may absorb a more energetic photon than it emits for any specific time(x) but overall it will radiate more and at more energetic wavelengths if it is in the warmer object, or radiate less and at lower energy wavelengths if it is in the cooler object.

SSDD states that the radiation in the overlapping portion of the curve simply does not happen, according to his interpretation of the SLoT. he does not explain how it does not form. he does not explain how the collisions between the molecules which form the radiation are stopped. he says it is a mystery but true all the same.

I say that all objects radiate all the time, and it is the excess radiation that can transfer net energy which leaves open the possibility that for a very short split second there is occasionally a very,very small locality that may receive more energy even if it is in the warmer object, and viceversa of course. over anything larger picograms and nanoseconds the net flow of energy is always in the direction of warmer to cooler, as is shown by the Planck curves. statistics not dogma.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I provided a link stating that 70% of the power used by a LED is converted to heat and 30% to light. Further you might consider the fact that in an LED, heat is being converted to light. As much as you wish you were right, alas, you are wrong.
> ...



lol.  He has a vivid imagination.  I'll give him that much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

IanC said:


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



Great explanation!

SSDD will probably still prefer his smart photon theory.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2014)

IanC said:


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



So what you are saying...in a round about way is that there are no measurements...no observations...no proof.  Just a mathematical model and nothing more.  OK.  If you want to believe...go ahead.  I don't...and by your own admission, even if some minute amount of energy did transfer it would be so minute as to be undetectable and make absolutely no difference whatsoever...in which case, the claimed downward radiation would make no difference at all.  You want to pick nits..go ahead.  I will stick to what the second law actually says till such time as they change the statement at which time I will go with that.  At present, it still says that energy won't move from cool to warm and you not correcting idiot claims like those made regarding ice cubes and LED lights is no better than warmers not correcting idiot claims from their own side...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*in a round about way is that there are no measurements...no observations...no proof.*

There is no proof of your smart photon theory.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> There is no proof of your smart photon theory.



It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons.  Again, do you think a dropped rock must be smart enough to know which way to fall or do the forces of nature simply act upon it?  Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move and a rock can be as "dumb as a rock" and simply move in the only direction it can when dropped?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > There is no proof of your smart photon theory.
> ...



*It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons.*

You're the one who thinks a hot object will suddenly stop emitting photons when a hotter object approaches. Is there any limit to the distance where this hotter object stops those photons? Or can a hotter object light years away have this impact?

*Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move *

It's your theory, not mine.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons.  Again, do you think a dropped rock must be smart enough to know which way to fall or do the forces of nature simply act upon it?  Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move and a rock can be as "dumb as a rock" and simply move in the only direction it can when dropped?



As has been pointed out to you before, you're evading the issue with that rant.

It's not about knowing every _why_. It's about having a theory that is consistent and precisely described for all cases.

The theory of gravity meets that standard.

Your theory doesn't. First, because you won't even tell us exactly what your theory is, exactly when those photons appear and disappear, and what experimental evidence backs up that description. And until you do that, we can't tell if your theory is consistent.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're the one who thinks a hot object will suddenly stop emitting photons when a hotter object approaches. Is there any limit to the distance where this hotter object stops those photons? Or can a hotter object light years away have this impact?



When you find that you must lie, mischaracterize, or simply make up your opponent's argument, for him, you have well and truly lost.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> your theory, not mine.



Actually, it's your mischaracterization of my argument but if lying makes you feel better, have at it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is your own silliness that attempts to put some sort of intelligence on photons.  Again, do you think a dropped rock must be smart enough to know which way to fall or do the forces of nature simply act upon it?  Why must a photon which is subject to the forces of nature decide which direction it will move and a rock can be as "dumb as a rock" and simply move in the only direction it can when dropped?
> ...



I don't have a theory...I just have the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy can't move from a cool object to a warm object...it is you guys who have a theory that it does...so prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong.


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2014)

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

Where do you see a violation of this principle when we shine Mamooth's LED flashlight into a 400F oven?  And, please, the LED is about 90F and has no heat sink and makes no light from heat.


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2014)

I've got a similar thought experiment.  Suppose I place myself at a point on the orbit of Mercury such that the Sun, me and the Earth all fall on a line radial from the sun.  Thus as I look out at the Earth which is directly in front of me, the sun is directly behind me.  Will I be able to see the Earth?  All EM radiation coming from the Earth to my retinas is moving directly towards the Sun.  Could those warm molecules back on Earth see cold little me in the way?  Let's assume that they can.  They can see me and they know I'm cool and all the Earth's molecules are allowed to radiate at me.  Everything is kosher.  Now I move myself to the side a meter or two.  What happens?  The light takes five minutes to travel from the Earth to Mercury's orbit.  Does the Earth disappear from my view till those five minutes have passed?  For that matter, when I first arrived at this location, did the Earth not appear to me till five minutes had passed?  And for THAT matter, what happens when I start continuously moving?

SSDD, your ideas about radiative heat transfer are simply nonsense.  They don't hold up to the most basic of examinations.  Your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is just wrong.  Like almost all of your ideas, it fails the sanity test.  Multiple people from your side of the AGW argument - fellow rank conservatives - are arguing against you.  Give it up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one who thinks a hot object will suddenly stop emitting photons when a hotter object approaches. Is there any limit to the distance where this hotter object stops those photons? Or can a hotter object light years away have this impact?
> ...



*When you find that you must lie,* 

Where did I lie? Be specific.

*mischaracterize, * 

What did I mischaracterize? Be specific.

*or simply make up your opponent's argument, *

You argument is that an object at 600 C will emit photons in all directions but if an 800 C object approaches, will emit photons in every other direction except toward that warmer object. 

That's not based on the photons "knowing"  the temperature of surrounding objects?

Please, tell me what I mischaracterized or made up about your argument.


----------



## asterism (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> I've got a similar thought experiment.  Suppose I place myself at a point on the orbit of Mercury such that the Sun, me and the Earth all fall on a line radial from the sun.  Thus as I look out at the Earth which is directly in front of me, the sun is directly behind me.  Will I be able to see the Earth?  All EM radiation coming from the Earth to my retinas is moving directly towards the Sun.  Could those warm molecules back on Earth see cold little me in the way?  Let's assume that they can.  They can see me and they know I'm cool and all the Earth's molecules are allowed to radiate at me.  Everything is kosher.  Now I move myself to the side a meter or two.  What happens?  The light takes five minutes to travel from the Earth to Mercury's orbit.  Does the Earth disappear from my view till those five minutes have passed?  For that matter, when I first arrived at this location, did the Earth not appear to me till five minutes had passed?  And for THAT matter, what happens when I start continuously moving?
> 
> SSDD, your ideas about radiative heat transfer are simply nonsense.  They don't hold up to the most basic of examinations.  Your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is just wrong.  Like almost all of your ideas, it fails the sanity test.  Multiple people from your side of the AGW argument - fellow rank conservatives - are arguing against you.  Give it up.



You pose an interesting question.  I'm not sure if the data specifically addressing your theoretical situation has been collected, but I know that NASA will provide you any of the data they have just by asking.  No credentials are required and no vetting of whether you are a "Flat Earther" or "Geocentric Conspiracist" happen.

But when a fully credentialed climatologist can't get the data?  That's a problem.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: We Lost the Original Data


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2014)

No data is required to answer the questions I pose.  The same situation occurs in any room lit by an incandescent light bulb.  It is Mamooth's led flashlight shining into a hot oven.  It is  another of the thousands of common situations that show SSDD's ideas about thermodynamics are utter nonsense based on gross misunderstandings.  And given that, his ideas about AGW, with which many of you concur, are of an equivalent merit.

And your attempt to detour the conversation is noted.


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2014)

Does anyone wish to argue whether or not AGW could be falsified?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.
> 
> Where do you see a violation of this principle when we shine Mamooth's LED flashlight into a 400F oven?  And, please, the LED is about 90F and has no heat sink and makes no light from heat.





Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. 

Clearly, you don't know much about LEDs.  As was pointed out to mammoth, the operating temperature of a LED is around 100F.  That doesn't mean that the actual temperatures involved don't exceed 100F.  The operating temperature of your car's engine is about 212...do you think that the temperature in the combustion chamber never exceeds 212?

And note, the second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm without some work having been done to make it happen..energy won't spontaneously flow from a low temperature object to a warmer object.  Consider the words work and spontaneous...and know that energy doesn't naturally move from cool objects to warm objects.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> I've got a similar thought experiment.  Suppose I place myself at a point on the orbit of Mercury such that the Sun, me and the Earth all fall on a line radial from the sun.  Thus as I look out at the Earth which is directly in front of me, the sun is directly behind me.  Will I be able to see the Earth?



Where is the light that you see coming from the earth really coming from?  Does the earth generate its own light?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *When you find that you must lie,*
> 
> Where did I lie? Be specific.



When did I ever say that an object stops emitting when a warmer object approaches?  I said that a cool object doesn't emit towards a warmer object.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> What  did I mischaracterize? Be specific.



See above for an example.  Suggesting that I suppose some intelligence or choice is involved in the movement of energy.  Again, does a rock have any choice but to fall when you drop it?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> argument is that an object at 600 C will emit photons in all directions but if an 800 C object approaches, will emit photons in every other direction except toward that warmer object.



And you have a problem with that?  You can see that sort of thing happening around you if you look. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> not based on the photons "knowing"  the temperature of surrounding objects?



No, that's based on them not having any choice but to move in the direction in which they are radiated.  Do you think that communications engineers can just point antennas and arrays in whatever direction they wish without taking energy coming from other arrays and dishes into consideration?  What would happen if a dish with a weaker signal were pointed towards a dish with a stronger signal?  Would you receive the weaker signal on the other side of the stronger dish?  Would you receive it immediately in front of the stronger dish?  Is there any sort of choice, or knowing on the part of the weaker signal that it can't transmit over the stronger signal from the other dish?  

This whole thing is a failure of your imagination...You are like a little child trying to prove that the laws of nature don't actually mean what they say.   The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object without some work being done to accomplish the task.  Do you think light coming from a bulb, or IR from an emitter is spontaneous movement of energy?  The second law is what it is and if you bet against it you will lose every time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> No data is required to answer the questions I pose.  The same situation occurs in any room lit by an incandescent light bulb.  It is Mamooth's led flashlight shining into a hot oven.  It is  another of the thousands of common situations that show SSDD's ideas about thermodynamics are utter nonsense based on gross misunderstandings.  And given that, his ideas about AGW, with which many of you concur, are of an equivalent merit.
> 
> And your attempt to detour the conversation is noted.



*And given that, his ideas about AGW, with which many of you concur, are of an equivalent merit.*

Nope. His confusion about the 2nd Law does not mean we should waste trillions on less reliable energy or crush our economy, just because you think CO2 is the worst thing ever.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *When you find that you must lie,*
> ...



*When did I ever say that an object stops emitting when a warmer object approaches? I said that a cool object doesn't emit towards a warmer object. *

If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?

*And you have a problem with that? *

Yes, I have a problem with a hot object only emitting in certain directions.

*The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object *

Maybe your problem is with energy? Please share your definition.

*Do you think light coming from a bulb, or IR from an emitter is spontaneous movement of energy?*

Yes, when I press the button on my TV remote, energy moves, even if the remote is much colder than my TV.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?



Refer to the law of inverse squares.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, I have a problem with a hot object only emitting in certain directions.



Do you have a problem with air, which can move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is inside of a punctured tire?  Do you have a problem with air which can move in any direction not trying to go past the escaping air to get into the tire whose pressure inside is greater than the pressure outside?  Do you have a problem with water which can flow in any direction only flowing downhill if it is released on an incline?  Do you have a problem with water spraying from a hose diverting when pointed directly towards a hose spraying at a higher pressure?  Do you have a problem with a stone which could possibly move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is dropped?  Why is it that you have no problem with objects obeying the laws of nature till that object is a photon?...assuming that photons even exist?  Why do you think that they are somehow not subject to the forces that direct every other object in the universe?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> your problem is with energy? Please share your definition.



The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, when I press the button on my TV remote, energy moves, even if the remote is much colder than my TV.



Really?  You don't think that directing an electric current across a circuit in order to achieve a desired result constitutes work?  And again, do you think that because the light in your refrigerator is cold that the filament of the bulb is also cold when it lights up?  Do you think the IR emitter inside of your remote remains cold when you push the button moving electricity across the circuit to send an IR signal?  Again, you are like a little kid trying to invent perpetual motion in his head.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2014)

Poor SSDD thinks photons are like matter. That is why he is always comparing them to falling rocks or air in a tire. Photons can easily 'buck the tide' because they can occupy the same space with no transfer of anything. 

He also seems to be confusing the properties of virtual photons that carry electric force with real radiative photons that just carry away energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?
> ...



*Refer to the law of inverse squares.*

How is that relevant to photons measuring the temperature of nearby (or distant) objects?

*Do you have a problem with air, which can move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is inside of a punctured tire? *

Hate to break it to you, but air molecules inside a punctured tire are still moving in all directions.

*You don't think that directing an electric current across a circuit in order to achieve a desired result constitutes work? *

You don't think the work required to heat up the 600C object counts as work when you move an 800C object nearby?

*Do you think the IR emitter inside of your remote remains cold when you push the button moving electricity across the circuit to send an IR signal? *

Do you think the emitter goes from 0C to above room temperature, the instant you push the button?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> Poor SSDD thinks photons are like matter. That is why he is always comparing them to falling rocks or air in a tire. Photons can easily 'buck the tide' because they can occupy the same space with no transfer of anything.
> 
> He also seems to be confusing the properties of virtual photons that carry electric force with real radiative photons that just carry away energy.



You say "real" photons as if you could prove that they exist.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2014)

Hahahaha. Now photons don't exist. But 19th century scientists managed to define physics in a perfect fashion, even the parts that they didn't know existed. I have to admit I get a chuckle out of your bizarre thinking sometimes.


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Poor SSDD thinks photons are like matter. That is why he is always comparing them to falling rocks or air in a tire. Photons can easily 'buck the tide' because they can occupy the same space with no transfer of anything.
> ...



What _do_ you mean by that?


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Refer to the law of inverse squares.*
> 
> How is that relevant to photons measuring the temperature of nearby (or distant) objects?
> 
> ...



Todd, I am seriously impressed.

I'd REALLY like to see some answers to these questions.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2014)

Crick said:


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




SSDD is an fan of all things skydragon slayer. Claes Johnson is a minor celebritywho has a theory about how photons are different than 'classical physics' describes them, and that the surface 'harmonically reflects' incoming photons. his numbers come out exactly the same classical physics but he says it is different somehow. I cannot remember it very clearly but it does make for interesting reading.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. Now photons don't exist. But 19th century scientists managed to define physics in a perfect fashion, even the parts that they didn't know existed. I have to admit I get a chuckle out of your bizarre thinking sometimes.



So lets see the proof that they do.  You guys crack me up...You love to claim I am a wacko because I happen to believe the 2LoT when it says that energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool objects to warm...and then try to prove I am wrong by describing what particles that have yet to be proven are doing...and you Ian, not only believe in the hypothetical particles, but also seem to have a firm belief in virtual versions of the hypothetical unproven particles.

Quantum theory is a very long way from being complete.  Today, 14 years into the 21st century, the fact is that we don't know, and there is no way of knowing whether photons, or any particle for that matter exists.  Your conviction that they do, is nothing more than your faith in someone's interpretation...that's it and when you talk about these unproven particles and what they are doing, you sound like a kid describing the activities in santa's workshop.  

You have such a wonderful picture in your mind of what these imaginary players in this imaginary place are doing that you have lost touch with the fact that we are a very long way from even knowing whether or not these players exist, much less whether they are actually doing what you have unshakable faith that they are doing.   ROCK ON GARTH...


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 24, 2014)

SSDD said:
			
		

> You love to claim I am a wacko...


 
 It isn't a claim...


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha. Now photons don't exist. But 19th century scientists managed to define physics in a perfect fashion, even the parts that they didn't know existed. I have to admit I get a chuckle out of your bizarre thinking sometimes.
> ...




SLoT deals with net energy flows because it was written for the macroscopic world. And your quote of mamooth is correct. Statistics is the fundamental mechanism of thermodynamics.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> not based on the photons "knowing"  the temperature of surrounding objects?




If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?
[/QUOTE]

So excuse me for jumping in here, but I have a couple of questions.  If an object is at 600C and another object at 800C approaches it, is the temperature now 1400C?

As well, if not, which is what I think you'll tell me, then does the 600C object become warmer or does the 800C object become cooler?  Just asking because I don't know the answer.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Says a warmer wacko...and one who still believes in a hypothesis which has failed over and over.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

IanC said:


> SLoT deals with net energy flows because it was written for the macroscopic world. And your quote of mamooth is correct. Statistics is the fundamental mechanism of thermodynamics.



So there is no proof as I said and for all of your conviction, it remains nothing more than a statement of faith....and statistics is a branch of mathematics used to attempt to theoretically describe the fundamental mechanism driving thermodynamics...the fundamental mechanism certainly is not a branch of mathematics any more than the mathematics used to describe pressures are the fundamental mechanism of pressure.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > not based on the photons "knowing"  the temperature of surrounding objects?
> ...



So excuse me for jumping in here, but I have a couple of questions.  If an object is at 600C and another object at 800C approaches it, is the temperature now 1400C?

As well, if not, which is what I think you'll tell me, then does the 600C object become warmer or does the 800C object become cooler?  Just asking because I don't know the answer.[/QUOTE]

The 800 degree object becomes cooler and the 600 degree object becomes warmer precisely as the second law predicts because energy moves from warmer to cooler.  There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The 800 degree object becomes cooler and the 600 degree object becomes warmer precisely as the second law predicts because energy moves from warmer to cooler.  There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.



* There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object. *

The 800 degree object doesn't have to get warmer, just because it absorbed energy from the 600 degree object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So excuse me for jumping in here, but I have a couple of questions.  If an object is at 600C and another object at 800C approaches it, is the temperature now 1400C?
> 
> As well, if not, which is what I think you'll tell me, then does the 600C object become warmer or does the 800C object become cooler?  Just asking because I don't know the answer.



No, the temperature is not 1400 C.

The objects will move toward equilibrium. The hotter becomes cooler and the cooler becomes hotter.

Not because the photons are smart (snicker) but because the hotter object radiates more energy toward the cooler than it absorbs from the cooler. Until they're the same temperature. Then they emit and absorb the same amount.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The 800 degree object becomes cooler and the 600 degree object becomes warmer precisely as the second law predicts because energy moves from warmer to cooler.  There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.
> ...



So my question was intended to see if the 600 degree object became warmer from the 800 degree object and if the 800 degree object would become cooler because of the 600 degree object.  I have no expertise in the subject, but the problem seemed intersting to me.  If I use an ice cube at 28 degrees submerging it into a room temperature drink of say 70 degrees, the fluid will get cooler and the ice will melt.  Seems to indicate that cold will affect warm.  I may be totally out there and apologize ahead of time for my dumbness.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


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



*So my question was intended to see if the 600 degree object became warmer from the 800 degree object and if the 800 degree object would become cooler because of the 600 degree object.*

Yes to both.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



And eventually they would both be of equal temperature at some point, right?


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


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



Correct.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


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



That's the plan.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The 800 degree object becomes cooler and the 600 degree object becomes warmer precisely as the second law predicts because energy moves from warmer to cooler.  There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.
> ...



Really? Are you saying that the absorption of IR doesn't increase the kinetic energy of the molecules of the object that is absorbing or that an increase in kinetic energy won't result in warming...or are you saying that an object can absorb energy without an increase in either kinetic energy or increased temperature?


----------



## Crick (Jul 24, 2014)

All matter both radiates and absorbs thermal energy at all times.  Whether it gets warmer or cooler depends on the balance between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings - on the balance between how much it is radiating and how much it is absorbing: The net thermal flux.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*Are you saying that the absorption of IR doesn't increase the kinetic energy of the molecules of the object that is absorbing or that an increase in kinetic energy won't result in warming..*

No, you silly git.
It should be obvious that the 800 C object is radiating faster (or more energetically, if you'd like) than the 600 C object.
So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.

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


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.



So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object.....otherwise you are just talking theory based on nothing more than a mathematical model...unobserved...unmeasured...untestable....unprovable.  In short, a statement of faith.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.
> ...



*So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object*

Sure, I'll post a picture of an object suddenly ceasing to radiate, just because a warmer object approaches.

Oh, wait, that's the proof you need for your smart photon theory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.
> ...



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

OMG! Receiving energy from cooler objects in the room. Inconceivable!!!

Thermography of the Human Body


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Not even a good dodge.   Why not simply admit that there are no observed, measured examples of warmer objects absorbing energy from cooler objects.

Ands again, why do you feel the need to lie.  I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close.  Making up arguments to rail against is a warmer tactic.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature?  If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm?  Do you think that because you steadily radiate 1000 watts that the amount of energy required to maintain that radiation is the same?  If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?

Face it todd.. energy  doesn't flow from cool objects to warm objects....if it did the second law wouldn't say that it doesn't.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 25, 2014)

I will give the physicist $10,000 if he can prove man made global warming.

He can't, so I am not worried much.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close. *

Then how does energy not flow from the cooler to the warmer?
Run through your mechanism. 600 C object, happily radiating. 800 C object placed nearby. Go!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature?*

Who said that? Where?

*If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm? *

Who said that? Where?

*If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?*

Let's use your scenario.

If I'm in a freezer, why do I lose body heat faster than if I'm sitting at room temperature?
Assume I'm wearing a spacesuit and in a vacuum.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




It simply doesn't radiate in that direction.  Do you find it equally strange that if you shoot two hoses toward each other and one has more pressure that the water from the weaker hose diverts....it still comes out of the hose, but can't spray in the direction the higher pressure is coming from...same with air...same with solid objects.  Why do you think theoretical photons are exempt from the forces of nature that every other object in the universe are subject to?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You did with your idiot suggestion that your body is absorbing energy from the cooler walls.  Again, you are like a little kid trying to describe the operations at santa's workshop.  Energy does not go from cool objects to warm objects.....if it did, the second law would say so...it doesn't.

And I guess you think that you lose heat faster in a freezer because the freezer is radiating cold to you?  Is that what you think?  If so, I am laughing out loud in your face.

You are expressing your faith...not providing proof of anything since there is no proof to support your statement.  Your claim is unobserved, unmeasurable, untestable....it is your belief...it is faith.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



Ok, so my dumb ass is thinking again.  The analogy with the freezer, 

if I were outside in 110 degree heat, my body temperature wouldn't eventually go up to 110 degrees so why would my body temperature go down to the  temperature in a freezer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*It simply doesn't radiate in that direction. *

How does it know that it has to stop radiating?
Explain the mechanism. How close does the 800 C object have to get?
How quickly does it stop radiating?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*You did with your idiot suggestion that your body is absorbing energy from the cooler walls.*

Wow, reading comprehension issues too.

*And I guess you think that you lose heat faster in a freezer because the freezer is radiating cold to you? *

Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why. 
Does it also involve smart photons?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 25, 2014)

I am still waiting for the AGW cult to prove with datasets and source code that proves their religion.

Have yet to see it materialize.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 25, 2014)

Kosh said:


> I am still waiting for the AGW cult to prove with datasets and source code that proves their religion.
> 
> Have yet to see it materialize.



They had it, but the hard drive got scratched....accidentally.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why.



So you believe in cold rays?  Cold emanations?  Pictet did some experiments way back when in the ladder part of the 18th century,  and thought that he had discovered cold emanations...that cold objects radiated to warm.  

If cold can be radiated to warm, I can think of some damned fine and profitable uses.  Name one.  There are literally thousands of heat radiation applications on the market...name one cold radiation application.

You crack me up...cold emanations...cold rays...hey guys, lets build a freeze ray!!!!    haahahhahahhah

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law...    

 which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.   Note: the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why.
> ...



*So you believe in cold rays?  Cold emanations?  *

No. Just trying to see how smart your photons are.

*the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.*

How does the radiator know the temperature of its surroundings? Does it read a thermometer? LOL!

Your photons get smarter all the time!

You still haven't given me the mechanism that shuts off emissions, when a warmer object approaches.

Or the one that explains faster emission in a cooler environment.

Let's hear it.

My mechanism manages to explain both. Let's hear yours, already.


----------



## WheelieAddict (Jul 26, 2014)

Any takers yet?


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2014)

He doesn't have one. That he compares the flow of photons to the flow of water just illustrates the naivete of his thinking. Photons do not interact with each other, only with matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2014)

IanC said:


> He doesn't have one. That he compares the flow of photons to the flow of water just illustrates the naivete of his thinking. Photons do not interact with each other, only with matter.



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

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

I'd like him to explain how the above article, made it to publication, back in 1963, with this claim.......

_a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K,* they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings*, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. _

He likes to say there is no net flow, simply one way.
He can't blame a warmer for that article, can he?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why.
> ...



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


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does the radiator know the temperature of its surroundings? Does it read a thermometer? LOL!



You really are beginning to sound like a very boring idiot.  How does the air inside a punctured tire know that the pressure is lower outside and thus, it is time to escape?  Why do you think a thing, subject to the forces of nature must "know" what to do?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still haven't given me the mechanism that shuts off emissions, when a warmer object approaches.



I will give you that mechanism as soon as you give me the mechanism which causes gravity.  Gravity should be an easy one, so lets here what makes gravity work.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or the one that explains faster emission in a cooler environment.
> 
> Let's hear it.



Already gave it to you...or do you not think the SB law applies?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> mechanism manages to explain both. Let's hear yours, already.



Your mechanism is an artifact of a mathematical model...nothing more.  Unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable....a product of your faith.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2014)

IanC said:


> He doesn't have one. That he compares the flow of photons to the flow of water just illustrates the naivete of his thinking. Photons do not interact with each other, only with matter.



And you keep talking about photons as if you knew they exist and actually know what they do.  Lets see that proof that they exist.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



So are you saying that the SB law only applies to perfect blackbodies?  If that is true, you just trashed the greenhouse hypothesis and everything that came out of it.  All garbage...back to the drawing board.  Maybe next time they will come up with a hypothesis that can predict the temperatures of other planets, as well as earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How does the radiator know the temperature of its surroundings? Does it read a thermometer? LOL!
> ...



*You really are beginning to sound like a very boring idiot.*

Constantly pointing out your idiocy is getting boring.

*I will give you that mechanism as soon as *

Run away. LOL!

*Your mechanism is an artifact of a mathematical model...nothing more. *

Of course my mechanism is mathematical. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature . 

Doesn't say anything about power not being emitted if something warmer is nearby.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



*So are you saying that the SB law only applies to perfect blackbodies? *

Is that what you said when you mentioned the Stefan Boltzman Law?


----------



## Crick (Jul 26, 2014)

No, he's trying to divert you from your original argument (which he could not otherwise counter) by taking advantage of the fact that you failed to note that nothing is a perfect black body and that all real world object absorb and radiate based on their "blackness".  The black body values are simply the maximum possible.


----------



## Crick (Jul 27, 2014)

He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer.  Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T.  All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.

The question of the finite speed limit on information (c) brings time into the question.  Neither we nor all universe's matter SSDD believes to be alive and thinking, can perceive our surroundings in real time.  There is always a passage of time and thus the temperature of a remote object whose temperature is changing due to some ongoing process, can NOT be known and there would be a 50/50 chance (ie, VERY close to a guarantee) that a colder object would inadvertently radiate to a hotter object and thus violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).


----------



## Crick (Jul 27, 2014)

It can be entertaining finding new ways to show SSDD that his ideas are absurd.  Of course, he could bring all our fun to a screeching halt were he to simply find the testicular fortitude to concede he was wrong.  But, I was thinking about what I said up there as to what was necessary for SSDD's thermo to hold true and one was that matter needs the ability to throttle the amplitude of its thermal radiation BY DIRECTION.  So, let's take a small sphere of iron, say, 1 cm diameter and get it good and hot (5,000K for instance) and place it carefully in intergalactic space at a location from which the nearest object - a rogue planet roughly the size of Pluto (rounded to 2,500 km diameter) with a temperature just above 2.73K, the temperature of the universe - lies at a distance of 2,500,000 light years.  Our little sphere wants very much to radiate his little heart out to that cold, rogue planet.  Unfortunately, from the wee, hot ball's point of view, the background to that rogue planet is a particularly dense stellar cluster and for many degrees in every direction, a ray from our wee sphere that missed the rogue planet would, instead, land on the 50,000K surface of a star.  Can't have that, can we.  So our sphere must be able to produce a ray of thermal radiation no larger than that planet.  In fact, it must ABSOLUTELY be *EXACTLY* as large as our rogue planet.  The angle of such a ray would be equivalent to ATAN (2500 km/(9.46e12 km/yr * 2,500,000 LY)).  Let's see if my calculator has that many digits.  I get that it would require a ray angle , of 6.057e-16 degrees.  Let's calculate the physical size of the spot on our hot little ball that would have to discretely radiate to produce a ray that narrow.

The small sphere has a circumference of 3.1416 cm.  Divide that by the 360 degrees around the thing and we get 0.0087266 cm/degree.  Now we need to divide that one degree's span by 6.057e16.  This tells us that the radiating area is a small circle on the surface of our ball 1.44e-19 cm across.  How big is that, for instance, in comparison to an iron atom?  An atom of iron has a diameter of 0.2482 nm or .0000000002482 meters or 2.482e-12 cm.  So dividing 2.482e-12 by 1.44e-19, we find that we need a PERFECTLY discrete ray of thermal energy to radiate from an area of the surface of this iron ball that is a little more than *one six-millionth the diameter of a single atom* of the iron composing our ball.

SSDD, care to explain?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer.  Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T.  All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.
> 
> The question of the finite speed limit on information (c) brings time into the question.  Neither we nor all universe's matter SSDD believes to be alive and thinking, can perceive our surroundings in real time.  There is always a passage of time and thus the temperature of a remote object whose temperature is changing due to some ongoing process, can NOT be known and there would be a 50/50 chance (ie, VERY close to a guarantee) that a colder object would inadvertently radiate to a hotter object and thus violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).



So lets see an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature.  You guys claim it is happening as if the claims were true...surely you can provide observed, measured examples.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

It has happened with every single piece of matter in the universe since the Big Bang.  

You're the one with the extraordinary claim.  You're the one with the burden of making a case.  You've been presented several 'experiments' that conflict seriously with your contention and you're explanations so far wouldn't have convinced a second grader. 

The real nail in the coffin of the idea that you have the SLIGHTEST scientific competency, is your unwillingness to alter your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  For god's sake, multiple individuals on your side of the environmental issues under discussion here have come out against you.  Forcefully.  Toddsterpatriot, of all people - called you a nitwit and completely justified the charge.

Until you admit that you've been wrong about this (and several other issues on which you've expressed your _personal wisdom_), it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that you're most ignorant fool most of us have ever had the displeasure to have met.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer.  Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T.  All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.
> 
> The question of the finite speed limit on information (c) brings time into the question.  Neither we nor any of the universe's matter that SSDD believes to be alive and thinking, can perceive our surroundings in real time.  There is always a passage of time and thus the temperature of a remote object whose temperature is changing due to some ongoing process, can NOT be known and there would be a 50/50 chance (ie, VERY close to a guarantee) that a colder object would inadvertently radiate to a hotter object and thus violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).



As the 1963 textbook quote Todd provided shows, examples demonstrating our point precisely surround us completely.  In ALL cases, NET radiative heat transfer is simply the algebraic sum of the radiation of ALL bodies in a system.

We have, in this argument, two possibilities: that all objects radiate infrared energy in all directions and that the heat transfer that takes place between bodies visible to each other is the simply the net transfer.  OR, all matter is somehow able to determine the EXACT temperature of every object in its surroundings, no matter the distance (ie, in gross violation of special relativity and causality, but that's a different post) and throttle its emanations to provide precisely the same results as would the net heat transfer that everyone who ever passed Physics 101 understands.  All matter in this, SSDD's world, is able to control how much energy it radiates in all directions with infinite accuracy.  Has SSDD been able to suggest a mechanism that performs these seemingly miraculous processes universally.  To my knowledge, the ONLY thing he has EVER suggested is that it takes place with the aid of "unknown forces".

Feel free to substitute "magic".

  Does Occam's Rule come to anyone's mind?



SSDD said:


> So lets see an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature.  You guys claim it is happening as if the claims were true...surely you can provide observed, measured examples.



No.  Evidence that what we say is true surrounds us all constantly.  Explain to us how your bizarre ideas do NOT violate Special Relativity, causality and the First Law of Thermodynamics.  We have provided you several different observations.  You have presented NONE.  Pony up, asshole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer.  Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T.  All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.
> ...



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

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

_

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

Why are you ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann constant?

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

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> It has happened with every single piece of matter in the universe since the Big Bang.
> 
> You're the one with the extraordinary claim.  You're the one with the burden of making a case.  You've been presented several 'experiments' that conflict seriously with your contention and you're explanations so far wouldn't have convinced a second grader.
> 
> ...



*it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that you're most ignorant fool most of us have ever had the displeasure to have met. *

To be fair, he hasn't pushed for us to waste trillions on less reliable, more expensive energy to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.1 degrees.
He hasn't argued for crippling our economy based on the theory that warmer is worse than cooler or that if we stopped using carbon fuels the climate would stop changing.

There are many more ignorant, much more dangerous fools out there.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Yeah.  There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Fighting global warming may be expensive, but it is not a waste.  Dealing with its unchecked effects will cost orders of magnitude MORE.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yeah.  There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.



There are idiots on the left that people also listen to, so what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Fighting global warming may be expensive, but it is not a waste.  Dealing with its unchecked effects will cost orders of magnitude MORE.



How do you separate natural hurricanes from "hurricanes caused by human CO2"?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yeah.  There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.



ROFL and your girlfriend reads tarot cards, right?


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

My girlfriend?  Tarot cards?  WTF are you talking about?


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.  There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.
> ...



If you care to name one, we can chat. But at the for the moment, we've been talking about SSDD.  The existence of other idiots doesn't get him off the hook.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


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



We can talk about the elephant in the room, but mocking Al Gore for his weight wouldn't be nice.

You're right, the existence of SSDD does not let Al Gore off the hook for his idiotic, economy destroying suggestions.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Nor vice versa

PS: when was the last time you heard anything out of Al Gore?

And perhaps more to the point, when was the last time anyone here concerned about AGW used Al Gore as a reference?

Don't get me wrong.  I think Al Gore is a great guy.  I voted for him twice for VP and once for President.  I've shaken his hand once.  I think almost everything he put out in his movie was correct and needed to be said.  However, as he himself would admit, he's not a climate scientist. If I want to tell you about some climate science, I'm going to go to the refereed journals, not to Al.  I am quite certain the same is true for every poster here who's concerned about AGW.  Too bad the deniers don't seem so concerned about the qualifications of the few sources from which they're forced to work

So... could you explain why you think Al Gore is relevant to any discussion of global warming?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Nor vice versa
> 
> PS: when was the last time you heard anything out of Al Gore?
> 
> ...



He has been less vociferous recently.

Or at least the press is covering his muttering less.

His Nobel Prize and Oscar for that error filled drone fest makes him relevant.
And, of course, he is an easy target for mocking. Well deserved mocking.


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

No, he actually doesn't deserve your mocking.  Keep in mind that a majority of your fellow Americans wanted him to be their president.  He single-handedly raised our awareness of the threat of global warming a hundred-fold.  Whether or not you think he should have, you'd have to admit the man was effective.   How much success have any of your denier icons had at undoing what he started?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, he actually doesn't deserve your mocking.  Keep in mind that a majority of your fellow Americans wanted him to be their president.  He single-handedly raised our awareness of the threat of global warming a hundred-fold.  Whether or not you think he should have, you'd have to admit the man was effective.   How much success have any of your denier icons had at undoing what he started?



Unfortunately, for tubby, we don't elect presidents based on majority vote.

Yes, his lies and exaggerations did raise awareness.

*How much success have any of your denier icons had at undoing what he started?*

How's that cap and trade working out for ya?


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

Cap and trade was never my idea and I never expressed any support for it.  I figured all those MBA's know what they were talking about.  And, maybe it would have worked just great if not for folks like you opposing it without cause.  I guess we're unlikely to know.  I find the situation serious enough now that I think carbon emissions need to be restricted by fiat.  It's way past time when we can just gently urge the world's fossil fuel consumers to move where they need to move. 

How are the opinions of the world's climate experts working out for you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Cap and trade was never my idea and I never expressed any support for it.  I figured all those MBA's know what they were talking about.  And, maybe it would have worked just great if not for folks like you opposing it without cause.  I guess we're unlikely to know.  I find the situation serious enough now that I think carbon emissions need to be restricted by fiat.  It's way past time when we can just gently urge the world's fossil fuel consumers to move where they need to move.
> 
> How are the opinions of the world's climate experts working out for you?



*Cap and trade was never my idea *

I was talking about Gore.

*And, maybe it would have worked just great if not for folks like you opposing it without cause.  *

Preventing damage to the economy is not "without cause"

*I find the situation serious enough now *

Right, because after we waste trillions you'll be able to point to the benefit. LOL!


----------



## Crick (Jul 28, 2014)

You asked me how cap and trade was working for me.  I gave you an answer.  Here is a very large article on emissions trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade.  Gore's name does not appear once.  I suppose he may have supported the idea, but it was not his.

What damage has the economy suffered from climate change responses?

If you want to minimize the amount of money that will have to be spent, ignoring global warming is precisely the WRONG thing to do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> You asked me how cap and trade was working for me.  I gave you an answer.  Here is a very large article on emissions trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade.  Gore's name does not appear once.  I suppose he may have supported the idea, but it was not his.
> 
> What damage has the economy suffered from climate change responses?
> 
> If you want to minimize the amount of money that will have to be spent, ignoring global warming is precisely the WRONG thing to do.



*You asked me how cap and trade was working for me.*

You asked me what the deniers did.

*What damage has the economy suffered from climate change responses?*

How many billions were wasted on less reliable energy?
How did Spain benefit from their massive green energy initiatives?
How much warming did Spain's wasted spending and economic damage prevent?

Please show all your work.

*ignoring global warming is precisely the WRONG thing to do*

How much warming will $1 trillion prevent? How about $2 trillion?

How many Cat 5 hurricanes will $3 trillion prevent?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How's that cap and trade working out for ya?



Ten northeastern states have been using it, called RGGI, since 2009. Emissions are down 5%, and electricity prices have fallen 8%.

Media Center - Environment Northeast

I hope you won't follow the failure-worship path of most conservatives, and will instead praise the success of RGGI.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How's that cap and trade working out for ya?
> ...



_*RGGI has now raised $1.75 billion for member states*, the majority of which is reinvested in energy efficiency and other consumer programs.  

Since RGGI's launch, emissions have declined significantly as electric generation from natural gas and renewables has displaced carbon-intensive generation from coal and oil, and as investments in energy efficiency have reduced demand for power. *Declining emissions have been accompanied by a drop in electricity prices, which are down 8% on average across the region since RGGI took effect in 2009.*_

Despite paying $1.75 billion in additional taxes, utilities still dropped prices 8%.
That is awesome! Fracking has been a real benefit to natural gas consumers.

If they gave the $1.75 billion back to rate payers, instead of the states, I wonder how much rates would have dropped?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



 [MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION]  Hey, where'd you go?
Running away may conserve energy, but it doesn't help your silly claim.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> It has happened with every single piece of matter in the universe since the Big Bang.
> 
> You're the one with the extraordinary claim.  You're the one with the burden of making a case.  You've been presented several 'experiments' that conflict seriously with your contention and you're explanations so far wouldn't have convinced a second grader.
> 
> ...



So no actual observed measured example at ambient temperature.  I understand.  Sucks to be you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It has happened with every single piece of matter in the universe since the Big Bang.
> ...



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

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


----------



## Crick (Jul 29, 2014)

Bingo!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You asked me how cap and trade was working for me.  I gave you an answer.  Here is a very large article on emissions trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade.  Gore's name does not appear once.  I suppose he may have supported the idea, but it was not his.
> ...



Still no answers to the questions?

Then again what do you expect from one that believes aerosols are not a gas.


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> You asked me how cap and trade was working for me.  I gave you an answer.  Here is a very large article on emissions trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade.  Gore's name does not appear once.  I suppose he may have supported the idea, but it was not his.
> 
> What damage has the economy suffered from climate change responses?
> 
> If you want to minimize the amount of money that will have to be spent, ignoring global warming is precisely the WRONG thing to do.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I did not.  You DID ask me how cap and trade was working for me and I have answered you.  Your complaints that I had not are unfounded.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How did Spain benefit from their massive green energy initiatives?



By decreasing the carbon output of their energy system.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much warming did Spain's wasted spending and economic damage prevent?



A dubious and disingenuous question, but the correct answer is "SOME".



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Please show all your work.



What work do you believe was involved in answering these questions?



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> ignoring global warming is precisely the WRONG thing to do





Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much warming will $1 trillion prevent? How about $2 trillion?



Infinitely more than will be prevented following your suggestions.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many Cat 5 hurricanes will $3 trillion prevent?



If they were up your ass you'd know.  Then, perhaps, you'd stop wasting our time demonstrating you failed your class on basic rhetoric.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 30, 2014)

For proof that "Green Energy" lowers prices look at Gasoline vs Diesel prices. The price of Gasoline was allways higher than Diesel until Ethanol. Every year since Ethanol, Gasoline has become cheaper than Diesel. Gasoline price was always much higher than Diesel during the summer peak in July & Diesel would price would peak in January. Now Gasoline price has peaked for the year & it didn't exceed Diesel price. The price spread is going to get very big by New Years thanks to Ethanol competition forcing Gasoline prices lower. 

It is a fact that "Green Energy" Ethanol has been & is saving US drivers over $1 a gallon at the pump.

According to data from 161 countries around the world, gasoline is more expensive than diesel fuel in 84% of all countries. On average, diesel is 10% cheaper but the difference varies considerably across countries as well as within countries over time. But since Ethanol production began in the USA, Gasoline prices have been pushed over 25% lower.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




So you don't have any observed, measured example of energy moving from cool objects to warm at ambient temperature either.  Didn't think so.  Continue to profess your faith if you like, but don't expect me to buy in without some sort of actual evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 30, 2014)

KissMy said:


> For proof that "Green Energy" lowers prices look at Gasoline vs Diesel prices. The price of Gasoline was allways higher than Diesel until Ethanol. Every year since Ethanol, Gasoline has become cheaper than Diesel. Gasoline price was always much higher than Diesel during the summer peak in July & Diesel would price would peak in January. Now Gasoline price has peaked for the year & it didn't exceed Diesel price. The price spread is going to get very big by New Years thanks to Ethanol competition forcing Gasoline prices lower.
> 
> It is a fact that "Green Energy" Ethanol has been & is saving US drivers over $1 a gallon at the pump.
> 
> According to data from 161 countries around the world, gasoline is more expensive than diesel fuel in 84% of all countries. On average, diesel is 10% cheaper but the difference varies considerably across countries as well as within countries over time. But since Ethanol production began in the USA, Gasoline prices have been pushed over 25% lower.



Disel is expensive because of road taxes....You get more diesel per barrel of crude so the manufacture of diesel and therefore the cost of diesel is less than gasoline.  Check the price of farm or marine diesel...subtract the road taxes (congressional scheme to make truckers pay for highways) and diesel is considerably less than gasoline.  

That idiot congressional scheme is why we don't have high efficiency diesel vehicles over here getting 55 to 65 miles per gallon running on a fuel that cost less than gasoline.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > For proof that "Green Energy" lowers prices look at Gasoline vs Diesel prices. The price of Gasoline was allways higher than Diesel until Ethanol. Every year since Ethanol, Gasoline has become cheaper than Diesel. Gasoline price was always much higher than Diesel during the summer peak in July & Diesel would price would peak in January. Now Gasoline price has peaked for the year & it didn't exceed Diesel price. The price spread is going to get very big by New Years thanks to Ethanol competition forcing Gasoline prices lower.
> ...



That tax difference is only 1% of the price difference between Gasoline & Diesel. It in no way explains the over 25% reduction in gasoline price. Try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



So you can't explain why the Stefan-Boltzmann constant says power emitted is a function of thermodynamic temperature, with no mention of surrounding temperature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2014)

KissMy said:


> For proof that "Green Energy" lowers prices look at Gasoline vs Diesel prices. The price of Gasoline was allways higher than Diesel until Ethanol. Every year since Ethanol, Gasoline has become cheaper than Diesel. Gasoline price was always much higher than Diesel during the summer peak in July & Diesel would price would peak in January. Now Gasoline price has peaked for the year & it didn't exceed Diesel price. The price spread is going to get very big by New Years thanks to Ethanol competition forcing Gasoline prices lower.
> 
> It is a fact that "Green Energy" Ethanol has been & is saving US drivers over $1 a gallon at the pump.
> 
> According to data from 161 countries around the world, gasoline is more expensive than diesel fuel in 84% of all countries. On average, diesel is 10% cheaper but the difference varies considerably across countries as well as within countries over time. But since Ethanol production began in the USA, Gasoline prices have been pushed over 25% lower.



Diesel is more expensive because of government sulfur regulations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You asked me how cap and trade was working for me.  I gave you an answer.  Here is a very large article on emissions trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade.  Gore's name does not appear once.  I suppose he may have supported the idea, but it was not his.
> ...



*None.*

Wrong. Billions have been wasted. Even over and above government handouts to Obama cronies.

*By decreasing the carbon output of their energy system.*

Quantify that benefit, monetarily.

*What work do you believe was involved in answering these questions?*

You did none. Actual work would show proof. But you can't.

*Infinitely more than will be prevented following your suggestions.*

I guess, if you think 0.0001 degrees is infinitely more.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 30, 2014)

Ethanol competition is pressuring gasoline prices much lower. Plus ethanol&#8217;s higher octane content gives refiners the ability to produce cheaper low-octane gasoline and upgrade the octane level with ethanol.  In early 2006, ethanol prices were about 80% of the price of gasoline. By early 2014, with the domestic ethanol market nearly saturated, ethanol prices at Iowa plants were about 58% of retail gasoline prices. That was even during a drought, just wait until this years record crop yield is harvested. Ethanol & Gasoline prices are going to tank, while the Diesel price spread widens far out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Ethanol competition is pressuring gasoline prices much lower. Plus ethanols higher octane content gives refiners the ability to produce cheaper low-octane gasoline and upgrade the octane level with ethanol.  In early 2006, ethanol prices were about 80% of the price of gasoline. By early 2014, with the domestic ethanol market nearly saturated, ethanol prices at Iowa plants were about 58% of retail gasoline prices. That was even during a drought, just wait until this years record crop yield is harvested. Ethanol & Gasoline prices are going to tank, while the Diesel price spread widens far out.



*Plus ethanols higher octane content *

 Plus ethanols lower energy content.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 30, 2014)

Everyone who uses Gasoline should be down on their thanking the Ethanol industry for keeping prices from rising like Oil & Diesel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Everyone who uses Gasoline should be down on their thanking the Ethanol industry for keeping prices from rising like Oil & Diesel.



We'd all be better off if the ethanol mandate was ended, immediately.

Well, maybe not the corn farmers. But everyone else.


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2014)

Why?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 30, 2014)

KissMy said:


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



You really don't have a clue, do you.  Right now the federal component of the road tax on diesel is 24.4 cents per gallon...the state road taxes on diesel range from a high in california of 54.9 cents per gallon in CT to a low of  12.7 cents per gallon in Alaska with the median being around 25 cents per gallon in addition to the 24.4 cent per gallon federal component.  

So you try again.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Why?



It is driving the monarch butterfly into extinction for one thing...all those fields that weren't fit for growing food or feed corn had overgrown with milkweed which is vital to the monarch butterfly's survival...those fields were fit for growing corn to burn for fuel...as a result, the monarch's food supply has been sharply cut...10 more years or ethanol subsidies will drive them to extinction....then we will have a species driven to extinction by the AGW hoax.


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



You are right.  There's an added point.  Monsanto RoundupReady GM corn has become the dominant variety throughout the midwest.  This corn tolerates Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.  Farmers can plant this corn then regularly douse the entire crop in Roundup killing every other plant in the field.  That would include the Milkweed of course.  There has been a very close correlation between increasing planting of RoundupReady corn and the decline of the Monarch population.

My wife and I turned our front yard into a butterfly garden almost 20 years ago.  We have a good dozen milkweed bushes (Asclepias Tuberosa).  We've noted the decline here and we've read about what's been happening in Mexico.  I see we didn't look hard enough.  This is the first I've heard of this story.  Thanks for the information.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 30, 2014)

Crick said:


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



So are you agreeing that AGW is a hoax?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 31, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Milkweed in cultivated fields aren't what the monarch depended on...it was all those fallow fields that had reverted to nature which are now planted as a result of ethanol subsidies...cut them...discontinue the bad idea and milkweed will reign in those crappy fields within 3 years.  Green stupidity, and the AGW hoax are driving a beautiful species into extinction...for no good reason whatsoever.

Also...interesting to note you cheerleading for kissmy's stupid claim of a 1% tax difference between gasoline and diesel.  Do you cheer for any dishonest statement that happens to agree with your political position, or were you really unaware of the federal and state road tax burden on diesel fuel?


----------



## Politico (Jul 31, 2014)

How is that rewards going for ya?


----------



## KissMy (Jul 31, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



You're ignorant lying asshole cherry-picking tax in difference states to try to back your lie. The average difference for all states is less than 5 cents a gallon which equals 1% of the price of fuel at the pump. Ethanol has driven Gasoline price down well over 25% yet you still lie claiming the 1% tax difference between Gasoline & Diesel is responsible for that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



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

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?


 [MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION] Is your screen too cold? Can't see your error?


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION] Is your screen too cold? Can't see your error?


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wrong. [that alternative energy technologies are not a waste]. Billions have been wasted. Even over and above government handouts to Obama cronies.



Obviously we differ on some fundamentals.  I believe that reducing our carbon emissions has value.  You apparently believe it has none.  It will be a little difficult to come to agreement on common terms. 



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> By decreasing the carbon output of their energy system.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Quantify that benefit, monetarily.



Okay.  Twelve trillion, six dollars and seventy-three cents.



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> What work do you believe was involved in answering these questions?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You did none. Actual work would show proof. But you can't.



You asked me nothing that required performing work to answer.  You asked me nothing even amenable to a proof. 



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> Infinitely more than will be prevented following your suggestions.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> I guess, if you think 0.0001 degrees is infinitely more.



Lim (1/n) as n ->0 is infinity and n=0 is the denier plan


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. [that alternative energy technologies are not a waste]. Billions have been wasted. Even over and above government handouts to Obama cronies.
> ...



*Okay. Twelve trillion, six dollars and seventy-three cents.*

Show your work.

*and n=0 is the denier plan*

You should tell the voters we need to spend tens of trillions, because 0.0001 > 0


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2014)

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha



hahahahaahahhahahahahahahaha

hahaahhahahahahhahahahhahahaha

oh, this is too good!!! hahahaahhahahahahaahhahahha


----------



## SSDD (Jul 31, 2014)

KissMy said:


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



You really aren't very bright are you.  Highway diesel in my part of the country is currently around  $3.85.....the federal component of that price is 24.4 cents or 6.34%...the state tax component of that tax is 63.6 cents per gallon or 16.52%...the total tax on highway diesel is 22.86%...

There is a 24.4 cent federal tax component on diesel in every state...the individual states place their own highway tax on gasoline and diesel respectively at the following rates...

As you can see your 1% claim is bullshit even in Alaska which places the lowest highway tax on diesel...the amount of tax you pay on diesel there is still 56.8 cents per gallon and a gallon of diesel is around 4 dollars so the tax you are paying, in the least taxed state is still 14%.

You can't cherry pick enough to support your 1% claim anywhere in the country since the federal component of the highway tax is over 6% everywhere.

Alabama	39.3	46.3
Alaska	26.4	32.4
Arizona	37.4	43.4
Arkansas	40.2	47.2
California	69	79.5
Colorado	40.4	44.9
Connecticut	64.4	70.6
Delaware	41.4	46.4
District of Columbia	41.9	47.9
Florida	53.4	54.9
Georgia	47.8	56.3
Hawaii	68	75.2
Idaho	43.4	49.4
Illinois	62.8	70.1
Indiana	61.4	76.2
Iowa	40.4	47.9
Kansas	43.4	51.4
Kentucky	46.2	43.9
Louisiana	38.4	44.4
Maine	49.9	57.1
Maryland	41.9	48.7
Massachusetts	41.9	47.9
Michigan	61.3	64.4
Minnesota	46.5	52
Mississippi	37.2	43.2
Missouri	35.7	41.7
Montana	46.2	53
Nebraska	46	51.4
Nevada	51.5	53
New Hampshire	38	44
New Jersey	32.9	41.9
New Mexico	37.3	47.2
New York	69.6	75.1
North Carolina	57.6	63.6
North Dakota	41.4	47.4
Ohio	46.4	52.4
Oklahoma	35.4	38.4
Oregon	49.4	54.7
Pennsylvania	50.7	63.6
Rhode Island	51.4	57.4
South Carolina	35.2	41.2
South Dakota	42.4	48.4
Tennessee	39.8	42.8
Texas	38.4	44.4
Utah	42.9	48.9
Vermont	43.9	53.4
Virginia	38.6	44.7
Washington	55.9	61.9
West Virginia	51.8	56.5
Wisconsin	51.3	57.3
Wyoming	32.4	38.4


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



thanks, he proves that the only thing the k00ks have comes out their butts.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 31, 2014)

jc456 said:


> thanks, he proves that the only thing the k00ks have comes out their butts.



Seems like they just go through their lives just believing whatever some person whose political philosophy matches theirs tells them...or whatever they want to believe without actually checking anything to see if their belief jibes with the facts.  kiss my will continue to believe that there is only a 1% difference between gas and diesel no matter how many facts he sees to the contrary...he believes..he has faith...and that is enough for him.  Seems that all lefties are like that.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 31, 2014)

You are a lying retard! The EIA says the average tax difference between Gasoline & Diesel for all states & federal combined is 6.53 cents. That equals 1.7% difference in tax on $3.79 Diesel. Go ahead & try to lie some more you stupid ass!!!!!!!!

Again how is the 1.7% tax difference accounting for the over 25% lower gasoline price?


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



Your point is valid.



SSDD said:


> ..cut them...discontinue the bad idea and milkweed will reign in those crappy fields within 3 years.



At the rate their dying off, I'm not certain they'll last 3 more years.  An alternative would be to either ban Roundup ready corn or roundup itself.  Or at least severely restrict its use.

I have never been a big ethanol fan.  As far as reducing carbon emissions, it seems to be near neutral at best.  I agree that their are unwanted side effects to ethanol and I would not put up a fight to protect it.  I will, of course, put up a fight to use all other possible means to reduce GHG emissions.  So, if actions taken to cut back on ethanol unavoidably also act against other GHG reductions, I would oppose them. 



SSDD said:


> Green stupidity, and the AGW hoax are driving a beautiful species into extinction...for no good reason whatsoever.



The green movement is not stupid and AGW is not a hoax.   The monarch might well be driven to extinction by this, but you're going to have to spread the blame a lot wider than you've done so far.  I think the center of that shotgun spread ought to be the folks at Monsanto and the folks who approved Roundup Ready who didn't see the potential harm likely to come from dowsing millions of acres of croplands with herbicides.  Now Roundup is actually relatively benign stuff (if you're not one of the thousands of plants it will kill in minues).  It breaks down both at the surface and under the soil within 24 hours.  It is not a persistent toxin.  The problem here, of course, is the monoculture philosophy.



SSDD said:


> Also...interesting to note you cheerleading for kissmy's stupid claim of a 1% tax difference between gasoline and diesel.



You have me confused with someone else.  I've made no comment on this gas vs diesel discussion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2014)

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

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?




   [MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION] Is your screen too cold? Can't see your error? 
Do you need a braille screen? Translator?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 1, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Roundup and GM corn are not driving the monarch into extinction...it is an unintended consequence and logical conclusion of poorly thought out green dreams that is driving the monarch into extinction...the same sort of unintended consequences that are killing millions and causing unmeasurable misery in the third world.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 1, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .
> 
> You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?
> 
> ...



You still talking?  Let me know when you have an observed, measured example of energy transferring from a cold object to a warm object at ambient temperature...till then, you are doing nothing but professing your faith.  Fine if you want to believe...Without some actual evidence, however, I don't.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 1, 2014)

KissMy said:


> You are a lying retard! The EIA says the average tax difference between Gasoline & Diesel for all states & federal combined is 6.53 cents. That equals 1.7% difference in tax on $3.79 Diesel. Go ahead & try to lie some more you stupid ass!!!!!!!!
> 
> Again how is the 1.7% tax difference accounting for the over 25% lower gasoline price?



The problem is that you can't see through to the bottom line.  There is a 6 cent difference between the federal tax on gasoline and diesel to begin with, then you add on the individual  state road tax.

Ethanol may be a bit cheaper at the pump, but the cost of the subsidies, and the damage it causes to engines not designed to burn it (most) makes ethanol much more expensive than gasoline.    

Ethanol is an excellent solvent...it dissolves plastic, rubber and even aluminum.

Ethanol is a drying agent...it causes rubber seals and hoses to become brittle and crack.

Ethanol is an excellent cleanser and while one might "think" that is a good thing, it cleans years of deposits in older engines and washes that gunk which was not a problem right through the engine, which is a problem.

Ethanol will absorb, and combine with water...result...bad outcome for engines not specifically designed for it.

Ethanol ignites at a higher temperature than gasoline...result, higher combustion chamber temperatures resulting in damage to pistons.

Look at the fine print of your auto manufacturer warranty..if you are burning ethanol and your engine is damaged by it, the manufacturer is not going to cover the damage.

And since there is less energy in a gallon of ethanol "enriched" gas than standard gasoline, we get fewer miles per gallon..also increasing the cost.

Cost to repair the sort of damage ethanol can range from 2000 to 8000 per vehicle according to consumer reports...multiply that times the number of engines running in the US that aren't specifically designed to run on ethanol.

And like most green initiatives, it harms the poor the most since they can least afford a fuel that causes their gas mileage to drop and causes damage to their engines...and how are they going to afford a new vehicle when ethanol kills their clunker..

And ethanol subsidies have the added bonus of driving the monarch butterfly into extinction.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong about ethanol being cheaper in the long run than you are...in typical liberal fashion..you simply can't follow your idea out to its logical end.  You get worked up over the surface gloss and fail to see the rot underneath.


----------



## FireFly (Aug 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > You are a lying retard! The EIA says the average tax difference between Gasoline & Diesel for all states & federal combined is 6.53 cents. That equals 1.7% difference in tax on $3.79 Diesel. Go ahead & try to lie some more you stupid ass!!!!!!!!
> ...



The data proves KissMy is correct. You failed your point & reverted to oil company strawman talking points attacks on ethanol.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 1, 2014)

FireFly said:


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



Sorry, but kiss my was wrong...the numbers themselves prove him wrong....the additional costs of ethanol make him, and you, very wrong.  And the damage caused by ethanol is not a straw man..the damage is real and being documented every day.  Nice of you to identify yourself as a very shallow thinker though....always helps to know what sort of person you are talking to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



The formula clearly says a body emits energy as a function of its thermodynamic temperature. 

Can you understand what that means?

It doesn't say it emits unless something warmer is nearby.

*a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. *

This guy in the 1963 seems to have measured energy transferring from cold surroundings (296 K) to a warmer human (307 K). How'd he do that? It's easy, he used the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the one that you keep ignoring.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



The numbers prove you wrong, but you can't admit the truth. The tax difference is in no way the reason for the huge drop in gasoline price. If you knew anything about supply & demand you would understand that. Non of your ideas or thoughts are worth anything if you can't be honest.


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Non of your ideas or thoughts are worth anything if you can't be honest.



Bingo.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Non of your ideas or thoughts are worth anything if you can't be honest.
> ...



Take his advice to heart....and help him find a math tutor.


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



The comment about honesty was addressed to you. I second it.  Twixt the lot of us, the one most needful of a tutor would be you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Maybe your physics tutor has a friend?


----------



## Kosh (Aug 2, 2014)

Crick said:


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



OH the irony of those comments from the AGW cult and liar.


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2014)

Oh, the irony of that statement coming from you.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 3, 2014)

Apparently some scientists are paid more than that to deny global warming.


----------



## Crick (Aug 3, 2014)

THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.



Yeah cause selling people gas and oil to power their homes and vehicles is such and evil act.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 3, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Apparently some scientists are paid more than that to deny global warming.



Incorrect! Many are paid more via tax payer money to try and prove that humans are the cause as many governments want to justify their high taxation or use it to tax other nations to fund their over bloated social programs.

Then again why give up your Bentley when you can just allow the money to roll in.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.



More proof that the AGW cult is not connected to reality and relies on their religious scriptures to formulate their thoughts.


----------



## Crick (Aug 3, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > THAT is certainly where the money's at. This fantasy from deniers that the fossil fuel industry has no motive, has no money or is the more ethical of the parties in this discussion wouldn't be found believable by a kindergartener.
> ...



Dipshit.  They've already been caught running a disinformation campaign modeled after the tobacco industry and the same sort of campaign run by the ID folks against evolution.  They fund every denier they can find: Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr, Willie Soon, Sallie Bailunas, Tim Ball, the Heartland Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, ALEC, Beacon Hill, the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Energy Research.  The fossil fuel industry has far more reason to be dishonest (billions of them) than do the world's climate scientists; which seems to be the only alternative.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



And that experiment of 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature rise, you have it now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*They've already been caught running a disinformation campaign modeled after the tobacco industry and the same sort of campaign run by the ID folks against evolution.*

I know. Eliminating the MWP. Mike's Nature trick. Hiding the decline.

Just awful.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Yeah cause driving in your car to work and cooking your dinner is the same as smoking cancer sticks.


----------



## Crick (Aug 4, 2014)

Do you even read the posts you're responding to?  Your comments are completely disconnected from the material to which - nominally - you're responding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Is this an Amendment to the 2nd Law you've discovered?
> ...


 
* If you are seeing cool objects then it is because light from a source warmer than your eye is reaching your eye.*

I've seen fireflies, cooler than 98 F, with my eye.
Do you feel fireflies are warm-blooded?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*Of course sunlight would reflect from the ice to the metal...the sun being warmer than the metal...*

Of course that means that light from an LED would not reflect from the ice to the metal....if the metal was 2000 K.
Correct?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Oooooh, it's all a big evil conspiracy by those villains who enjoy destroying the Earth!

You are a caricature of a wacko environmentalist, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *When you find that you must lie,*
> ...


* 



*

*When did I ever say that an object stops emitting when a warmer object approaches? I said that a cool object doesn't emit towards a warmer object.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> *Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*
> 
> Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress
> 
> ...






The man is an idiot.. The null hypothesis kills the meme dead. But if you look closely you will find that the idiot gets to call it, not science or the scientific method..  

The whole thing is a ploy and a sham...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *<snip>*
> *When did I ever say that an object stops emitting when a warmer object approaches? I said that a cool object doesn't emit towards a warmer object.*



When did electrons/photons become intelligent and deiced where they can and cannot be emitted? All objects emit in all directions. Collision/deflection is why the cooler is not felt by the warmer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *<snip>
> ...


 
SSDD has a unique theory.
Photons don't collide.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LOL

Protons do...  but your right photons do not..  The point was about heat transfer (energy movement).  My Bad..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 
No problem.
SSDD's theory keeps evolving, every time we point out the holes.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 2, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Oooooh, it's all a big evil conspiracy by those villains who enjoy destroying the Earth!
> 
> You are a caricature of a wacko environmentalist, right?



They exported the manufacturing pollution & exploitation problems to Asia so we can't see them any more. Now when environmentalist raise hell about pollution & the environment, they just say, what pollution or environmental damage? I don't see any pollution or environmental damage. Those wacko environmentalist are just making shit up again! Move along, nothing to see here!

It worked like a dream.

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Oooooh, it's all a big evil conspiracy by those villains who enjoy destroying the Earth!
> ...



If that's the case, then why aren't all you wackos working to get laws changed overseas instead of constantly trying to make them more severe here?


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2014)

We vote for environmentaly conscious politicians and support intelligent, progressive corporations and speak out in the internet's global forums in an attempt to do just that.  What were you thinking we should be doing?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Oooooh, it's all a big evil conspiracy by those villains who enjoy destroying the Earth!
> ...



Love the Marxist WWF... 99.9 of what they purport is a lie to secure total control over the world populace. They are an extension of the UN and the IPCC.  You should pick your sources more carefully.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Communists, Totalitarians and Marxists are in control in those countries already and you dont step on the toes of like minds..


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 3, 2014)

I'm no climatologist, but I"d assume the forgery of evidence required to prove such a thing would cost more than the reward for doing so.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> I'm no climatologist, but I"d assume the forgery of evidence required to prove such a thing would cost more than the reward for doing so.



Hitler managed to kill 6 million Jews on a Lie... Many sympathizers were duped until their deaths. The reward is control and power..   Power Corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


----------



## NLT (Oct 3, 2014)

Disprove climate change? They have'nt even proved that it exsists yet.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

NLT said:


> Disprove climate change? They have'nt even proved that it exsists yet.



Yes it does!

Just looking out my window proves it!  Yesterday it was76 degrees, sunny, warm and this morning its 24 degrees an 3 inches of SNOW!

And in all seriousness, the climate has made many shifts over millions of years. The climate does change but how and why is still a mystery.  Thinking man can control it is shear idiocy.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I have been saying that Asia is the problem all along. Food & medical prices are rising due to manufacturing pollution, climate issues, lack of clean water & exploitation problems. Fix the problems or pay a lot more to live or die trying.

China admits pollution brought about 'cancer villages'


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Oooooh, it's all a big evil conspiracy by those villains who enjoy destroying the Earth!
> ...



Trust NOTHING that you ever see coming from the WWF.. A bunch of lobster-eating lawyers selling teddy bears and shopping bags.. 

What do you THINK you're looking at in that photo above? 
It was selected to SUGGEST many things to their intended fund-raising victims. 



Spoiler: What's That Picture?? 



Photo credit above: "_Rubbish dumped on the tundra outside llulissat in Greenland stand in stark contrast to icebergs behind from the Sermeq Kujullaq or llulissat Ice fjord – a Unesco world heritage site_." Photograph: Global Warming Images/WWF-Canon.



Melting ice and a garbage dump.. Pulls at your wallet dont it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Worst part about that picture is, it is fake. It was Photoshopped. Pixel variations show a much tighter grouping around the trash while the ocean is further apart indicating two very different distances to objects from the same focal point...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...




Nawwwww.. I'm SHOCKED.. WWF doctoring images to optimize their fundraising?? They probably had a great shot of a couple plastic bottles on the bay with the ice behind it -- and the marketing guys wanted bigger and better garbage...


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2014)

The US cattle herd at 61-year low due to weather.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> The US cattle herd at 61-year low due to weather.



Love to see your source.  According to farmers and ranchers around Me in Wyoming its federal regulations and the cost of feed corn (that liberal fools are suing as fuel) is the driving factor in the decisions to reduce herd size.  They simply can not afford to grow cattle when the food becomes too expensive. 

So if you mean that Federal regulations have influenced markets negatively to produce high costs to the general public you would be right.  The weather reduced corn crops this year. The Fed drove the price sky high by increasing the ethanol demand. The EPA is the problem..


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Are you sure the picture is fake??? There are many more pictures.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > The US cattle herd at 61-year low due to weather.
> ...


You know absolutly nothing about farming, energy corn prices or ethanol.

Corn did spike a couple years back because of drought, not ethanol. Feed value is not lost in ethanol production. All the corn protein that builds muscle/meat in livestock comes out of the ethanol plant as DDG feed. Only starch is converted to ethanol instead of cattle just turning it into methane if they ate it. That methane was hard on cattle & reduced feed efficiency plus it is 15 times worse for global warming than CO2. Today corn price is selling below production cost even as ethanol production will set new records. Farmers will cut back on corn acres next year because they are losing money at current prices.

Most cattle were slaughtered due to grasslands droughts Texas through Kansas. In the north 5'ft of snow covered & killed off a large amount of cattle.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Provide your source for these images.  

It appears you are trying to use an OLD dump site, which was near the shore, but has been cleaned up and is no longer in use as a political weapon.  Several of your photos (or should I say Visualphotos.com) show areas where you are some 300-900 meters from the ocean where bailing of the waste was conducted for recycling and movement when the area is not land locked in snow and ice.

The dump site in question is one no longer used for open dumping. In fact, if memory serves, this area clean up is completed. 

Do you even know where this site is?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



The spring kill was minor.  It is the cost of food production that is killing the farming community along with relentless EPA regulations that no one can meet. You idiots keep trying to kill millions with your stupidity..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




What is the enviro message that you THINK you see in those pix?  Something about ice and polar bears and garbage?  Fascinating.....  you realize you cant even dig a grave up there for about 9 months of the year.. What would YOU suggest????


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Wrong! - Just proves you are clueless about farming, energy, corn prices & ethanol.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The caption I posted for the original gives a location.  IF this mess exists, my guess is its a winter transfer site, that gets loaded onto barges when the shipping can take it out.  Not gonna have a buried dump out on the tundra.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> What is the enviro message that you THINK you see in those pix?  Something about ice and polar bears and garbage?  Fascinating.....  you realize you cant even dig a grave up there for about 9 months of the year.. What would YOU suggest????



The problem i find with most people like this liberal, they do not think things through. There is a reason that these people demand that thier produce and other things come in burnable boxes and packing.  they burn it for warmth during the winter and these people create very little garbage. Only in bigger cities where most liberals congregate do these types of problems arise.  These people scream about everyone else  and refuse to look at themselves and their own behavior.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Nope.. STILL more market competition for less corn.  You get SOME weight of feed out of the ethanol processed corn, but you are losing MASSIVE amounts of weight of feed in the processing versus feeding whole corn.  THAT and the freakin processors are marking up the by product because it is THEIR corn now and they can mark it up and be another layer in the supply chain.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



I live and work around ranchers. What i do, they count on for their herds safety and life. In fact, I had dinner with one of the bigger ranchers in the area last week. I will trust his opinion one hell of a lot more than yours..


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2014)

You live and work around ranchers? I live and work around jet engine designers, butchers and ministers and I don't know shit about what they do.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

llulissat, Greenland 

And it is a packaging station for trash.  The area near the beach has been abandoned after clean up and a more modern area of compression and bailing is now in use. The waste is now transported to power plants for disposal...  

So this is a NON-PROBLEM....  I am shocked that someone would use this as a weapon when it should be heralded as a success..  And the first photo was photo shopped as I described.  hmmmmmmmm   UK Gardian article... Color me surprised...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> You live and work around ranchers? I live and work around jet engine designers, butchers and ministers and I don't know shit about what they do.



I talk with people.  If you choose to be a recluse with only like minded people you doom yourself to waiting for the next hand out..


----------



## KissMy (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Now I know you are full of shit. If you live and work around ranchers, their cattle eat grass & hay, so they did not kill off their herds because of high corn prices. Feedlot cattle are the ones that eat corn silage & corn DDGs. Local basis corn price offered to farmers today is $2.83/bu. It cost $5/bu to plant, grow & harvest that corn. Corn production will get slashed next year proving ethanol is not driving up corn or food prices.

Name the EPA regulations on cattle ranchers.

Where is the corn on this cattle ranch???


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You live and work around ranchers? I live and work around jet engine designers, butchers and ministers and I don't know shit about what they do.
> ...



You talk with people.  Are these people scientists?  Are they doing research?  Are they objective?  Do they know anything besides their personal experiences and those of the small number of people they talk to?  No, no, and no.  Putting up your bullshitting over a couple of beers with peer reviewed studies is a crap strategy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I know you despise the scientific method of observation and recording. That is specifically why your side has lost the battle.  You dont do science, you force marxist control agenda on people while mixing in a little science to give your true desires cover. That makes you more dangerous than others and why we must defeat your lies daily.


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2014)

This coming from the absolute grand champion of unsubstantiated assertions.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 4, 2014)

Toxic Garbage going right into the ocean killing the fish you eat. Less than 20 percent of the 1950 population of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 4, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Toxic Garbage going right into the ocean killing the fish you eat. Less than 20 percent of the 1950 population of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea.


 
It's true, people eat the yummy fish.


----------

