# how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we



## IanC (Mar 15, 2012)

> The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> 
> This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:
> 
> ...


Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

for konradv. you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not. no positive feedback, no problem.

ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 31C and is seldom above 29C? different pathways are expanded or contracted depending on how much energy is available to power them. and the natural order of things is to reduce the impact of disturbance to the system. negative feedback. homeostasis. 

the climate models are rough projections of what may happen given the few parameters that are fed into them. slight changes in how clouds (or a host of other things) can radically change the outcome of those results. the feddbacks of the IPCC climate models are obviously only as good as the information and programing put into them. I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me.  but we shall see.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 15, 2012)

Positive feedbacks. Melting of ice, exposure of seawater that used to be covered by the ice, melting of the permafrost, increased water vapor in the air due to increased troposphere temperature. Just a few.

Negative feedbacks?  Maybe clouds, maybe not.

The differance between 180 ppm and 280 ppm of CO2 is the differance of ice sheets reaching south of the Canadian border. Yet we are to suppose that the differance between 280 ppm and 390 ppm will be minimal? That the differance between 0.7 ppm of CH4 and 1.8 ppm will have no effect. Plus we have industrial GHGs that have no natural analog, and are thousands of times as effective as CO2.

The effects that we are feeling today are from the GHG levels of at least 30 years ago. You are correct in that the ocean acts like a ballast, and absorbs most of the excess heat. But that creates a warmer ocean, that also adds to the heat down the road. So the effects of the GHGs that are in the atmosphere at present will not be felt fully until at least the early 2040's. 

So what will that be like? Well, we are already seeing the very rapid decline in the Arctic Sea Ice. By then, there will almost certainly be several summer months with little to no ice. And a good chance that the Arctic Clathrates will be outgassing in a major way. Certainly the permafrose will be. For the open ocean creates warmer conditons inland, and the already rapidly melting permafrost will be melting even more rapidly. Plus, the change from tundra to shrub lands will also tend to insulate the soil in the winter, and increase the absorption of heat in the summer. 

Not only will we be dealing with the amount of GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere, we will have major amounts being added by the increase in warmth. And a major portion of the GHGs will be in the form of CH4, up to 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2 in the first decade after it is emitted.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 15, 2012)

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - ARCTIC WARMING

Water flowing into the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic Ocean is about 2°C warmer today than it has been for at least 2,000 years, from Arctic warming amplification (so another feedback), according to a Science paper, Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water, by R. Spielhagen et al., January 2011.

Another factor in Arctic amplification is a 2011 finding by C. Kinnard that "early 21st-century temperatures of Atlantic water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 1450  years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming."

Some global warming emissions (methane, tropospheric ozone, black carbon) concentrate over the Arctic and may be adding to Arctic amplification (Short-lived pollutants in the Arctic: Their climate impact, P. K. Quinn et al, 2008). Atmospheric methane is concentrated over the poles, especially the Arctic (hydroxyl is not efficient at removing methane over the cold regions). The Svalbard atmospheric monitoring site has been recording a recent increase in Arctic methane concentration.


----------



## eots (Mar 15, 2012)

*klingon news*


----------



## waltky (May 10, 2013)

Granny says, "Dat's right - one day there won't be no air to breathe an' den we all gonna die...

*Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark*
_10 May 2013 - Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have broken through a symbolic mark._


> Daily measurements of CO2 at a US government agency lab on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time.  The station, which sits on the Mauna Loa volcano, feeds its numbers into a continuous record of the concentration of the gas stretching back to 1958.  The last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.  Scientists say the climate back then was also considerably warmer than it is today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 11, 2013)

The whole CO2 thing is a complete goof.............


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 11, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> The whole CO2 thing is a complete goof.............
> 
> 
> CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube



good youtube


----------



## mamooth (May 11, 2013)

Amazingly stupid YouTube, yet skook seems to think it makes sense. It really is the best he can do, though, given his limited brainpower.

If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque black. Even though the concentration of ink molecules is just a tiny trace, it absorbs 100% of visible light. According to skook's theory, that can't happen, since it's just a trace. Given it does happen, it thus proves how skook's theory is retarded, as is any person who spouts such a retarded theory.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 11, 2013)

Yes, I love these people with their "it's just a trace" idiocy. One gram is a very small amount, so just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cynide. Cannot possibly hurt you, right?


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> > The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> >
> > This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:
> >
> ...



I hope you get a kickback from all the free advertising you give his website.. Seriously man, you must have a Spencer shrine in your basement, if the man farted you would try and bottle it..ROFL..

It doesn't warm the surface, the surface is already warmer. It slows heat loss, it doesn't warm the surface. They already know that more energy in means more energy out at a higher rate. In other words, the more the sun warms the surface, the faster the heat will be dissipated away. It's entropy doing it's job. 

IF by some miracle the surface and the atmosphere were to reach a state of thermal equilibrium, the radiative transfer would neither add to or subtract from the system, hence blackbody radiation. 

The earth's atmosphere isn't a greenhouse, nor is it anything like one. A closer analogy would be a fine mesh. EM radiation or light comes in well enough to give us light and warm the surface, and when that heat is released it is diffused by the atmosphere. It keeps a more closer to uniform global temperature and slows the heat loss, but DOES NOT heat the surface further.

Spencer used the insulated house story again... Too funny.. The insulation does NOT make the house warmer, it slows the loss of heat. If you turn off the heater it will not stay the same temperature or get any warmer, it will cool down and do so at the rate the insulation levels will permit. Now turn the heater up to 90 F and what will happen? The house will warm until it reaches the 90F temperature and then the thermostat will shut it off. It will reach 90F faster the more insulation you add, but it will NOT warm the interior any more than the heater or heat source. The reason? The 1st and 2nd law negate perfect machines and lossless energy transfer, as well as energy flowing back to it's warmer source without work being done to make it happen.

I think spencer has invested so much into this theory he just refuses to accept reality even when he himself says it...

His own words from your link...

*"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."*-Roy Spencer

Yes it does, and that IS NOT the same as warming the surface even more than it already is .. It can reach a state of equilibrium with the energy coming in quicker, but it cannot produce any extra energy or warming..

Now I know you're going to go and pretend it makes no sense again and do your standard Ian dumb act. Please be my guest, and show me that you lack the mental capacity to think on the proper level to see things as they are and not as you wish them to be.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Amazingly stupid YouTube, yet skook seems to think it makes sense. It really is the best he can do, though, given his limited brainpower.
> 
> If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque black. Even though the concentration of ink molecules is just a tiny trace, it absorbs 100% of visible light. According to skook's theory, that can't happen, since it's just a trace. Given it does happen, it thus proves how skook's theory is retarded, as is any person who spouts such a retarded theory.



your ratio is all f'ed up

put a drop of India ink in an Olympic size swimming pool  

and the water does not change color


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2013)

Jon - 

So a drop of botulism in a swimming pool is fine, right? It doesn't change the colour of the water at all, does it?

I don't know why people complained about radiocative Caesium near Chernobyl - there were only tiny amounts in the soil and water, and radioactivity occurs naturally in soil right around the world?


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon -
> 
> So a drop of botulism in a swimming pool is fine, right? It doesn't change the colour of the water at all, does it?
> 
> I don't know why people complained about radiocative Caesium near Chernobyl - there were only tiny amounts in the soil and water, and radioactivity occurs naturally in soil right around the world?



co2 is not botulism

get real


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2013)

Jon Bezerk - 

I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough. 

Water is not poisonous, and is in fact essential to our survival. But drink enough of it fast enough, and we die. 

We know that trace elements can influence climate, because we have seen this with the increase (and now decrease) in the ozone hole. Deniers seem to often forget that.

What is critical here is obviously not the fact that CO2 exists as a trace gas, but that the dramatic increase in its quantity alters the very fine balance of the atmopshere.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon Bezerk -
> 
> I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.
> 
> ...



your comparison is still stupid 

co2 is not a poison


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2013)

Jon - 

Is water a poison?

Is it possible for a human to die by ingesting water?


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon -
> 
> Is water a poison?
> 
> Is it possible for a human to die by ingesting water?



water in itself is not a poison

and neither it the trace amount of co2 

in the atmosphere


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2013)

Jon - 

Ok, we are making progress!

We know that tiny amounts of botulism and radioactive caesium can destroy a large area or ecosystem.

If water is NOT a poison, but can still be fatal in excessive quantites, why do you not think CO2 could also be harmful to the environment in excessive quantities?


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon Bezerk -
> 
> I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.
> 
> ...



The best scientists in the world have REAL things to research. They do not seek degrees in climate science, or resource management, or any other such Fads. 

Do you know who Raymond Laflamme is? No? How about Stephen Hawking? Of course you do he is the rockstar of the cosmology and theoretical physics world. Well Raymond happened to be one of Hawkings doctoral students who helped Dr.Hawking understand times arrow and corrected him. Hawking thanked him in his book, "A Brief History of Time".

He's not famous, in fact outside of Quantum Computing Academic circles few know who he is.. But he was brilliant enough to correct Hawking as a Doctoral student. 

The point is, the greatest scientific minds are not necessarily in any one field. And certainly not exclusively in climate science. Stop making bold and immature claims already...

First the ACTUAL GLOBAL CO2 PPM IS 395 PPM. The 399 measurement was exclusive tothe Mauna Loa observatory, when they take it into the global mean it is 395. That was a misrepresentation by HUFFPO oldsocks put up..

And who is to say it's a dangerous level? It's not getting hotter yet so stop the panic attack. 

Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it...


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon -
> 
> Ok, we are making progress!
> 
> ...



you are full of nonsense 

--LOL


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2013)

Gslack - 

As cosmologist Stephen Hawking celebrates his 70th birthday he warns that climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world.

He said: &#8220;It is possible that the human race could become extinct but it is not inevitable. I think it is almost certain that a disaster, such as nuclear war or global warming will befall the earth within a thousand years.&#8221;

Stephen Hawking: Climate change greatest threat posed to human-kind | RTCC - Climate change news



> It's not getting hotter yet



Actually it is - average temperatures have risen during the past 100 years. By all means go and check.


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Jon -
> ...



Ok, so this one was simply too difficult for you, and that's fine. 

I think most people will be able to understand the issue, so let's see what they have to say. Why not go and drink 25 litres of water and report back to us on how much healthier you feel?


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



no it is not to difficult

co2 is a trace gas 

get over it 

it is not botulism 

it is not radioactive 

it is essential to life on the planet


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> As cosmologist Stephen Hawking celebrates his 70th birthday he warns that climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world.
> 
> ...



LOL,that was a pretty general statement he made. You notice he also mentioned a natural disaster and nuclear war as well... Funny how you don't notice that.. ALsoI wasn't aware he was researching climate change? When did he start doing that? LOL..

It rose and now its not.. And? It rose before, even before us, it fell too.. Now prove that CO2 warms the planets surface like I asked you to do..

Your attempt to misrepresent my claim is noted... 

My words to you...

_*"Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it..."*_

You responded to an edited single line from the post, and tried to misrepresent my post.. If you continue this course good luck trying to win back respect after your fake finnish journalist nonsense..


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2013)

Gslack - 

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "

http://www.examiner.com/article/stephen-hawking-s-best-quotes-about-the-earth-climate-change

You mentioned Hawking as a noted physicist. Like most noted physicists, he understands climate science better than you or I do. 

I'd be delighted to hear why you think he has got this wrong....does he not understand the science as well as you do, or is he perhaps only in science for the money?


btw. Please spare us the constant abuse and diversions.


----------



## waltky (May 12, 2013)

_"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further._

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... we all gonna be like a frog inna boilin' kettle...

... an' den we all gonna die."


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



If you drink 25 liters if water....what sort of concentration would that create?  If you can't manage an apt analogy, why bother?


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. [\quote]
> 
> Is there any evidence, any evidence at all that such a thing happened in the past, even when CO2 was in the multiple thousands of parts per million?   If not, describe a change in the fundamental laws of physics that would cause such a thing at less than four or five thousand ppm now.


----------



## editec (May 12, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tn9yjY05U]Hot In Herre - Nelly Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "
> 
> ...



Why not cite my post? You respond to it why not cite it so we can see the argument? Because you can't twist the discussion when imy statement is part of your post.. You cite the same link and same reference as if it wasn't addressed...

Pretty childish...But n worry I will re-post it verbatim here, since you decided to re-post your link and claim and ignore my words...

_*"LOL,that was a pretty general statement he made. You notice he also mentioned a natural disaster and nuclear war as well... Funny how you don't notice that.. ALsoI wasn't aware he was researching climate change? When did he start doing that? LOL..

It rose and now its not.. And? It rose before, even before us, it fell too.. Now prove that CO2 warms the planets surface like I asked you to do..

Your attempt to misrepresent my claim is noted... 

My words to you...

"Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it..."

You responded to an edited single line from the post, and tried to misrepresent my post.. If you continue this course good luck trying to win back respect after your fake finnish journalist nonsense.."*_

Now don't pull that crap with me again. You keep skirting the line of being dishonest and an outright rule violator. Keep it up and you will only ruin your reputation here.


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> > The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> >
> > This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:
> >
> ...



I hope you get a kickback from all the free advertising you give his website.. Seriously man, you must have a Spencer shrine in your basement, if the man farted you would try and bottle it..ROFL..

It doesn't warm the surface, the surface is already warmer. It slows heat loss, it doesn't warm the surface. They already know that more energy in means more energy out at a higher rate. In other words, the more the sun warms the surface, the faster the heat will be dissipated away. It's entropy doing it's job. 

IF by some miracle the surface and the atmosphere were to reach a state of thermal equilibrium, the radiative transfer would neither add to or subtract from the system, hence blackbody radiation. 

The earth's atmosphere isn't a greenhouse, nor is it anything like one. A closer analogy would be a fine mesh. EM radiation or light comes in well enough to give us light and warm the surface, and when that heat is released it is diffused by the atmosphere. It keeps a more closer to uniform global temperature and slows the heat loss, but DOES NOT heat the surface further.

Spencer used the insulated house story again... Too funny.. The insulation does NOT make the house warmer, it slows the loss of heat. If you turn off the heater it will not stay the same temperature or get any warmer, it will cool down and do so at the rate the insulation levels will permit. Now turn the heater up to 90 F and what will happen? The house will warm until it reaches the 90F temperature and then the thermostat will shut it off. It will reach 90F faster the more insulation you add, but it will NOT warm the interior any more than the heater or heat source. The reason? The 1st and 2nd law negate perfect machines and lossless energy transfer, as well as energy flowing back to it's warmer source without work being done to make it happen.

I think spencer has invested so much into this theory he just refuses to accept reality even when he himself says it...

His own words from your link...

*"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."*-Roy Spencer

Yes it does, and that IS NOT the same as warming the surface even more than it already is .. It can reach a state of equilibrium with the energy coming in quicker, but it cannot produce any extra energy or warming..

Now I know you're going to go and pretend it makes no sense again and do your standard Ian dumb act. Please be my guest, and show me that you lack the mental capacity to think on the proper level to see things as they are and not as you wish them to be.

Edit* Re-post for Ian because he can't respond to anything honestly..


----------



## skookerasbil (May 12, 2013)

LMAO......still ice fishing in Minnesota..........and a moving glacier!!!!

LAUGH......MY.........BALLS.........OFF


Still waiting for spring in Minnesota | Watts Up With That?



You stupid mofu's..........


----------



## whitehall (May 12, 2013)

Coldest "Mother's Day" in history in much of the mid-west. Still snow in some places. Freeze warnings in the southern mid-Atlantic. Tell me again how corrupt America is in causing global warming?


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon Bezerk -
> 
> I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.
> 
> ...








The BEST?  Are you kidding me?  They push a paper through their pal review and post it online where it gets demolished in hours and you think they're the best?  Get real!  These clowns couldn't figure out how to change a damned light bulb.


----------



## Saigon (May 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


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


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

Gslack - 

Ignoring your usual witless abuse, do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


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


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> Ignoring your usual witless abuse, do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?



Dude you haven't even responded to the FIRST post where you tried that nonsensical excuse. Respond to my post honestly, fairly and with proper quoting.. Can't can you coward... Yeah we know it's your MO no matter which character you play, this method and manner shines through..

Sorry I don't respond to dishonesty well. Try again..


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

Gslack - 

I'll ask again - do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?

Again, please spare us the witless abuse.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I'll ask again - do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?
> 
> Again, please spare us the witless abuse.







Hawking is a great scientist who has also happened to be WRONG in his own field.  From wiki so you can understand it better....



In the area of physics, by 2003, consensus was growing that Hawking was wrong about the loss of information in a black hole.[261] In a 2004 lecture in Dublin, the physicist conceded his 1997 bet with Preskill, but described his own, somewhat controversial solution, to the information paradox problem, involving the possibility of black holes have more than one topology.[262][197] In the 2005 paper he published on the subject, he argued that the information paradox was explained by examining the all the alternative histories of universes, with the information loss in those with black holes being cancelled out by those without.[196][263] As part of another longstanding scientific dispute, Hawking had emphatically argued, and bet, that the Higgs Boson would never be found.[264] The particle, proposed to exist as part of the Higgs Field theory by Peter Higgs in 1964, became discoverable with the advent of the Fermilab near Chicago and the Large Electron Positron and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.[265] Hawking and Higgs engaged in a heated and public debate over the matter in 2002 and again in 2008, with Higgs criticising Hawking's work and complaining that Hawking's "celebrity status gives him instant credibility that others do not have."[265] The particle was discovered at CERN in July 2012: Hawking quickly conceded that he had lost his bet[266][267] and said that Higgs should win the Nobel Prize for Physics.[268]


Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which just go's to show that even the best can be WRONG!  And do always remember in the 1950's 97% of the scientific community thought it preposterous the idea of continents moving...look how wrong they were....


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I'll ask again - do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?
> 
> Again, please spare us the witless abuse.



Already responded to that, you keep pretending it didn't happen and re-posting the same story... Respond to my post honestly, if you can...


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

My first mention of Hawking here..



Saigon said:


> Jon Bezerk -
> 
> I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.
> 
> ...



The best scientists in the world have REAL things to research. They do not seek degrees in climate science, or resource management, or any other such Fads. 

*Do you know who Raymond Laflamme is? No? How about Stephen Hawking? Of course you do he is the rockstar of the cosmology and theoretical physics world. Well Raymond happened to be one of Hawkings doctoral students who helped Dr.Hawking understand times arrow and corrected him. Hawking thanked him in his book, "A Brief History of Time".

He's not famous, in fact outside of Quantum Computing Academic circles few know who he is.. But he was brilliant enough to correct Hawking as a Doctoral student. 

The point is, the greatest scientific minds are not necessarily in any one field. And certainly not exclusively in climate science. Stop making bold and immature claims already...*

First the ACTUAL GLOBAL CO2 PPM IS 395 PPM. The 399 measurement was exclusive tothe Mauna Loa observatory, when they take it into the global mean it is 395. That was a misrepresentation by HUFFPO oldsocks put up..

And who is to say it's a dangerous level? It's not getting hotter yet so stop the panic attack. 

Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it...

PS.. As you see my post did not canonize, praise or berate Hawking at all. It made an example of how he can be wrong and he was wrong and corrected by a doctoral student. He is a brilliant man, they both are, yet one is famous the other is  not. Which shows the point I was making...

Saigon has been trying to post responses based on a lie he made up.. More to come..


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

Continued, to show Saigons further dishonesty...



Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> As cosmologist Stephen Hawking celebrates his 70th birthday he warns that climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world.
> 
> ...



*LOL,that was a pretty general statement he made. You notice he also mentioned a natural disaster and nuclear war as well... Funny how you don't notice that.. ALsoI wasn't aware he was researching climate change? When did he start doing that? LOL..*

It rose and now its not.. And? It rose before, even before us, it fell too.. Now prove that CO2 warms the planets surface like I asked you to do..

*Your attempt to misrepresent my claim is noted... *

My words to you...

_*"Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it..."*_

*You responded to an edited single line from the post, and tried to misrepresent my post.. If you continue this course good luck trying to win back respect after your fake finnish journalist nonsense..*

PS. As  you see I pointed out his misrepresentation and cherry-picking, and DID respond to his claim about hawking's views on climate change.. Which the dishonest Saigon continues to deny happened...


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

Gslack - 

I am sure no one would have expected you to have the balls to admit that even Stephen Hawking has confirmed that human activity causes climate change.

I'll let you go back to spamming the thread with gibberish and excuses now.


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I am sure no one would have expected you to have the balls to admit that even Stephen Hawking has confirmed that human activity causes climate change.
> 
> I'll let you go back to spamming the thread with gibberish and excuses now.



I responded with the truth shithead... And no one expected you to have the balls to respond to a post honestly anyway...

Whether Hawking agrees with global warming theory or not isn't the issue here, the issue was he can be wrong despite being famous and brilliant, and that many other equally brilliant minds are around the world and they are not necessarily in climate science...

You keep trying to alter my position or claims, by deceptive cherry-picking sentences, and responding to my posts without a proper quote and making up my position for me.. 

Last time I let it go.. Lie about my posts this way again and I will start re-posting until you run off crying again..Now please go and whine to a mod about it..


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me.  but we shall see.



Oh very very few people would disagree with you on that point! The disagreement is over whether or not that "damping" will ultimately include a severe reduction in the human population. Before you reply you should also consider that we are hard at work destroying much of the natural damping of excess Co2. In fact - we're working the opposite way, by destroying more vegetation that we produce every year. The oceans can only hold so much Co2, my friend! Once that sink is topped off, our only option will be to seriously alter how we use land - meaning less land used for agriculture - meaning ultimately less food for us to eat and less of us.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

Oohpooh -

I totally agree that the loss of both forests and arable farm land in the developing world is a huge issue. The worst aspect of this is that it will be the poor who pay the highest price, as the lack of food and drinking water will hit them worst of all. 

But elsewhere there is good news. Western countries have protected old forests and have planted news ones, have improved biodiversity and are learning to protect the oceans and lakes. New farming techniques mean farmland can be more productive than ever. 

So I imagine that Europe and the US will adapt fairly well to changing climate conditions - the problem is that Africa and Asia will not.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 13, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> LMAO......still ice fishing in Minnesota..........and a moving glacier!!!!
> 
> LAUGH......MY.........BALLS.........OFF
> 
> ...



that is one awesome video


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 13, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> LMAO......still ice fishing in Minnesota..........and a moving glacier!!!!
> 
> LAUGH......MY.........BALLS.........OFF
> 
> ...





whitehall said:


> Coldest "Mother's Day" in history in much of the mid-west. Still snow in some places. Freeze warnings in the southern mid-Atlantic. Tell me again how corrupt America is in causing global warming?



yeah

and glaciers on Mille Lacs 

--LOL

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0EyfEDKWscg#at=369]Glaciers Visit Izatys Resort - Mille Lacs Lake, MN - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


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


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> In the area of physics, by 2003, consensus was growing that Hawking was wrong about the loss of information in a black hole.[261] In a 2004 lecture in Dublin, the physicist conceded his 1997 bet with Preskill, but described his own, somewhat controversial solution, to the information paradox problem, involving the possibility of black holes have more than one topology.[262][197] In the 2005 paper he published on the subject, he argued that the information paradox was explained by examining the all the alternative histories of universes, with the information loss in those with black holes being cancelled out by those without.[196][263] As part of another longstanding scientific dispute, Hawking had emphatically argued, and bet, that the Higgs Boson would never be found.[264] The particle, proposed to exist as part of the Higgs Field theory by Peter Higgs in 1964, became discoverable with the advent of the Fermilab near Chicago and the Large Electron Positron and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.[265] Hawking and Higgs engaged in a heated and public debate over the matter in 2002 and again in 2008, with Higgs criticising Hawking's work and complaining that Hawking's "celebrity status gives him instant credibility that others do not have."[265] The particle was discovered at CERN in July 2012: Hawking quickly conceded that he had lost his bet[266][267] and said that Higgs should win the Nobel Prize for Physics.[268]
> 
> 
> Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



What gets me is the way that they can completely ignore things that we know have already happened without the dire results they predict and continue to preach doom and gloom.  We know that 7000ppm didn't produce catastrophic results...we know that 5000ppm didn't create catastrophic results...we know that 2000ppm didn't cause catastrophe and neither did 1000ppm.  

How can people ignore that hard, uncontestable fact and claim that we are all going to die over a small fraction of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations that we know have existed with no catastrophic results?


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me.  but we shall see.
> ...



Did any of the horrors you fear so much happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 1000ppm?  How about at 2000ppm?  3000ppm?  4000ppm? 5000ppm?  6000ppm?  7000ppm?

At what concentration do you believe ecological catastrophe will happen?  Certainly not less than 7000ppm because the earth has already seen that level without catastrophic results. 

Seriously, looking back over history and knowing the concntrations that have existed in the past, at what level do you believe ecological disaster happens?

An ancient Earth like ours


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

I'm still waiting on Ian's response to the "wordplay" Roy Spencer tried to use in his latest greenhouse theory explanation...

Spencer used the concept of an insulator to explain the mechanism of the atmosphere regarding climate, and then inaccurately claimed that "insulator" can effect more warming on the planets surface. Not more efficient warming, not more uniform warming, which is what happens. But rather warming the surface of the planet MORE than it already is by it's presence...

Imagine, A perfect insulator.. Another amazing discovery by climate science.. Truly astounding how they can bend physics to suit their will anytime they want..


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> I'm still waiting on Ian's response to the "wordplay" Roy Spencer tried to use in his latest greenhouse theory explanation...
> 
> Spencer used the concept of an insulator to explain the mechanism of the atmosphere regarding climate, and then inaccurately claimed that "insulator" can effect more warming on the planets surface. Not more efficient warming, not more uniform warming, which is what happens. But rather warming the surface of the planet MORE than it already is by it's presence...
> 
> Imagine, A perfect insulator.. Another amazing discovery by climate science.. Truly astounding how they can bend physics to suit their will anytime they want..



fascinating 

simply fascinating 

--LOL


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting on Ian's response to the "wordplay" Roy Spencer tried to use in his latest greenhouse theory explanation...
> ...



Yes, Roy Spencer, Ian's hero and obvious Super-genius. You should check out his site. He has some silly attempts to explain GHG theory. They are usually debunked within a few comments, but when that happens he closes the responses and makes another one.

They truly funny part is, most of them are simple matters of word-play and misrepresentation and many smart people on their try and argue ever more complex ideas on it, when the answer is really much simpler than that..

Like when he said this in Ian's last link..

_*"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."*_-Roy Spencer

That is true.. But then he claims this..

_*"When you add insulation to your house, you reduce the rate of energy loss in the winter, which will raise the temperature inside the house (all other things being the same), while at the same time reducing the temperature of the exterior of the house. Similarly, greenhouse gases provide radiative insulation to the climate system, raising the temperature of the surface and lower atmosphere, while lowering the temperature of the middle and upper atmosphere."*_-Roy Spencer

See how he went from the position of it being an insulator to a second energy source? Yeah he did that... Now he claims insulation will raise the temperature inside the house. It won't of course, it will just allow it to reach a given temperature more efficiently. Not warmer than the heater or thermostat will allow, just be able to maintain that temperature easier and with less energy input to make it happen.

He's a fraud and a charlatan, he is and has been lying to people about this.. But no worry, look for him to be joining the "Global Cooling" camp soon.. His latest book...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World&#39;s Top Climate Scientists (9781594033735): Roy W Spencer: Books[/ame]



> Book Description
> Publication Date: April 13, 2010
> The Great Global Warming Blunder unveils new evidence from major scientific findings that explode the conventional wisdom on climate change and reshape the global warming debate as we know it. Roy W. Spencer, a former senior NASA climatologist, reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect when analyzing cloud behavior and have been duped by Mother Nature into believing the Earths climate system is far more sensitive to human activities and carbon dioxide than it really is.
> 
> ...



Yep, he IS that transparent... Pretty pathetic...Now he is going to sell out his chums because the teets run dry... What a piece of work...


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



thanks 

i will check it out


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Did any of the horrors you fear so much happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 1000ppm?  How about at 2000ppm?  3000ppm?  4000ppm? 5000ppm?  6000ppm?  7000ppm?



The only "horror" I listed in my post that you are replying to was that humans would be severely reduced in number. Humans weren't even around the last time Co2 was at 1000 pm. So your question doesn't really make sense.



> At what concentration do you believe ecological catastrophe will happen?  Certainly not less than 7000ppm because the earth has already seen that level without catastrophic results.


The last time the Earth was at 7000 ppm the trilobite was the dominant form of life. Would you like to be replaced by a trilobite? Do you honestly think the Earth would have been hospitable to human life in the Cambrian era?


----------



## gslack (May 13, 2013)

Hush Ian sock!


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me.  but we shall see.
> ...








When the ocean becomes saturated to a certain point the excess is used to create limestone.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Did any of the horrors you fear so much happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 1000ppm?  How about at 2000ppm?  3000ppm?  4000ppm? 5000ppm?  6000ppm?  7000ppm?
> ...









Your comments are untrue.  The last major period of glaciation saw CO2 levels of 4000ppm.  Funny how massive cooling occurred when CO2 levels were extremely high, funny how you idiots ignore simple facts like that.  

We just broke the "magic" 400ppm barrier and the Earth is still cooling... and according to the Russians will continue to do so for the next 200 years or more....thanks to the solar activity...NOT CO2 which is after all, a trace gas in our atmosphere...


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I am sure no one would have expected you to have the balls to admit that even Stephen Hawking has confirmed that human activity causes climate change.
> 
> I'll let you go back to spamming the thread with gibberish and excuses now.









Really?  Hawking has "confirmed" AGW "theory"?  No, imbecile, it is his OPNION....nothing else.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





Yeah right - except that CO2 makes water acidic  - and acid dissolves limestone.


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Did any of the horrors you fear so much happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 1000ppm?  How about at 2000ppm?  3000ppm?  4000ppm? 5000ppm?  6000ppm?  7000ppm?
> ...



Why?  We know that life on both land and in the oceans thrived during periods when atmospheric CO2 was multiple orders of magnitude higher than it is now...The fossil record indicates that diversity during those periods made the present look positively barren.

Exactly what do you think is going to kill us off?  



Betalab said:


> The last time the Earth was at 7000 ppm the trilobite was the dominant form of life. Would you like to be replaced by a trilobite? Do you honestly think the Earth would have been hospitable to human life in the Cambrian era?



A diversity of life exploded during the cambrian and recent study has indicated that the climate during that period wasn't so different than today.  7000ppm is a bit out of the question any time soon.  Answer the question...at what concentration do you think atmospheric CO2 will cause an ecological catastrophe?  Pick a number between 400 and 7000.


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Yeah right - except that CO2 makes water acidic  - and acid dissolves limestone.



You just pointed out that trilobites evolved when atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm and we know that most marine life that exists today evolved during periods when atmospheric CO2 was between 7000 and 4500ppm.  How "acidic" do you think the oceans were when atmopspheric CO2 was 7000ppm?  5000ppm?  1000ppm?  and did that level of "acidity" seem to have any effect on the profusion of oceanic life that evolved when levels were so high?...again, at what level of atmospheric CO2 do you think the ecological disaster will begin...we know it didn't at 7000...so what level are you worried about and why?


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

SSDD -

I appreciate that you know more about physics than Stephan Hawking does, but even at the stratospheric heights of your genius is it possible to imagine that the impact of climate change is not some kind of 'Battle of Los Angeles' armageddon, but a very,very gradual increase in temperatures, floods, droughts etc?

Any major loss of human life might not occur for another thousand years - that does not make climate change any more desirable.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

SSDD -



> and did that level of "acidity" seem to have any effect on the profusion of oceanic life that evolved when levels were so high?



Um....I'm surprised that Mr Hawking's teacher doesn't know about coral bleaching...

Bleaching occurs when the conditions necessary to sustain the coral's zooxanthellae cannot be maintained.[3] Any environmental trigger that affects the coral's ability to supply the zooxanthellae with nutrients for photosynthesis (carbon dioxide, ammonium) will lead to expulsion.[3] This process is a "downward spiral", whereby the coral's failure to prevent the division of zooxanthellae leads to ever-greater amounts of the photosynthesis-derived carbon to be diverted into the algae rather than the coral. This makes the energy balance required for the coral to continue sustaining its algae more fragile, and hence the coral loses the ability to maintain its parasitic control on its zooxanthellae.

Physiologically the lipid composition of the symbiont thylakoid membrane affects their structural integrity when there is a change in temperature, which combined with increased nitric acid results in damage to Photosystem 2. As a result of accumulated oxidative stress and the damage to the thylakoid of chloroplasts there is a increase in degradation of the symbiosis and the symbionts will eventually abandon their host. Not only the change in temperature from the water increases the chances of bleaching there are other factors that play a role. Other factors that contribute to bleaching are increase in solar radiation (UV and visible light), regional weather conditions and for intertidal corals exposure to cold winds

Coral bleaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I appreciate that you know more about physics than Stephan Hawking does, but even at the stratospheric heights of your genius is it possible to imagine that the impact of climate change is not some kind of 'Battle of Los Angeles' armageddon, but a very,very gradual increase in temperatures, floods, droughts etc?
> 
> Any major loss of human life might not occur for another thousand years - that does not make climate change any more desirable.



If S. Hawking is ignoring what we know happened in the past in order to remain part of the "consensus" then perhaps he isn't as bright as you think he is.  Perhaps he is a savant....brilliant in one specific area and a blithering idiot in everything else.

Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die.  We are not causing global climate change and there isn't a single shred of observed, measured proof to support those who claim that we are.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die.



And of course loss of biodiversity is one thing that we know does occur as a result of climate change - as with coral reefs, for instance.

I somehow think most of us would rather adapt than die. 

New technologies will allow us to do so, but only over the cold, dead bodies of the luddites.



> If S. Hawking is ignoring what we know happened in the past in order to remain part of the "consensus" then perhaps he isn't as bright as you think he is



I don't think there can be any question that you know more about both physics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics than he, or indeed any other scientists, do.


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> And of course loss of biodiversity is one thing that we know does occur as a result of climate change - as with coral reefs, for instance.



Ignoring the paleo record doesn't make it go away.  Diversity was far greater during periods when the earth was considerably warmer than the present.  Diversity suffers during times when temperatures are cooler as in the present.



> I don't think there can be any question that you know more about both physics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics than he, or indeed any other scientists, do.



I am not making claims that are in direct contradiction to known historical events...both, you, he, and the rest of the warmers out there are.  It is your own intelligence that gets called into question when you claim that a thing will happen when history has shown repeatedly that it won't.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

SSDD - 



> Diversity was far greater during periods when the earth was considerably warmer than the present.



That may well be true, but that does not mean human life (not any other species on earth in 2013) will be able to survive a significant increase in desertification, temperatures etc, does it?



> when you claim that a thing will happen when history has shown repeatedly that it won't.



And yet climate change is happening now, and is measured in observable data every day.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah right - except that CO2 makes water acidic  - and acid dissolves limestone.
> ...



Acidic enough that the coral reefs of today would all be dead.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die.


 You wanna die?



> We are not causing global climate change and there isn't a single shred of observed, measured proof to support those who claim that we are.


Except for all the evidence that's been presented in hundreds to thousands of research papers.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...









Uhhhhhh, let's see here.....you could burn EVERY carbon bearing rock on the planet and it would lower the pH of the oceans from 8.1 to 8.  What is that?  Acidic or alkaline?


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I appreciate that you know more about physics than Stephan Hawking does, but even at the stratospheric heights of your genius is it possible to imagine that the impact of climate change is not some kind of 'Battle of Los Angeles' armageddon, but a very,very gradual increase in temperatures, floods, droughts etc?
> 
> Any major loss of human life might not occur for another thousand years - that does not make climate change any more desirable.









Only the temps aren't rising, the Antarctic is growing in ice cover except for the peninsula, the Arctic is holding steady if not increasing, in other words....every single claim that you all have made is proving to be wrong.

How do you reconcile that with your skewed view of reality?


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Really?  Do tell.  The three major warmist leaders have all said the temps have held constant for at least 10 years.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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









You need to take a paleo class.  Coral EVOLVED when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 20 times higher than the present day.  When scientists have exposed corals to acidic ocean water (far, far higher than they could ever experience in the real world they have grown thicker shells...surprise surprise.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die.
> ...








Yeah, you mean all those papers based on computer models and rushed through pal review?  Those papers?  Please.....those are pathetic examples of science and when they are exposed to real peer review they get demolished in hours.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?



> When scientists have exposed corals to acidic ocean water (far, far higher than they could ever experience in the real world they have grown thicker shells...surprise surprise.



Did the scientists have names?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Which ones would those be? Were they written by scientists with names?



> Please.....those are pathetic examples of science and when they are exposed to real peer review they get demolished in hours.



You haven't read a single one of them.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...










Have the corals changed somehow?  The last time I checked the critters were the same.  Now all of a sudden they can't survive for some dumb ass reason?  Can't you read?  Do you have no ability to reason?  Or are you so fundamentally brainwashed that you have no ability to think?


And here are the cites for you to educate yourself further.

^ a b Kelly, D.C.; Bralower, T.J.; Zachos, J.C. (1998). "Evolutionary consequences of the latest Paleocene thermal maximum for tropical planktonic foraminifera". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 141 (1): 139&#8211;161. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(98)00017-0. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ Bralower, T.J. (2002). "Evidence of surface water oligotrophy during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum: Nannofossil assemblage data from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690, Maud Rise, Weddell Sea". Paleoceanography 17 (2): 1023. Bibcode:2002PalOc..17b..13B. doi:10.1029/2001PA000662. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ a b Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. Debora; Halloran, Paul R.; Rickaby, Rosalind E. M.; Hall, Ian R.; Colmenero-Hidalgo, Elena; Gittins, John R.; Green, Darryl R. H.; Tyrrell, Toby; Gibbs, Samantha J.; von Dassow, Peter; Rehm, Eric; Armbrust, E. Virginia; Boessenkool, Karin P. (April 2008). "Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World". Science 320 (5874): 336&#8211;40. Bibcode:2008Sci...320..336I. doi:10.1126/science.1154122. PMID 18420926.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...









No, I've read far too many of the laughable pieces of excrement.  It's YOU who havn't read them...or you have no brain...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do you expect me to read those papers for you?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Name one.


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?



Coral reefs today don't die in water with a ph of 8 and no amount of our CO2 is ever going to lower the ph of the ocean more than that.




OohPooPahDoo said:


> Did the scientists have names?



Of course they do and the routinely find that the models upon which your doomsday cult thrives are dead wrong.  For example:



> A new paper published in Biogeosciences finds groundwater and porewater are "major sources" of alkalinity to reefs which are not taken into account by computer models of ocean 'acidification'. The authors "suggest that porewater and groundwater fluxes of TA [total alkalinity] should be taken into account in ocean acidification models in order to properly address changing carbonate chemistry within coral reef ecosystems." Note also that studies in the laboratory of the effect of 'acidification' upon various organisms also fail to consider this moderating "major source" of alkalinity.



BG - Abstract - Groundwater and porewater as major sources of alkalinity to a fringing coral reef lagoon (Muri Lagoon, Cook Islands)




> A paper published today in Global Change Biology finds that prior papers about the alleged effect of ocean "acidification" on marine organisms are overblown because prior research has failed to consider that organisms can adapt over time to pH changes. According to the authors, "nearly all of this work [on the alleged effects of "acidification"] has focused on the effects of future conditions on modern populations, neglecting the role of adaptation."



Natural variation, and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus - Kelly - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library


Vogt, M., Steinke, M., Turner, S., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Riebesell, U., LeQuere, C. and Liss, P. 2008. Dynamics of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide under different CO2 concentrations during a mesocosm experiment. Biogeosciences 5: 407-419. 



> What was done
> Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on various marine microorganisms and DMS production were studied in nine marine mesocosms maintained within 2-meter-diameter polyethylene bags submerged to a depth of ten meters in a fjord adjacent to the Large-Scale Facilities of the Biological Station of the University of Bergen in Espegrend, Norway. Three of the mesocosms were maintained at ambient levels of CO2 (~375 ppm), three were maintained at levels expected to prevail at the end of the current century (760 ppm or 2x CO2), and three were maintained at levels predicted for the middle of the next century (1150 ppm or 3x CO2), while measurements of numerous ecosystem parameters were made over a period of 24 days.
> 
> What was learned
> Vogt et al. report that they detected no significant phytoplankton species shifts between treatments, and that "the ecosystem composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction were not significantly affected by CO2 induced effects," citing in support of this statement the work of Riebesell et al. (2007), Riebesell et al. (2008), Egge et al. (2007), Paulino et al. (2007), Larsen et al. (2007), Suffrian et al. (2008) and Carotenuto et al. (2007). In addition, they say that "while DMS stayed elevated in the treatments with elevated CO2, we observed a steep decline in DMS concentration in the treatment with low CO2," i.e., the ambient CO2 treatment.




Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Dinsdale, E.A., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., Pratchett, M.S., Tanner, J.E. and Willis, B.L. 2012. Assembly rules of reef corals are flexible along a steep climatic gradient. Current Biology 22: 736-741. 



> What was done
> To explore this subject in more detail, Hughes et al. applied a "rigorous quantitative approach to examine large-scale spatial variation in the species composition and abundance of corals on mid-shelf reefs along the length of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, a biogeographic region where species richness is high and relatively homogeneous." More specifically, they say they used "a hierarchical, nested sampling design to quantify scale-dependent patterns of coral abundances [for] five regions of the Great Barrier Reef [that they] sampled from north to south, each 250-500 km apart." Altogether, they thus identified and measured a total of 35,428 coral colonies on 33 reefs, categorizing each colony they encountered (including the majority of species that are too rare to analyze individually) into "ecologically relevant groups depending on their physiology, morphology and life history."
> 
> What was learned
> The seven scientists report that the diverse pool of species they examined along the latitudinal gradient of the Great Barrier Reef "can assemble in markedly different configurations across a wide range of contemporary environments." With respect to temperature, for example, they indicate that "the geographic ranges of 93% of the 416 coral species found on the Great Barrier Reef extend northwards toward the equator (e.g., to Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and/or the Indonesian archipelago)," while "46% are also found in colder conditions further to the south." As for ocean acidification, they state that "globally, ocean surface pH has decreased by 0.1 unit since 1750 due to the uptake of atmospheric CO2, with a smaller 0.06 decline recorded for the tropics," citing Kleypas et al. (2006). In contrast, however, they report that contemporary variation in pH among various reef habitats on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as differences among short-term replicate measurements, span a range of 0.39 unit, from 8.37 to 7.98, citing Gagliano et al. (2010). And they rightfully note that this short-term and habitat-scale variability literally swamps that of latitudinal trends.




Thresher, R.E., Tilbrook, B., Fallon, S., Wilson, N.C. and Adkins, J. 2011. Effects of chronic low carbonate saturation levels on the distribution, growth and skeletal chemistry of deep-sea corals and other seamount megabenthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 442: 87-99. 



> What was done
> "To determine the sensitivity of corals and allied taxa to long-term exposure to very low carbonate concentrations," in the words of Thresher et al., they examined in detail "the depth distribution and life-history characteristics of corals and other shell-forming megabenthos along the slopes of deep-sea seamounts and associated structure in the SW Pacific," where the gradient of water chemistry ranged from super-saturated with respect to aragonite and high-magnesium calcite (HMC) to under-saturated, even with respect to calcite.
> 
> What was learned
> ...




And it could go on ad nauseum...study after study after study demonstrating that the models that you warmist folks believe in so strongly are simply wrong.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



high temps low temps 

floods or drought 

rain or shine 

all because of man 

--LOL


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?
> ...




I'm having trouble finding where any of those papers say that the models are "simply wrong".


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


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


Link?


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







I allready read them nimrod.  If you're who you claim to be you have access.  Go get them and read them.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




You've got way too much free time on your hands - so you read them and tell me about them.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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








Ahhhhh, it is finally clear to me.......you need fear no zombie attack...they only eat brains....


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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


You're not making any sense now.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2013)

SSDD - 



> *Coral reefs today don't die in water with a ph of 8* and no amount of our CO2 is ever going to lower the ph of the ocean more than that.



Really? So the Great Barrier Reef is NOT dying?

It amazes me that you have the gall to post material on the Great Barrier Reef - and somehow forget to mention coral bleaching and the staggering loss of biodiversity.


_Half the Great Barrier Reef's coral has disappeared in the past 27 years and less than a quarter could be left within a decade unless action is taken, a landmark study has found.

A long-term investigation of the reef by scientists at Townsville's Australian Institute of Marine Science found coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and *coral bleaching.*_
_
"The recent frequency and intensity of mass coral bleaching are of major concern, and are *directly attributable to rising atmospheric greenhouse gases,*" wrote the authors, whose study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences._

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...catastrophe-20121002-26vzq.html#ixzz2TEvJE01w


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...catastrophe-20121002-26vzq.html#ixzz2TEuSH8h9




The info on coral bleaching I posted earlier tells us that the leading causes are:

*- chemistry changes in water (in particular acidification)*
-increased (most commonly), or reduced water temperatures

Coral bleaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> And it could go on ad nauseum...study after study after study demonstrating that the models that you warmist folks believe in so strongly are simply wrong.



None of them suggest that at all, obviously. 

It is very strange for me that someone who claims to have a genius level of scientific knowledge assumes that if factor X causes coral to die, then factor Y cannot. 

I totally agree with the material that you present which suggests that bore water or agri-run off are also factors. These factors were also mentioned in the material cited above. 

Your reports suggest there are natural variations in pH, and that some species will adapt - how does this rule out climate change? 

It doesn't - it merely suggests other factors to consider, both of which are rather obvious, and which most science in the past will certainly have considered. 

By all means present material on coral reefs which prove that climate change is not a factor in their destruction. 

You won't find any.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Maybe not.....

While the news reports present the appearance of scientific precision and certainty, examination of the study itself reveals a number of doubtful assumptions, undisclosed conditions and instances where strong conflicting evidence is unmentioned. Examples of this include:
The margin of error in visual surveys of coral cover is high and unassessed; yet, they are presented to hundredths of a precent without any qualifying explanation, as if they are precisely accurate. Coral cover is highly variable between reefs and over different areas or at different years on the same reef. Visual estimates of the percentage of coral cover can differ significantly, depending on  where, when  and by whom  the observations were made. Also, many of the observers doing the surveys upon which this study is based were inexperienced students primed by learned expectations of threats to the reef.

The reef is vast and in any given year surveys sample only a small portion. The reported sudden decline in coral cover in the last couple of years is almost certain to have been exaggerated by surveys made to assess the damage from severe cyclones crossing the reef in 2009 and 2011, with few or no surveys in unaffected areas in those years.

The study states, Cyclone intensities are increasing with warming ocean temperatures.

This statement is unsubstantiated and contrary to available evidence. The most definitive recent studies find no increase in tropical cyclone frequency or intensity. On the GBR severe cyclone activity for the past century has also been well below the level for the preceding century. The study also states:




Quadrant Online - Reef Alarmists Jump The Shark


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

Westwall - 

It's good to see blogs from crop circle enthusiasts are now considered better sources than international scientific studies!

It's worth noting that: 

At 214 reef sites surveyed, the coral cover halved from 28 to 13.8 per cent between 1985 and 2012.

Two-thirds of the loss occurred since 1998. Only three of the 214 reef sites exhibited no impact.

Read more: Great reef catastrophe

While I am sure scientists would have preferred to cover more sites, 214 sites is considerable. The report is very clear about what damage is caused by cyclones and what by bleaching or starfish, so the blog seems to be off-base with that claim.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> It's good to see blogs from crop circle enthusiasts are now considered better sources than international scientific studies!
> 
> ...



Why not point out what the article said the causes were?

From your link...






Now of that which part is directly attributed to current Global Warming theory claims.. Seriously point out which part is caused by the current man-made conditions...

The Crown of thorns starfish was a natural problem, the article stated as much. The bleaching is caused by the death of the coral which can be from anything really, and the rest was caused by tropical storms, and those are a natural occurrence.. They claim this though...

*"Global warming models project increases in water temperatures will lead to more intense cyclones."*

Can they prove that? No and what's more that claim has already been thoroughly denied by all but the most extreme of alarmists.. So they take a hypothetical worst case scenario offered up by alarmist nonsense, and give the impression that "in the future" is now and that we are causing increased tropical storms... LOL

Seriously, you need to learn to be a bit more discerning on what you decide to post as truth..


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

Gslack -



> Why not point out what the article said the causes were?



I did, in post #92. 



> coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and coral bleaching.





> "Global warming models project increases in water temperatures will lead to more intense cyclones."
> 
> Can they prove that?



Yes, they can. Latest research released by the IIPC concludes that cyclones will not necessarily be more frequent - but will be more intense. This research has been posted on this board earlier, I believe.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No you didn't you made a claim it was due to CO2 levels, the article said precisely what it was. It was just as their graphic showed now stop twisting their claims...

Now the IPCC made a hypothesis based on their computer models projections. And given their history of inaccuracies and exaggeration of findings, we will wait for actual proof..

Do you know the difference between proving something and just thinking or believing it?


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

Gslack - 

This is purely and simply a question of literacy. In my opinion, you do not have the reading skills a discussion forum requires, and I'm going to give you a single example. 

I posted in post #92: 



> coral had been wiped out by intense tropical cyclones, a native species of starfish and coral bleaching.



You claim:



> No you didn't you made a claim it was due to CO2 levels,



Given this seems to happen on every thread you post on, I can only assume that you simply cannot read. 

You are back on ignore more.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> This is purely and simply a question of literacy. In my opinion, you do not have the reading skills a discussion forum requires, and I'm going to give you a single example.
> 
> ...



DUDE!!!! Your entire post was for the most part singling out CO2 levels.. You say one line and then you spend the rest of the post as if it was CO2 levels...

What's worse is you are lying about that line being in post #92...It was in your last post to me where you cited it. AND IT CAME FROM MY POST...

You sir are a liar.... Anyone can see your post #92 and can read it. YOU did not make that claim in that post...

You went on and on about coral bleaching junior, which you claimed was due to CO2 levels...

QUIT LYING!!!


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2013)

I think it is funny that so many so-called scientists declare imminent danger and high risk of extinction for sea creatures that regularly see changes in pH that are an order of magnitude larger than the miniscule neutralization of ocean pH caused by the last 50 years of fossil fuel burning. even an upwelling of cooler water has more of an impact than manmade CO2.

and let's not forget the peer reviewed paper that blamed the obesity epidemic on increased levels of CO2.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

Ian C - 

The question may not only be the scale of theshift in pH, but where that shift occurs.

Coral reefs are extremely delicate ecosystems, which we know do not adapt well to changes in water temperature or pH. 

It can well be that a relatively minor change in pH would worlwide would be the end of coral reefs as we know them. I have dived all over the world, and to me this is just tragic.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Really? So the Great Barrier Reef is NOT dying?



You people seem to have a hard time understanding that corelation is not causation.  The problems the great barrier reef is experiencing are due to pollution, runoff, and sedimentation...not acidification due to atmospheric CO2.



Saigon said:


> It amazes me that you have the gall to post material on the Great Barrier Reef - and somehow forget to mention coral bleaching and the staggering loss of biodiversity.



What is amazing is that you don't know the actual sources of the problems coral reefs are having worldwide.  This is a prime example of how you warmists take the air out of the room and derail discussion on important topics in favor of imaginary disaster senarios.

Real work needs to be done regarding pollution, run off and ways to reduce sedimentation which are causing damage to reefs all over the world.  No such conversation can happen though because you wackos keep quelling any conversation that doesn't involve reducing a harmless trace gas in the atmosphere...and to boot, you blame every damned thing in the world on it.


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2013)

Saigon- your own link states that 90% of the coral loss is due to to storms and starfish predation. we cannot do anything about storms, perhaps we can do something about the pollution that _appears_ to be adding to the starfish problem. bleaching due to pH and warming is quite likely to turn out to be attributable to some other cause, just like so many other things that have been blamed on CO2. 

CO2 is an insignificant factor for coral reefs. the only reason it is given such an inflated position is because it represents 'man's sin' and can be taxed. if you want to scream to high heaven about the runoff that feeds the starfish larvae I will support you. but I will not support demonizing plant food that comes from the energy I need for my family to have a decent lifestyle. go live in a cave if you think that will help but I will hold out for technology to provide a solution. that is, if we can train enough new scientists that arent contaminated with the political correctness and lysenkoism of climate science.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon- your own link states that 90% of the coral loss is due to to storms and starfish predation. we cannot do anything about storms, perhaps we can do something about the pollution that _appears_ to be adding to the starfish problem. bleaching due to pH and warming is quite likely to turn out to be attributable to some other cause, just like so many other things that have been blamed on CO2.
> 
> .



The fact that only 10% of coral destruction is due to changes in pH and temperature does not mean it is a minor problem.

Cyclones have always hit coral hard and always will - whereas bleaching is a new problem. 

I totally agree about agricultural runoff being a major issue - it is also one that large parts of the world are taking very firm action against.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

SSDD - 

Again, you fall into the trap of assuming that if X causes a problem, then Y does not. 

Agricultural run off is a massive issue, but one that mankind is already taking strong action against. 



> No such conversation can happen



How little you know!

The EU began action on this 20 years ago, with regulation of farm run-off and the use of fertilizers and phosphates, and particularly against chicken farming, which is a major source of pollution into the Baltic. Finland funded and built a new water treatment station in St Petersburg for exactly this reason. 

However, if we do not take action against rising water temperature and pH, there will likely be no coral reefs left at all in 50 - 100 years.


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon- your own link states that 90% of the coral loss is due to to storms and starfish predation. we cannot do anything about storms, perhaps we can do something about the pollution that _appears_ to be adding to the starfish problem. bleaching due to pH and warming is quite likely to turn out to be attributable to some other cause, just like so many other things that have been blamed on CO2.
> ...



bleaching _may_ be caused in part by SST warming and a shift in pH. may.

again, the temp and pH change are considerably smaller than the normal natural variation in habitat that these corals live in. I have great doubt that those two factors are causing the bleaching, and I expect that a more direct cause will be found.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon- your own link states that 90% of the coral loss is due to to storms and starfish predation. we cannot do anything about storms, perhaps we can do something about the pollution that _appears_ to be adding to the starfish problem. bleaching due to pH and warming is quite likely to turn out to be attributable to some other cause, just like so many other things that have been blamed on CO2.
> ...



The entire premise of ocean acidification by man induced CO2 has already been proven an alarmist claim..

The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

Principia Scientific Intl | The Myth of ?Acidification? of Oceans

Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean Acidification

There is just a few that show inaccurate the study was that started this claim. The fact is there is absolutely NO basis behind the claim that man-made CO2 emissions are currently making the oceans more acidic. It's another alarmist myth, they claimed using a very small amount of data and has been disproved time and again..

The only people who perpetuate this claims still are the media and those who have a vested interest in making it a problem...

This is I don't know how many times in the last 3-4 years,I have seen this claim rehashed despite it being common knowledge it was false. Seriously update your freaking info already..


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

Ian - 

I don't think there is a lot of doubt that changes in pHand water temperature can and do cause bleaching. There have been too many instances of this for there to be much doubt.

I do agree that agricultural run-off can contribute to the change in pH, although I think the idea that it does so in places as remote as the Cook Islands seems fairly fantastical. In the case of the Barrier Reef the run-off definitely has an impact, because it also contributes to the overpopulation of this particular starfish that is doing so much damage. 

I am not sure what else could impact coral on such a vast geographical scale, and particularly so far from urban or agrcultural land.

There are also other issues to consider which relate to CO2 and pH around coral reefs - 

When exposed to higher CO2 levels, corals and other reef-building organisms &#8211; such as coralline algae &#8211; produce their calcium carbonate skeletons at a slower rate. It is the calcium carbonate from these skeletons that forms the reef framework and provides habitat in one of the most biodiverse environments on earth. Slower calcification in these species threatens the ability of the reef itself to maintain integrity as a complex habitat into the future.

Other diverse responses to ocean acidification have been observed, including an increase in algal growth, the impairment of the neurological function in reef fish and reduced coral recruitment success. Importantly, the studies that showed these impacts were based on global-scale ocean chemistry predictions, not the extreme changes now expected to occur in shallow reef systems.

Jumps in ocean acidity put coral in more peril


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I do agree that agricultural run-off can contribute to the change in pH, although I think the idea that it does so in places as remote as the Cook Islands seems fairly fantastical.



Well if it seems fantastical, it can't be true. Every good scientist knows that.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

OohPooh - 

Well, do you think agricultural run-off could be having a localised impact on pH in the Cook Islands?

If so - where is it running off from?


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> I don't think there is a lot of doubt that changes in pHand water temperature can and do cause bleaching. There have been too many instances of this for there to be much doubt.
> 
> ...



Just going to ignore the facts and post your blog articles as truth anyway...

Okay you keep spreading your myths and I will keep telling the truth...

The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

Principia Scientific Intl | The Myth of ?Acidification? of Oceans

Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean Acidification

You can ignore the links, and ignore the truth, but others will see it.. STOP SPREADING BS!


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The fact that only 10% of coral destruction is due to changes in pH and temperature does not mean it is a minor problem.



There isn't even any hard evidence that 10% or even 1% is due to changes in pH due to atmospheric CO2.  Any changes in pH are more likely due to fertilizer runoff and chemical pollution.  It is a problem but you are so wrapped up in your cult that you aren't able to see where the problem is coming from.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Again, you fall into the trap of assuming that if X causes a problem, then Y does not.



So long as the oceans are known to be outgassing CO2, then CO2 is not the problem.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> OohPooh -
> 
> Well, do you think agricultural run-off could be having a localised impact on pH in the Cook Islands?
> 
> If so - where is it running off from?



Ever hear of ocean currents?  Take a look at a map of the major currents in the Pacific.
It doesn't take a genius to see where runoff may be coming from.  Why don't you try using your brain once in a while rather than having your typical chicken little kneejerk reaction?


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Right. 

Another scientific "fact" that you understand, and not a single other person on earth does. 

I'm sure you don't believe that anymore than you believe there is no such thing as backradiation.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Ever hear of ocean currents?  Take a look at a map of the major currents in the Pacific.
> It doesn't take a genius to see where runoff may be coming from.  Why don't you try using your brain once in a while rather than having your typical chicken little kneejerk reaction?



I'll ask again - where does the run off in the Cook Islands comes from?

We know there are ocean currents - but which current and from where?


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Right.
> 
> Another scientific "fact" that you understand, and not a single other person on earth does.
> 
> I'm sure you don't believe that anymore than you believe there is no such thing as backradiation.




Describe how "acidification" might be happening while the ocean is outgassing more CO2 than it is taking up.  what sort of chemistry might be responsible for such a miracle?


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of ocean currents?  Take a look at a map of the major currents in the Pacific.
> ...



The west coast of the US, South America,  Australia, and Asia.  In addition to having no critical thinking skills, are you also unable to read a simple map? Arent you able to see that there is a convergence of currents passing right across the coook islands from all of those coasts?


----------



## Dot Com (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon Bezerk -
> 
> I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.
> 
> ...



^ that. For some reason Deniers are hell bent on waiting or ignoring the entire record. By then its too late as was mentioned earlier we are experiencing climes do to actions from 30 yrs ago


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

SSDD - 

I'll ask again - which ocean current, and *where does the run off come from*?

And yes, I know you have never heard of the Cook Islands and do not know where they are. The problem is - I do know where they are, and I know the ocean currents in the region.

The point I am tryin to get through to you here is that it runoff occurs in California, it is highly improbable that it would sail across the ocean in a giant block, and then hit beaches of Nukualofa, isn't it?


> Arent you able to see that there is a convergence of currents passing right across the coook islands from all of those coasts?



I am not able to see that because there is no convergence, and you do not know where the Cook Islands are.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2013)

I'll let you eggheads hash out the technicalities of PH levels, trace elements, and theories of coral reefs.

I look to the more tangible aspects of the argument and my opinions are based on logic.

1.  A great many AGW advocates base their entire philosophy on the satellite record.  We have had a satellite record for less than 35 years of the billions of years of the Earth's existence.  We have been measuring surface temperatures of the oceans for only 46 years.  And the fragmented records of sea captain's logs, etc. from past centuries don't fit the propaganda that arctic ice is at its lowest level ever.   Nor can climate models explain how the Earth has been much cooler in the past when CO2 levels were much higher which calls into question whether CO2 levels are mostly driven by factors other than human activity.

2.  Those most strongly advocating the AGW theory do not themselves demonstrate any concern for human activity and in fact live lifestyles that they condemn the rest of us for living.  That alone should raise some interest re the veracity of these AGW proponents.  

3.  The politicans of the world are not focusing on the largest producers of CO2 in their efforts to combat this terrible catastrophe of global warming that they say is imminent.  No, rather they focus on tightening the noose of authority and power around those who are already doing the best job of reducing greenouse emissions.  Doesn't that give you AGW religionists even pause for thought that their motives are something different than combating climate change?

4.  The climate models are unable to produce a conclusion of the climate we have now when KNOWN data is entered into them.  Shouldn't we questions how accurate they are in predicting our climate future?

5.  I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.

While all this put together is certainly no proof that AGW is NOT happening, it sure does make a good case for a healthy skepticism about it.   And I think intelligent people will want a good deal more to go on before they hand over their liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to goverments who very likely do not have their best interests in mind.


----------



## polarbear (May 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian -
> ...



Weirdos aren`t they?
IanC started a new thread "*how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we  ...."..??
*...and vacated the thread after this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7232042-post1537.html




[FONT=Arial, Geneva]the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
 This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.


And now we got the usual idiots changing IanC`s new thread to "ocean acidification"....another oxymoron because the oceans have a long way to go to be acidic:


> The oceans of the world have absorbed almost half of the CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels.[5]   The extra dissolved carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average  surface pH to shift by about 0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels.[6] This process is known as ocean acidification
> Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean*pH is estimated *to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost *30% in H+ ion concentration* in the world's oceans


a 30% increase wow...
Lets examine that a bit closer:
Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Carbonic acid
> a name sometimes given to solutions of carbon dioxide in water (carbonated water), because such solutions contain small amounts of H2CO3.
> The hydration equilibrium constant at 25°C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] &#8776; *1.7×10&#8722;3 *in pure water[2] and &#8776; *1.2×10&#8722;3 in seawater.*[3] Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules.
> H2CO3
> ...


which means *that only 1 in 1700 CO2 molecules* actually form a weak acid by adding an H+ ion the other 1699 CO2 molecules stay just that, pH neutral CO2 dissolved in water ( or 1 part as acid: per 1200 parts pH neutral CO2 in sea water) 
Next:


> Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean *pH is estimated *to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14


The pH is the negative decade log of H+ gram ions per liter.
So we are talking about an "increase" of   0.000 0016  ppm as far as the H+ is concerned.
No matter, to the "I used to run nuclear reactors" which meows:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...to-the-atmosphere-is-what-we.html#post7223459


> If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque  black. Even though the concentration of *ink molecules* is just a tiny  trace,* it absorbs 100% of visible light.
> *


According to this "science expert" you create  *"ink molecules"* when you mix carbon soot, shellac and water... which "explains" how 0.000 000 0016  grams per liter more H+ have "acidified the oceans".
Let me put that into perspective.
20 drops (water) =~ 1 milliliter
The average size swimming pool is ~ 2500 m^3
If you add 80 drops of whatever to an Olympic sized swimming pool then you increased the "whatever" by  0.000 0016  ppm.
Siamese cat-piss, black ink "mamooth molecules", acid no matter...


----------



## Dot Com (May 14, 2013)

ummm.....thats a blanket Denialist's statement. Too general. You could've posted that anywhere in this sub-forum.


----------



## Unkotare (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I'll ask again - which ocean current, and *where does the run off come from*?
> 
> ...




P.D. is at it again...


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

> 5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.



That may be the funniest comment ever made on these threads - and it has a lot of competition!!

Well done, Fox, I did laugh out loud at that!

What did Stephen Hawking say when you asked him?!


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > 5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps you can point to any studies Stephen Hawking has done on the topic of anthropogenic global warming?   Or his qualifications to be an authority on that subject?  He has commented, however, that human won't survive another 1,000 years unless they develop technology that allows them to escape Earth and move elsewhere.  Do you agree with that?


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2013)

> Perhaps you can point to any studies Stephen Hawking has done on the topic of anthropogenic global warming?



"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "

Stephen Hawking's best quotes about the earth, climate change - Miami Interfaith Spirituality | Examiner.com

So...did he only say this because ne needed money - or does he not understand the physics?


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2013)

polarbear said:


> the absorption is 0.054 W/m - and not 4.3 W/m



That dumb experment which polarbear fell for didn't replicate the atmosphere at all. It only looked at CO2. The reasons CO2 is so important is that the atmosphere doesn't have many open IR spectral windows. Most of it is already closed off. The CO2 covers some of the few remaining windows, so its effects are multiplied.

If your house has a hundred open windows and you close one, it makes very little difference with temperature. That's what polarbear's experiment showed.

If you house has two open windows and you close one, that makes a big difference with temperature. That's the real world.



> According to this "science expert" you create "ink molecules" when you mix carbon soot, shellac and water...



Yep. Given that I'm good at engineering, I explain things simply. Ink is ink. For the analogy, there's no need to break it down. Since polarbear sucks hard at engineering and common sense, he stupidly and needlessly complicates everything until nobody can understand what he's trying to say. But then, that's probably deliberate on his part, hiding his lack of knowledge with the avalanche o' crap tactic.



> which "explains" how 0.000 000 0056  grams per liter more H+ have "acidified the oceans".



This is a truly inspired evasion by polarbear. I refute the "it's just a trace!" stupidity by showing how a trace absorbs all visible light, so polarbear ignores that point, and instead dishonestly claims I was actually speaking on the completely unrelated topic of pH. That's how polarbear works. His idiot science always get debunked, and instead of addressing those debunkings, he runs by switching topics.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Perhaps you can point to any studies Stephen Hawking has done on the topic of anthropogenic global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have read similar comments right here at USMB uttered by people with no scientific credentials whatsoever.

Again, please point me to any scientific studies Hawkings has conducted himself on this matter.  And please cite his professional credentials that would make him an authority on the subject.

If you cannot do that, his is an informed opinion no different than informed opinions of those who disagree with him.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I look to the more tangible aspects of the argument and my opinions are based on logic.



No, they're based on emotionalism, bad logic and incorrect data.



> 1.  A great many AGW advocates base their entire philosophy on the satellite record.



Name _one_. I have not encountered even a single such person. Where did you get such a crazy idea? Nobody looks only at the satellite record. Direct temp measurements go back centuries, and proxies go back millions of years.



> 2.  Those most strongly advocating the AGW theory do not themselves demonstrate any concern for human activity and in fact live lifestyles that they condemn the rest of us for living.



Al Gore fixation emotional fallacy. Rational people only look at the science, and thus don't care about Gore. Denialists, however, are obsessed with Gore, since cultists need outsiders to demonize, and because it gives them an excuse to fixate on personalities and ignore the actual science.



> 3.  The politicans of the world are not focusing on the largest producers of CO2 in their efforts to combat this terrible catastrophe of global warming that they say is imminent.



Conspiracy nonsense.



> 4.  The climate models are unable to produce a conclusion of the climate we have now when KNOWN data is entered into them.



Just plain totally wrong again.



> 5.  I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.



Bad logic. All scientists presumably draw some kind of salary. Therefore, by FoxFyre bad logic, it's impossible for any scientist to not be on the take, since they publish results and get a salary. Apparently, no scientist can be trusted unless they take a vow of poverty and work for nothing.

Back in the real world, any scientist could double their salary by switching to the denialist side. The fact that they voluntarily accept a reduced salary in order to tell the truth means the financial aspects give _more_ credibility to the AGW scientists.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2013)

I would invite any of our AGW proponents on this thread to find credible sources that would dispute the data cited in this article:

Some excerpts:



> . . . .So where did that famous &#8220;consensus&#8221; claim that &#8220;98% of all scientists believe in global warming&#8221; come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered &#8220;yes&#8221; to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
> 
> Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That &#8220;98% all scientists&#8221; referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered &#8220;yes&#8221;. . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I look to the more tangible aspects of the argument and my opinions are based on logic.
> ...



I hate posts chopped up like that and generally don't bother to respond.  But I'll put my bad logic up against yours and double down.

Here are a few $$$ worth of statistics for you to dispute if you can:
How much funding did the Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist Lobby get vs the Skeptics? - Yahoo!7 Answers


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> The entire premise of ocean acidification by man induced CO2 has already been proven an alarmist claim..



Your links were nitpicking nonsense, none of which disputed the fact that ocean pH is decreasing. Instead, they complained about how the commonly used term of "acidification" to describe lowering pH should be replaced by "neutralization", because they think that's more politically correct.

It makes no difference what you call the process of lowering pH. The point is that it's happening, and it causes harm. Trying to divert from the facts with semantic games is kind of pathetic, and denying that it's happening is delusional. Again, we see a handful of cranks declaring that the entire rest of the globe is engaging in a vast conspiracy to fake the data, and that only their political fringe cult knows the RealTruth.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2013)

And I would challenge Mamooth to post his credentials that give him any credibility to declare somebody else's opinion as wrong.  Most especially when he doesn't challenge information they provide with anything other than his opinion.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Here are a few $$$ worth of statistics for you to dispute if you can:



You're Gish Galloping now, a tactic named after creationist Duane Gish. That is, dump out a vast torrent of strawmen, half-truths and fabrications, demand they all be refuted one by one, and then declare victory when no one wastes time on it. Good luck with that.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > The entire premise of ocean acidification by man induced CO2 has already been proven an alarmist claim..
> ...



AAAAHHHHHH!!!! WRONG!!!!!

Now you're lying admiral...

One discussed how PH is measured and the inconsistencies in the terminology, in order to show one of the misconceptions being pushed by the media and pundits.

The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

The next one. Was showing that the alarmist claims about ocean acidification are bunk scientifically..

Principia Scientific Intl | The Myth of ?Acidification? of Oceans

Then the one after that was about the way the claim is used to scare people, and based on unrealistic and inaccurate claims based on loose and limited research...

Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean Acidification

There the links are anyone can read them.. Quit lying admiral...


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And I would challenge Mamooth to post his credentials that give him any credibility to declare somebody else's opinion as wrong.  Most especially when he doesn't challenge information they provide with anything other than his opinion.



LOL, you must not have heard. I call mamooth admiral because his claimed credentials. He was a navy "nuke" but didn't seem to understand anything about the job, then he was an officer to boot, which of course he knew nothing about, and all of this was backed up by his desperate begging us to ask him to post his DD214. When we got tired of his crying, we said go ahead and he posts one he grabbed of the internet. Then when the metadata showed it was a fake, he scrubbed it and posted the same pic edited again..

Hence now he is Admiral....ROFL,he's some bit of work..


----------



## bripat9643 (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon -
> 
> So a drop of botulism in a swimming pool is fine, right? It doesn't change the colour of the water at all, does it?



Botulism won't kill you unless you ingest it.  If you put a drop of it in a swimming pool, the Chlorine would destroy it in minutes.



Saigon said:


> Not a good example.
> I don't know why people complained about radiocative Caesium near Chernobyl - there were only tiny amounts in the soil and water, and radioactivity occurs naturally in soil right around the world?



Taking a small amount of Iodine will prevent any dangerous effects of Cesium.  The dangers of Chernobyl are grossly exaggerated.   The total number of deaths from the accident is under 50.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon Bezerk -
> 
> I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.
> 
> ...



The Ozone hole has no connection with climate, so your analogy is bogus.  There is no evidence that increasing the quantity of CO2 "alters the very fine balance of the atmosphere."  That's the theory that cultists like you have claimed but haven't demonstrated.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> OhLOL, you must not have heard.



Groan. I was hoping gslack had finally gotten over his butthurt, but that's clearly not ever going to happen. I think I've permanently broken his little psyche.

Yes, addressing him as if he were a rational grownup clearly was a mistake, so I'll stop and just leave him alone with his precious butthurt now.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> If you put a drop of it in a swimming pool, the Chlorine would destroy it in minutes.



A drop of ink (.05 ml) in a liter of water is around 50 ppm, and that blocks the visible light. So why is it inconceivable that 400 ppm of CO2 blocks infrared in a similar fashion?

The point is that the "A trace of something can't possibly have an effect!" argument is obviously totally wrong. If anyone thinks it's a good argument, they need to explain how that trace of ink blocks the visible light.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> The question may not only be the scale of theshift in pH, but where that shift occurs.
> 
> ...









Coral reefs have been around for over 60 million years, they are far from "delicate".


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2013)

It's the rate of change that matters, not the net change.

The ocean responds to lower pH by releasing stored carbonate that buffers the pH and returns it back to normal. But that process takes a thousand years or so. That's why, in the past, the ocean could maintain a healthy pH even as CO2 levels climbed to ten times current levels. The CO2 rise happened very slowly, so the ocean could keep up.

This time, the CO2 levels are spiking in an eyeblink, by geological time. The ocean will return to the old pH in a thousand years or so, but in the meantime, bad things are happening.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> It's the rate of change that matters, not the net change.
> 
> The ocean responds to lower pH by releasing stored carbonate that buffers the pH and returns it back to normal. But that process takes a thousand years or so. That's why, in the past, the ocean could maintain a healthy pH even as CO2 levels climbed to ten times current levels. The CO2 rise happened very slowly, so the ocean could keep up.
> 
> This time, the CO2 levels are spiking in an eyeblink, by geological time. The ocean will return to the old pH in a thousand years or so, but in the meantime, bad things are happening.



Lets see some proof that CO2 levels rose slowly.  Ice cores tell us that as temperatures rise, CO2 follows because warm oceans don't hold as much CO2 as cold oceans...explain how you believe chemistry operated differently in the past when the oceans warmed.

There is no reason to believe that when past temperatures rose more quickly than what we are seeing that the oceans didn't outgas CO2 at an even faster rate.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And I would challenge Mamooth to post his credentials that give him any credibility to declare somebody else's opinion as wrong.  Most especially when he doesn't challenge information they provide with anything other than his opinion.
> ...



Well being a 'nuke' is maybe one of the most elite groups in military service, one of the hardest programs to get into, one of the toughest to complete.  I believe all who make it in have tremendous academic records, IQs way on up there, and ability to process information that most of us can only pray for.

Haven't seen too many of those qualities in Mamooth's, posts.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I'll ask again - which ocean current, and *where does the run off come from*?



Talking to you is like talking to an idiot child.  It is clear that you don't know where the cook islands are if you can look at that map of pacific ocean currents.  The Cook Islands are at 21 degrees 14' S and 159 degrees 46' W.  If you aren't bright enough to find them on the map I provided, then you aren't up to the conversation anyway.  

Looking at the map you should be able to discern that the cook islands are in the South Equatorial Current which merges with and picks up water from the East Australia Current ad the Peru Current and also picks up water from the Equatorial Current, which contains water picked up from the North Equatorial Current which passes the Asian Pacific Coasts and then the western US coasts.   

In short, the Cook Islands are bathed in every thing that is deposited in the oceans from everywhere land touches the Pacific Ocean.



Saigon said:


> The point I am tryin to get through to you here is that it runoff occurs in California, it is highly improbable that it would sail across the ocean in a giant block, and then hit beaches of Nukualofa, isn't it?



What makes you think that it has to travel in a giant block in order to damage the cook islands.  Arent you always going on about a tiny bit of this or that being enough to cause great devastation?  In this case, it doesn't take much and the pacific ocean is a big mixing bowl of everything that runs off from Austrailia, Asia, North America, Central America, and South America.

Do you believe the ocean neutralizes these chemicals somehow so that they have no appreciable "shelf life" once they are taken up by the oceans?  What do you think happens to them?  Describe the chemistry for every known chemical and pollutant known to be found in runoff.




Saigon said:


> I am not able to see that because there is no convergence, and you do not know where the Cook Islands are.



Of course there is but it isn't surprising that you would be unable to see it.  The South Equatorail current which bathes the Cook Islands converges with all of the other Pacific Currents.  I suppose you believe that the water within any given current is somehow held separate from all the other currents.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> It's the rate of change that matters, not the net change.
> 
> The ocean responds to lower pH by releasing stored carbonate that buffers the pH and returns it back to normal. But that process takes a thousand years or so. That's why, in the past, the ocean could maintain a healthy pH even as CO2 levels climbed to ten times current levels. The CO2 rise happened very slowly, so the ocean could keep up.
> 
> This time, the CO2 levels are spiking in an eyeblink, by geological time. The ocean will return to the old pH in a thousand years or so, but in the meantime, bad things are happening.








Bullpuckey.  CO2 has never, and will never have an effect on global temperatures.  And even if the planet is warming (which I sincerely hope it is) that is far better than getting cold.  It is only in the fevered imaginations of warmist science deniers that the Earths climate remains static.


----------



## gslack (May 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > OhLOL, you must not have heard.
> ...



Yes, I'm all broken over you making a fool of yourself admiral...

Here is what debating you is like...

Random poster, to another poster: I think your claim is wrong and here is my proof (supplies links to verifiable and reputable sources proving that some things are black and some things are white)

Mamooth (attacking the poster with no provocation and not quoting him fairly): All you do is troll. You haven't posted any evidence. You must be illiterate..

Random poster: Yes I did supply evidence it's right there in my post. You edited out my links in your post,seems pretty troll-like and dishonest to me..

Mamooth (responding to something he made up): You dare attack me? I am a former navy admiral with Mchales navy and super smart nuclear watch guy, how dare you!

Random poster: hey you neg-repped me! You don't sound like you have the sense to be in the navy dude..

Mamooth(after crying to a mod): You are trolling and lying,you get what you deserve. You neg-repped me back, you're a rule breaker! You doubt me???? Dare me and I will post my DD214, right here then you will be humiliated by my super smart guy brain power...Go on you think I won't post it? Huh? Dare me go on do it...

Random poster: Dude you're an idiot, no way you did anything but scrub pots or peel potatoes. And you got back what you gave me cry-baby. You went to a mod? How pathetic...

Mamooth (back after 3 days with an obvious fake picture from the web): HA! there now you are humiliated and butt-hurt! I have answered your dare and beaten you!As you can see I was admiral nimitz in my previous life, and as this picture clearly shows I was super smart too...HAHA!

And it goes on from there, we can see it here and now... You're a juvenile delinquent playing big on a web forum,nothing more.. The funny part is everyone can see what a fake you are, and when you edit quotes and respond to cherry-picked statements out of context from people rather than cite the post honestly, you show it all the more..

Eventually you will do it too often and forget yourself, and we will be rid of your childish nonsense. So please keep on being a weasel...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> OohPooh -
> 
> Well, do you think agricultural run-off could be having a localised impact on pH in the Cook Islands?



I have no idea. Unlike the venerable denialists that post on this board, I'm not an expert on _everything._



> If so - where is it running off from?



If you can't use the internet to find out, then you've probably got a dissertation waiting for you if you'd like to take 3 or 5 or 20 years to do it. Failing either of those two options, simply be amazed at what can pile up in odd places in the ocean:







http://envacapstone.wiki.usfca.edu/Great+Pacific+Garbage+Patch


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> ...
> 
> The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?




The link you post here actually admits the pH of the ocean is decreasing. THey're just whining about the fact that the stupid people that read their website can misunderstand the terminology.


From your stupid link:


> The problem with using the term &#8220;acidify&#8221; for what rainwater does to the ocean is that people misunderstand what is happening. Sure, a hard-core scientist hearing &#8220;acidify&#8221; might think &#8220;decreasing pH&#8221;.



LOL! You'll need to forgive the "hard core scientists" for using terminology that hard core scientists can understand. Maybe they should talk to each other like the morons that read wattsupwiththat.com might talk - example given by the link author here:



> But most people think &#8220;Ooooh, acid, bad, burns the skin.&#8221;


 Sure, when they are retards reading links written by retards, it wouldn't be surprising they might think that.




> Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity.


Well hell, we're making it BETTER then, aren't we?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I'll ask again - where does the run off in the Cook Islands comes from?
> 
> We know there are ocean currents - but which current and from where?



If you really want to know the answer to that question you're in the wrong place.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that only 10% of coral destruction is due to changes in pH and temperature does not mean it is a minor problem.
> ...



What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?








> Any changes in pH are more likely due to fertilizer runoff and chemical pollution.  It is a problem but you are so wrapped up in your cult that you aren't able to see where the problem is coming from.




"more likely" ? Is that your opinion as an expert in the field or are you repeating what someone else told you?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooh -
> ...









Cute picture.  Of course it's on a coastline...Here's another picture (link) of it...and surprise, surprise it's in India...not the Pacific ocean.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch | The Hard Way

Here's what the area really looks like...


The real Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Photo by Miriam Goldstein, 2010 ...


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I'll ask again - where does the run off in the Cook Islands comes from?
> ...







That's certainly the truth when idiots like you post pictures of the coast of India claiming it to be the great Pacific Gyre.  What a complete asshat.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?



What I mean is hard evidence.  You claim to be a scientist...surely you know what the term means.








> Any changes in pH are more likely due to fertilizer runoff and chemical pollution.  It is a problem but you are so wrapped up in your cult that you aren't able to see where the problem is coming from.




"more likely" ? Is that your opinion as an expert in the field or are you repeating what someone else told you?[/QUOTE]

Once more, warmers confuse correlation for causation.  Explain the chemistry that allows an ocean that is outgassing more CO2 than it is taking up to become acidic.


----------



## polarbear (May 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?
> ...





> Once more, warmers confuse correlation for causation.  Explain the chemistry that allows an ocean that is outgassing more CO2 than it is taking up to become acidic.


This ocean pH scare is even more ridiculous than these "average" global temperatures. It`s not as if we were talking about a homogeneous swimming pool with circulation pumps that haven been sized and accordingly placed so that the water treatment chemicals are properly mixed.
In addition to that this 0.1 pH unit drop is an ESTIMATE, because nobody really knows what the ocean pH was earlier...and represents a ridiculously small change as far as the actual increase of the H+ ion concentration is.

The psychotic Siamese cat buried it with "ink molecules" minutes after I posted the math, but it`s no problem to post it again.
Dissolved CO2 is pH neutral until it hydrates to Carbonic acid and only 1 CO2 molecule in 1700 does so:


> Carbonic acid
> a name sometimes given to solutions of carbon dioxide in water (carbonated water), because such solutions contain small amounts of H2CO3.
> The hydration equilibrium constant at 25°C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] &#8776; *1.7×10&#8722;3 *in pure water[2]


They claim that the "average" pH  is 8.14 = 7.2 x  10 ^(-9) [grams H+ per liter]...
And "estimate" that it was 8.24 =  5.6 x 10^(-9) [grams per liter]

When a few fish shit near a coral reef it will have as much pH impact...
And so do all these fissures that produce Sulfuric acid round the clock:






Talking about CO2 in water is as much as an oxymoron as talking about CO2 in air with water vapor.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence" ?
> ...



As you can see from the above graph, the measured dissolved Co2 content of the ocean has _risen_ with atmospheric levels.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I made no such claim.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


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










So you're saying the cause of the rising ocean pH isn't the Co2, even as the Co2 content of ocean water increases?


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> They claim that the "average" pH  is 8.14 = 7.2 x  10 ^(-9) [grams H+ per liter]...



Well, given that there are these things called pH meters that measure pH quite accurately, it's kind of silly to call it a "claim". Only a conspiracy theorist would put "claim" in quotes and thus imply that they were lying about it.

Anyways, it seems PolarBear's knowledge of water chemistry sucks just as badly as the rest of his "science". He doesn't understand how weak acids and bases work, as his crack about hydrothermal vents shows. I'll give you a hint. A weak base like baking soda will neutralize acid just as well as a strong base like lye. The amount of acid coming out of those vents is completely insignificant compared to the dissolved CO2.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








You posted the picture dummy.  That means that YES YOU DID MAKE THE CLAIM.

So are you stoned, or just a simpleton?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > They claim that the "average" pH  is 8.14 = 7.2 x  10 ^(-9) [grams H+ per liter]...
> ...








No, admiral, once again he slaughtered you with some very basic science.  Science that you would know had you taken a good chem class in high school.


----------



## gslack (May 15, 2013)

Gotta give you credit for patience west. I don't bother dealing with oompah-loompah Ian sock.Just one too many obvious alter-egos for me.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> No, admiral, once again he slaughtered you with some very basic science.



Then I'm sure you'll be able to explain what polarbear's point was, and how he "slaughtered" me. Using your own words, of course, and providing the mathematics and data to back up your claims. Please do so now.

Anyways, I'm sure we'll all soon learn that in addition to the physics of the past century all being wrong, the chemistry is all wrong as well, and only our handful of political cultists here understand the real truth. We should all be appreciative of having such a group of Einsteins in our midst. One only wonders why the world fails to appreciate their genius.


----------



## polarbear (May 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > They claim that the "average" pH  is 8.14 = 7.2 x  10 ^(-9) [grams H+ per liter]...
> ...



Dipshit, you haven`t got the vaguest idea how to measure a pH accurately even if I`ld let you have a pH meter.
Suppose I gave you this one and you had to measure the pH of a sample what`s the first thing you would have to do?





Step 1?
Step 2?
Step 3?
Step 4?
Which of the 2 probes you see is the pH probe and which one is the reference probe?
What is in those 2 beakers?
The yellow one is pH what ?
The red one is pH what?
And what color code is used for the pH 7 calibration buffer ?
*Happy Googling !...it`ll keep you busy for a while
*


----------



## polarbear (May 15, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> When a few fish shit near a coral reef it will have as much pH impact...
> And so do all these fissures that produce Sulfuric acid round the clock:
> 
> 
> ...












> So you're saying the cause of the rising ocean pH isn't the *Co2*, even as the *Co2* content of ocean water increases?


First of all I was talking about CO2 not diatomic Cobalt (Co)...You claim to be a physicist but don`t know the difference ?
Secondly I said that there is no such thing as a measured average ocean pH...what it was, as opposed to what it is now, *both are ESTIMATES.*
Ocean pH has not even been mapped yet because these projects are still looking for funding to establish a wide spread sampling network....
But according to dipshit all you need is only one accurate pH meter to get the pH of all our oceans:


> Well, given that there are these things called pH meters that measure pH quite accurately,


To sort out these huge variations:


> Seawater pH statistics for pH zones associated with CO2 vents at Ischia, Italy, calculated from hourly measurements taken by in situ pH sensors for separate deployments of the sensors
> pH Zone
> Season/site     Ambient     Low     Extreme low
> Winter/south
> ...





> Table 2.                             Measured and estimated environmental and geochemical variables for pH zones
> Parameter     Ambient     Low     Extreme low     N
> North
> &#8195;Salinity(&#8240     37.9± 0.3     37.8±0.4     37.9± 0.4     3
> ...





> _A_) northern and (_B_) southern sites at Castello Aragonese d&#8217;Ischia in the ambient (blue), low (yellow), and extreme low (red) pH zones. Time                                        series for (_A_) the northern site is from September 13 to October 8, 2010, and time series for (_B_) the southern site is





> observations of pH collected during spring of 2010 using SeaFET pH  sensors at three locations under fast sea ice in the southern Ross Sea.  During these deployments in McMurdo Sound, baseline pH ranged between  *8.019&#8211;8.045*, with low to moderate overall variation





> Variation in ocean pH is a dynamic process occurring naturally in the  upwelling zone of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem.
> Large fluctuations in pH of up to 0.67 pH units were observed over short  time scales of several days. Daily pH fluctuations on a tidal pattern  followed temperature fluctuations over short time scales,


As if you could get an average pacific ocean pH with a mere 13 pH probes:





While you got *"Large fluctuations in pH of up to 0.67 pH"*.



> So you're saying the cause of the rising ocean pH isn't the Co2, even as the Co2 content of ocean water increases?


No, ...that`s not what I was saying..I`m saying that it is ridiculous to "estimate" that the "ocean pH" was 8.24 and that we changed it by * 0.1 pH *units  to 8.14

Do you get it ?
No ?
Maybe you should stick with making pop-frogs in your microwave and watch TV


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Dipshit, you haven`t got the vaguest idea how to measure a pH accurately even if I`ld let you have a pH meter.



That's why I'd read the instructions for the particular model.

So, we see one of your usual sad attempts at a deflection, but it won't work. You _still_ fail at water chemistry.

Tell us, how much sulfuric acid is emitted by those black smokers? How does that compare to how much additional CO2 dissolves each year? I mean, if I were going to make such a groundbreaking claim, I'd certainly run the numbers first, and not expect people to just accept my handwaving.

If hydrothermal vents are driving ocean pH, shouldn't the oceans be more acidic around the spreading mid-ocean ridges where such vents are found? They're not, you know. For example, the mid-atlantic area is a little more alkaline than the average for seawater. That seems to contradict your theory.


----------



## polarbear (May 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Dipshit, you haven`t got the vaguest idea how to measure a pH accurately even if I`ld let you have a pH meter.
> ...



You found nothing with Google.
That`s a run of the mill pH meter with a pH and a KCl reference probe.
*They all work the same*.
The calibration buffers use also all the same color coding WORLD WIDE...
You had no idea which one in that picture was the pH 4 and which one was the pH 10 calibration buffer and meowed:



> That's why I'd read the instructions for the particular model.
> 
> So, we see one of your usual sad attempts at a deflection


So who is deflecting?
And you are trying to give me an exam in "water chemistry"...?
What the fuck is that ?
I took Phys Chem, Organic Chem, Inorganic Chem, Organic synthesis Chem,
Radio Chemistry, Trace Analysis,...such as Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, Infrared and UV spectroscopy, HPLC, GLC etc etc..but I never heard of "water chemistry"...then again I did not study at "skeptical science.org" like you do


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> But according to dipshit all you need is only one accurate pH meter to get the pH of all our oceans:



The only dipshit saying such a dumb thing is polarbear. I often wonder how he comes up with such stupid ideas. He appears to work very hard at it.



> No, ...that`s not what I was saying..I`m saying that it is ridiculous to "estimate" that the "ocean pH" was 8.24 and that we changed it by 0.1 pH units to 8.14



Which is as dumb as saying "It's ridiculous to estimate global temperature has risen! You only have a finite number of measurements!".

We have direct measurements. And we have historical proxies, the boron isotope ratios. You can quibble about how the pH average is calculated, but it's just delusional to claim the pH hasn't changed.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2013)

polarbear said:


> You found nothing with Google.



True, because I didn't look, because I don't give a shit. The mechanics of a specific pH meter aren't  relevant to anything. You only want to bring them up as one of your patented cowardly evasions.



> I took Phys Chem, Organic Chem, Inorganic Chem, Organic synthesis Chem,
> Radio Chemistry, Trace Analysis,...such as Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, Infrared and UV spectroscopy, HPLC, GLC etc etc.



Then why do you suck so badly at water chemistry? A topic, by the way, which the ACA seems to think exists. Odd you never heard of something that mainstream. You know, the chemistry of dissolving stuff in water. 

Water Chemistry

Are you fabricating all your credentials? I mean, what else would explain why you get everything so wrong?


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Then why do you suck so badly at water chemistry? A topic, by the way, which the ACA seems to think exists. Odd you never heard of something that mainstream. You know, the chemistry of dissolving stuff in water.



Guess you didn't read the course desccription.  It isn't a hard science course...it isn't even a soft science course.   It is the sort of thing one might take in pursuit of a degree in political science or public management.  From the syllabus:



> Water chemists study the impact of water on other elements in the systems and how other elements in these systems affect the quality of water. Water chemists also contribute to the design and implementation of processes and policies to manage these effects.



The tell is at the bottom of the page:



> What You Can Do Now
> 
> Water chemists say the best preparation for this field is to *build a broad base of knowledge that includes a solid foundation in one of the chemical disciplines*. Lab courses are equally important because *actual hands-on chemistry is one of the best ways to prepare for work in this field.* Environmental science courses that build an understanding of government policy issues are the key to success when combined with technical expertise.



In case you don't understand what that means...it is saying that water chemistry is not a science course and if you want to do anything in this field, you will have to take some actual science.

Why don't you just stop talking.  Every time you open your mouth you either stick your foot in it or demonstrate that you don't know much of anything about anything.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do you suck so badly at water chemistry? A topic, by the way, which the ACA seems to think exists. Odd you never heard of something that mainstream. You know, the chemistry of dissolving stuff in water.
> ...



I figure Chemistry should cover PH balance. Any moderate to advanced level chemistry course will give you a solid knowledge of PH in anything, after all it's one of the fundamentals in chemistry. Mixing chemicals with a PH level that is not within the parameters of the experiment can be bad in many ways.

But mamooth knows all just ask him he will tell you something he snatched off the net..


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

Gslack, tell us why both disodium phosphate and trisodium phosphate are used in the boiler/Steam generator water.

Tell us why ammonia is used for the primary loop.

Tell us why ammonia isn't used for the secondary loop.

Tell us why phosphates aren't used for the primary loop.

Tell us how many moles of sulfuric acid that a mole of a bicarbonate (a weak base) can neutralize.

Tell us why adding CO2 to seawater affects the pH, but not the alkalinity.

None of you kooks will be able to answer those, of course. The answers won't be on google, and you're all completely helpless if you can't google something.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 16, 2013)

Geez, you're talking highschool chemistry stuff here Mamooth.  One of the first concepts we learned is that adding CO2 to a solution does not change the alkalinity because the reaction includes an equal amount of positive vs negative species.  I'm pretty sure that information is probably available on the internet somewhere though because it is such basic stuff.

As for CO2 changing the Ph, that also is pretty basic stuff.  Dissolved CO2 creates carbonic acid that does lower the Ph--and we all breath out carbonic acid along with CO2.  However, volcanoes and other natural phenomenon produce far more carbonic acid than anything humans can do, and the increase of our factories and home furnaces belching tons of it into the atmosphere have not increased the amount of natural carbonic acid to any significantly measurable degree.   The plants on earth absorb that along with CO2 and maintain a reasonable balance.

This is also first year chemistry stuff you know.  And I'm pretty sure it is available somewhere on the internet too.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Gslack, tell us why both disodium phosphate and trisodium phosphate are used in the boiler/Steam generator water.
> 
> Tell us why ammonia is used for the primary loop.
> 
> ...



LOL,call it a hunch but I'm pretty sure you googled the entire list...

Your need to stalk me is touching admiral but I'm really not interested. You're too needy, too clingy, and frankly you're an internet fake and phony. As well as a liar and weasel..So sorry, but it's still a no..

Not gonna bother with it.. LOL, All I'm gonna tell you is you need to get a life, and that you're again mixing terms out of context...I'm no boiler tech, and neither are you.

I'm not going to get into a "who can google the most obscure tech data" contest with you troll. You want answers to your questions? Fine..

1. Cleaning?

2. Because that's what you found in your google docs jaunt?

3. see number 2.

4. see number 2.

5. LOL, you just rambled junior.. Why not ask "how many moles of sulfuric acid can a single mole of bicarbonate (weak base) neutralize?" It makes sense that way, your question was garbled but I get what you wanted to know.. and the answer is. You should set traps if you have mole problems. Don't use poisons because they may harm other critters..LOL

6. LOL, because it forms an acid numbnuts. And look I can google too.."This is because the net reaction produces the same number of equivalents of positively contributing species (H+) as negative contributing species (HCO3- and/or CO32-)."

LOL, too funny admiral..

7. The last bit was you trying to grandstand and act all big for the adults...LOL

Admiral you do realize you keep telling on yourself with your immature bold claims and statements? 

Here's the thing.. You google up all kinds of obscure tech jabber to back up some bold absolute claim you made. And when you do you leave out context and improperly use terminology, showing that you haven't a clue of how it works or what actually goes on. All you did was google up some techno-jargon and paste it up there, and then call yourself a genius..

Only a kid does that, and only a kid is so desperate to impress. You're like a teenager trying to get the attention of the hot girl in school. You ramble and fudge it up, but you think you're doing well.. Damn man, even the most socially inept adult doesn't try this hard to impress people they don't know.

Who you trying to impress now junior? Me? Well start with honesty first and work your way up. I think you are desperate to be seen as somebody important or smart, or whatever by anybody even if they are just online people.. Grow up junior, your desperation reeks.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2013)

Foxfyre gives a decent answer for #6. Score that one correct. Alkalinity and pH are not the same thing, and one can lower pH without changing alkalinity. Most people don't understand that, but you have to understand it for seawater chemistry. It's also a reason why "acidification" is the scientifically correct term to use now.

As expected, a perfect zero score from gslack. He couldn't google any of it, thus he was completely helpless.

I'll give polarbear a 50%, from his rambling post on the other thread. He has some familiarity with boilers, so he managed a halfass job.


----------



## gslack (May 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre gives a decent answer for #6. Score that one correct. Alkalinity and pH are not the same thing, and one can lower pH without changing alkalinity. Most people don't understand that, but you have to understand it for seawater chemistry. It's also a reason why "acidification" is the scientifically correct term to use now.
> 
> As expected, a perfect zero score from gslack. He couldn't google any of it, thus he was completely helpless.
> 
> I'll give polarbear a 50%, from his rambling post on the other thread. He has some familiarity with boilers, so he managed a halfass job.



Uh-huh, I didn't play your game so you're gonna take your ball and go home now right.. ROFL, you're a peacock..  A preening, posturing, fowl with delusions of brilliance..

Do you really think people are going to believe you after all you have done here till now? You were busted being a fraud more times than I can count, and you claim to understand so much about reactors, and now boilers and chemistry, yet you couldn't spot the obvious in the simple heat lamp thought experiment.. ROFL, it's okay little fella, no one noticed how you can't understand the simplest of things but seem to have a wealth of techno-babble you use inaccurately all the time.. Yep, to them you're a genius...

And pay no attention to the nay-sayers who doubt your brilliance admiral...

You're too silly for words


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 16, 2013)

polarbear said:


> First of all I was talking about CO2 not diatomic Cobalt (Co)...


I wasn't talking about Cobalt.


> Variation in ocean pH is a dynamic process occurring naturally in the  upwelling zone of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem.
> Large fluctuations in pH of up to 0.67 pH units were observed over short  time scales of several days. Daily pH fluctuations on a tidal pattern  followed temperature fluctuations over short time scales,






> No, ...that`s not what I was saying..I`m saying that it is ridiculous to "estimate" that the "ocean pH" was 8.24 and that we changed it by * 0.1 pH *units  to 8.14



The pH of the ocean at Mauna Loa in the graph isn't an "estimate" - its a measurement with a pH meter.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> [
> 
> The pH of the ocean at Mauna Loa in the graph isn't an "estimate" - its a measurement with a pH meter.



How much CO2 do you think the volcano puts in to the water there via underwater vents?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Not enough to alter the near exact correlation between atmospheric Co2 and ocean Co2 at Mauna Loa.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



What are you talking about...one would expect a pretty exact correlation between atmospheric CO2 and ocean CO2 at the testing site.  Neither are representative of the world but just a continuous test site.  Surely you don't believe that the CO2 concentrations at one of the worlds largest volcanoes is representative of the CO2 levels across the whole globe.  And surely you don't think that the dissolved CO2 levels in the water around one of the world's largest volcanoes is representative of the rest of the ocean?  Do you?

Go ahead and admit it...you do.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


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




Actually atmospheric Co2 levels as recorded at different locations around the world are very tightly correlated.  For example, here is a plot I made of the data from Mauna Loa, the South Pole, and Guam:






As you can see, outside of annual variations, the three curves follow the same trend. Mauna Loa and Guam are practically on top of one another. (There is some missing data for Mauna Loa where the straight line is)

Here is where you can find the data sets
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - FTP Navigator


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Surely you don't believe that the CO2 concentrations at one of the worlds largest volcanoes is representative of the CO2 levels across the whole globe.



Spot the person who does not know why the Hawaii site was chosen. 

1) Because high altitude means the station is above a lot of local weather

2) Because it is free of interference from cities

3) Because being in the middle of the ocean presents quite a neutral image

4) Because volcanic activity is easy to measure and filter out

And of course - it is only one of dozens of monitoring stations around the world. If you dislike one - use on of the others. 

And yes, I am sure you will now argue that the scientists are wrong and you are right because you know more than they do.


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Surely you don't believe that the CO2 concentrations at one of the worlds largest volcanoes is representative of the CO2 levels across the whole globe.
> ...



Spot the person who doesn't find the fact it being at the crest of one of the worlds largest and most active volcanoes a bit odd...

1. Lots of places of a high altitude and I wasn't aware that CO2 concentrations only count in "good weather"..

2. Why not have it in the middle of the sierra Nevada mountains, or any number of places both reclusive and higher up? Mount Hood perhaps?

3. It not i the middle of the ocean, its on the crest of one of the largest and most active volcanoes on the planet. That volcano forms an Island and that Island is inhabited by people and has some cities on it as well...

4. really? then why aren't they filtered out of the global CO2 charts and graphs? They can't and aren't because they are too many and too variable to be certain. So is this one. They do not always put out the same amount of gases or particulates, that means any claims as to levels from a volcano are a best guess. Making any "filtering out" dubious at best..

Again they can put the observatory almost anywhere,but they chose the worlds largest and most active volcano for a reason..

BTW..One more time because you people seem to keep ignoring this fact..

The 400 ppm measurement is from Mauna loa observatory. The global mean they came up with is now at 396 ppm as per the original link...

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Week beginning on May 5, 2013:     399.50 ppm 
Weekly value from 1 year ago:     397.07 ppm 
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     377.85 ppm 

Monthly

Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
April 2013:     398.40 ppm 
April 2012:     396.18 ppm

and the global most recent

Recent Global CO2
March 2013:     396.52 ppm 
March 2012:     393.57 ppm

Now you see the difference yet? No? okay here's the kicker..

Last 5 days of preliminary daily average CO2
May 16 - 399.74         May 15 - 399.59         May 14 - 399.81         May 13 - 399.86         May 12 - 399.46        

notice the latest measurement is lower than the one 2 days before it and the one the day before that? And notice the earliest of the 5 day account is .28 below most recent one? That much variance in just 5 consecutive days and you don't think the fact it's near a volcano has any bearing on CO2 measurements???

LOL, wake up man..


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> Last 5 days of preliminary daily average CO2
> May 16 - 399.74         May 15 - 399.59         May 14 - 399.81         May 13 - 399.86         May 12 - 399.46
> 
> notice the latest measurement is lower than the one 2 days before it and the one the day before that? And notice the earliest of the 5 day account is .28 below most recent one? That much variance in just 5 consecutive days and you don't think the fact it's near a volcano has any bearing on CO2 measurements???
> ...



Amazing what they can convince themselves of if their faith is strong enough isn't it. 

Oopt te doo pointed out the CO2 levels of the ocean around there as if the volcano weren't spewing CO2 and other compounds  constantly below the surface of the ocean.   It appeared as if it never occurred to him.


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

SSDD -

Do not mistake people actually understanding what you do not, for people not understanding what you do not understand either. 

This is what most posters know that you do not:

MLO is located on the north flank of Mauna Loa Volcano, on the Big Island of Hawaii. Due to its remote location in the Pacific Ocean, high altitude (3397 meters, or 11,135 feet above sea level), and great distance from major pollution sources, MLO is a prime spot for sampling the Earth's background air in the well mixed free troposphere. The observatory protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer present in the region, which separates the more polluted lower portions of the atmosphere from the much cleaner free troposphere.

The observatory is located on an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean, away from major air pollution sources. MLO also protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer present in the region. This inversion layer acts like a lid and keeps the lower local pollutants below the observatory.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Mauna Loa Observatory

The contamination from local volcanic sources is sometimes detected at the observatory, and is then removed from the background data, but is only detected when the inversion layer is not present.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The observatory is located on an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean, away from major air pollution sources. MLO also protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer present in the region. This inversion layer acts like a lid and keeps the lower local pollutants below the observatory.



The only thing that spot is a prime sampling spot for is the emissions from the volcano it sits atop.


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

SSDD -

Frstly, I am sure no one on the forum would have expected you to understand why a combination of high altitude, an isolated location and a strong inversion layer make it an ideal site for the observatory, and secondly, I am sure there are good reasons why you ignore the data from the Barrow, Alaska observatory.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Frstly, I am sure no one on the forum would have expected you to understand why a combination of high altitude, an isolated location and a strong inversion layer make it an ideal site for the observatory, and secondly, I am sure there are good reasons why you ignore the data from the Barrow, Alaska observatory.



Pretend that you grasp it all siagon and while you are at it, continue to prove daily, no scratch that, hourly  that you don't grasp any of it.

By the way, I can't help but notice that you failed to mention that Mauna Loa is just a short way downwind from a very active volcano...Kilauea Iki....which calls into serious question all the reasons you claim it is a good spot to put an observatory.

And the whole argument is moot anyway as there is, and remains exactly zero observed, measured evidence that CO2 causes warming anyway...much less man's small contribution to the total.

One other thing...there is ample experimental evidence to show that the upwelling and downwelling air movement that is present at Mona Loa can set up oscillatory patterns circulating the same air, therefore testing the same air.


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

SSDD -

I'll ask again - why do you ignore the data from Barrow, Alaska?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2013)

SSDD is going to ignore any data from anywhere that would force him to look at reality. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is well documented now from around the world. Mauna Lau is just the site with the longest record, not even the primary site any more. And we can and do monitor CO2 and CH4 from satellites as well. 

These flap-yaps ignore all of this because it does not fit their political ideology. A sad commentary on their ability to think.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



No idea whether your graphs are the real deal or produed by some AGW religionist via home computer.  But assuming they are the real deal. . . 

Those measurements at Mauna Loa have been taken for a little more than 50 years.  Prior to that, we have no idea what the CO2 levels have been.   Admittedly there, on top of one of the world's most volatile volcanoes, the CO2 curve has been steadily increasing for that last 50 years, however global warming has not been steadily increasing at the same rate.  Which of course is another reason to question how much affect CO2 has on global warming.

Working from memory here so there may be some variations in the numbers, in spite of huge increases in human activity that produces CO2, the human generated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is at most about 2% of all CO2 generated from all sources and CO2 is miniscule among greenhouse gasses when compared to water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, that is also produced in massive quantities via human activity.   But nobody on the AGW side seems to be looking at that.

A curious thing is that Methane makes up about 9% of the anthropogenic produced greenhouse gasses but accumulation in the atmosphere has not been increasing at the level CO2 has--in fact has been pretty flat for some decades now.  Why is that?   I don't know.  I'm guessing nobody else on this thread knows.  But I think it is interesting and worth considering in the big picture.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



Have you ever heard of Ice Cores? From Greenland, the Antarctic, and glaciers from around the world? We have a very good record of CO2 for the last 800,000 years.

We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. That is a greater increase than the differance between a full blown ice age and the present interglacial. And H2O has a residence time of about 10 days in the atmosphere. CO2, at least 100 years.

A curious thing that you are so incredibly ignorant of the numbers on CH4. Prior to the industrial revolution, CH4 was about 780 ppb. Today it is over 1800 ppb.  About a 250% increase, as compared to the 40% increase for CO2.

Really, you need to do some research before posting your ignorance for the whole world to see.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Well my research shows that those same ice cores demonstrate that we have had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations when the Earth was much cooler on average than now.  So. . . .what does your research show about that?


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

Foxfyre -

Please remember to present links and evidence to back up your claims.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 18, 2013)

*"People who argue against climate change,
would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes"​**(That's how fuckin' stupid their argument is!)*​




Climate change is not a debatable issue, it's a reality!

_Howcum 97% of Scientists Say Humans Cause Climate Change 
But Americans Still Don't Get It? _


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> Please remember to present links and evidence to back up your claims.



Over time on these global warming threads, I have posted numerous sources I believe to be worthy of consideration, and they are uniformly rejected or ignored by the AGW proponents.   I will be happy to do a better job of continuing  to do that, however, if the AGW religionists will do a better job of citing who prepared the pretty, colorful graphs and charts that they copy and paste over and over and over and over as if pasting them over and over somehow makes them more credible.

But even though I suspect you, Oldrocks, et al who are among the AGW proponents will ignore the refereneces cited and/or pooh pooh my sources as irrelevent, I will give you something to chew on re that:

"





> Scientists from numerous disciplines have been examining CO2 since the beginning of the 19th century, and they have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct, real-time measurements. These measurements tell a far different story about CO2 -- they demonstrate, for example, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly, and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today's levels.
> 
> "The IPCC rejects these direct measurements, some taken by Nobel Prize winners. They prefer the view of CO2 as seen through ice."
> The ice-core man





> During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
> 
> The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
> 
> ...





> Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."
> 
> According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
> 
> ...





> .. . .Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley's data, the earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.
> 
> By contrast, NASA data shows worldwide temperatures increasing at a record pace - and nearly a full degree warmer than 1880.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunshine (May 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> > The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> >
> > This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:
> >
> ...








Do your part.  Stop breathing.


----------



## mamooth (May 18, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Well my research shows that those same ice cores demonstrate that we have had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations when the Earth was much cooler on average than now.  So. . . .what does your research show about that?



It would show that orbital forcings and other forcings were at play.

Your stupid point relies on the dumb assumption that someone ever claimed that CO2 was the only factor at play. Since no one ever made such crazy claim, your point only successfully manages to shoot down your own dumb strawman. it doesn't address the actual global warming issue at all.

Let's check some of your other nonsense.



> Working from memory here so there may be some variations in the numbers, in spite of huge increases in human activity that produces CO2, the human generated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is at most about 2% of all CO2 generated from all sources



So you fail to understand how an equilibrium system works. If I make $500 a week and spend $500 a week, my bank account doesn't change. If I make $510 a week and spend $500, my bank account goes up $10 a month, even though it's only a 2% increase.



> and CO2 is miniscule among greenhouse gasses when compared to water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, that is also produced in massive quantities via human activity.



Water vapor immediately rains out. CO2 doesn't. Human emissions of water vapor mean zilch, because they don't stick around.  Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. 



> But nobody on the AGW side seems to be looking at that.



Bull-freaking-shit. _Everyone_ on the AGW side looks at the effects of water vapor. Where did you hear such idiot propaganda?


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

Foxfyre -

Ok, I've read those comments - but what point are you trying to make here?

Have you seen anyone here deny that CO2 was high at other times in the history of the earth?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well my research shows that those same ice cores demonstrate that we have had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations when the Earth was much cooler on average than now.  So. . . .what does your research show about that?
> ...



I have never suggested that anybody has said that CO2 is the only factor at play so you can put that straw man back on the shelf.  However, I have said that CO2 seems to be the only factor that our AGW proponents are seriously worried about, the one that is the main topic of conversation on these AGW threads, and the only one cited in the OP.  So silly me, I focused on that.  Stupid of me I know, but oh well. . . .

As for those percentages, your metaphor does not address whether the percentages are significant.  If I put a teaspoon of salt into the ocean I have increased the salt content of the ocean but at a level that is insignificant.  If I put a second teaspoon of salt into the ocean, I have doubled the added salt or increased it by 100% but it still is at a level that is insignificant.  But if I word it that I have doubled the salt content added to the ocean--something that is unprecedented--it can sound really ominous to somebody who doesn't put that into the proper persepctive.

And you just contradicted yourself re the water vapor issue.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Last 5 days of preliminary daily average CO2
> ...







The obvious never does.  But once again who cares....CO2 is the essential building block of life, the more the better and it follows the warmth anyway.  Anybody who can look at the Vostock ice core data and think that CO2 drives the temps is a mentally challenged individual.

They are best ignored because they couldn't rub two sticks together anyway...


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

Fox - 



> However, I have said that CO2 seems to be the only factor that our AGW proponents are seriously worried about, the one that is the main topic of conversation on these AGW threads, and the only one cited in the OP.



I am sure you would also agree that CO2 is cited by the overwhelming majority of scientists as being the main factor (but not the only factor) in rising temperatures.

Hence, it is also the issue that is most discussed here.

If more scientists start to conclude that solar activity is more important than we thought; I imagine we will discuss that more at that point.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2013)

This is why looneyboy....why aren't you smart enough to figure out they told you the truth....


"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, 
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports 












loinboy said:


> *"People who argue against climate change,
> would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes"​**(That's how fuckin' stupid their argument is!)*​
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> ...







After you sweety, you're the one who wishes to ignore history and basic science...


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well my research shows that those same ice cores demonstrate that we have had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations when the Earth was much cooler on average than now.  So. . . .what does your research show about that?
> ...









Bullcrap to your whole post.   Computer models the climatologists have developed incorporate water vapor as a POSITIVE forcer (if they even incorporated it at all which the VAST majority of them didn't because they couldn't figure out how to do it) when the actual effect of water vapor is as a negative forcer.  Furthermore, AGW propagandists have (until very recently) claimed that CO2 was THE dominant driver in global temps.

You pathetic attempt to revise history is duly noted.  Unfortunately for you the internet is a wonderful source for what you clowns actually said and that source categorizes your statement as FALSE.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> 
> 
> ...








No, it's cited by climatologists and as we have seen they can't do math very well so their opinion doesn't matter any more.  When they get their level of education up to a third year geology students level I might take notice.


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

Westwall - 

Just in case I haven't mentioned this earlier - I now only read and respond posts by the the stonger, more on-topic posters. There is more to life than having to wade through you and glslack's gibberish and spam.

Hence, you are on ignore mode.

btw, If you are going to quote Schneider -try and do so honestly. You missed out this line:

*On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but &#8212; which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. *


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Here are a few $$$ worth of statistics for you to dispute if you can:
> ...



And I again ask for your credentials that makes you an authority on who is and who is not credible when you provide no backup for your opinion.

See:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-4.html#post7235855


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Um, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Sunshine's post was tongue-in-cheek.  If you were responding to somebody else, you might want to clarify that.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will agree that the CO2 is cited by an overwhelming majority of AGW proponents as being the main factor (but not the only factor) in rising temperatures.  I am not at all convinced that is the case with an overwhelming majority (or any majority) of competent climate scientists, however.

Thus I remain interested in the opinions of those researchers and scientists, most especially climate scientists, who have a different point of view about that.

I would like for ALL Americans who value their opportunities, options, and choices to be as interested in all sides of the debate and not so gung ho to give over their liberties to those who may or may not have their best interests at heart.


----------



## Saigon (May 18, 2013)

Fox - 

It's always good to keep an open mind about the debate - although there are some aspects of the discussion (glaciers, the Arctic) that there really can not be any doubt about now, and has not been for many years. Other issues, such as ocean pH and deep ocean warming the jury is still out on.



> I am not at all convinced that is the case with an overwhelming majority (or any majority) of competent climate scientists, however.



Did you see the graphic posted earlier?

If there is not actual scientific consensus, then there is at least 95% of scientists backing the concept of AGW.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> It's always good to keep an open mind about the debate - although there are some aspects of the discussion (glaciers, the Arctic) that there really can not be any doubt about now, and has not been for many years. Other issues, such as ocean pH and deep ocean warming the jury is still out on.
> 
> ...



Sure I look at all the pretty graphs, any one of which can be produced by anybody with a computer who knows how to make a graph.

I don't dispue at all that at least 95% of scientists believe in AGW.  Even climate scientists have to acknowledge that humans are having some effect.  The evidence of whether the AGW effect presents any significant danger or whether other, more uncontrollable causes are the more dangerous reality is still very much open to debate.

Take this study from George Mason Univiersity:



> Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
> Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe &#8220;global average temperatures have increased&#8221; during the past century.
> 
> Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that &#8220;currently available scientific evidence&#8221; substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
> ...



And though the GMU study found a tiny percentage of climate scientists who would admit to being pressured into taking a given postiion, there is evidence to question that:

On the subject of the sad state of research funding:


> &#8220;The agencies are also at fault. They are bureaucracies that promote top-down science to suit political and administrative ends. To begin with, there is the application process itself. Often, an agency&#8217;s request for proposal, or RFP, reads like a legal document, constricting the applicant to stay within very narrow and conventional bounds, with no profound scientific questions posed at all. Many RFP&#8217;s are so overly specific that they amount to little more than work for hire. Those who know how to play the game simply reply to RFP&#8217;s with parroted responses that echo the language in the proposal, in efforts to convince the reviewers that their programs exactly fit the conditions of the RFP. Thus many RFP&#8217;s inhibit good research rather than encourage it.
> Perceptive Article On The Sad State Of Research Funding By Toby N. Carlson | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.



From my own experience as a research assistant as well as a grants writer over the years, I can testify that the opinion expressed above appears to be right on target.

And then there is that pesky question of whether scientific opinion is being purchased by governments eager to have more power and resources via global warming issues:
Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research | Fox News

And the question should be:  if all federal research monies were withdrawn, how much of a scientific consensus in favor of AGW would there be?  As much?  A lot less?

Is there a credible and qualified climate scientist out there who is NOT receiving government funding or otherwise personally benefitting from promoting AGW who is pushing AGW as a significant issue?

ASIDE:   And it is difficult to take  you seriously re your scientific views when you would put somebody like Westwall on ignore because he challenges your scientific views?  Or you don't like what he says?  I don't always like the way he says it, but I have found his scholarship to be pretty unassailable and I personally respect his opinion a great deal whether or not I agree with it.


----------



## mamooth (May 18, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And the question should be:  if all federal research monies were withdrawn, how much of a scientific consensus in favor of AGW would there be?  As much?  A lot less?



The same amount, obviously. Only the conspiracy theorists think all scientists are lying for money, given that there's zero evidence for such a slanderous accusation.

Any scientist could double his salary by switching to the denialist side. That's where the cash is. The ethical scientists all choose to continue accepting a lower wage to tell the truth. They can't be bribed over to the denialist side, and that gives them credibility.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And the question should be:  if all federal research monies were withdrawn, how much of a scientific consensus in favor of AGW would there be?  As much?  A lot less?
> ...



Your still unsubstantiated opinion is noted and set aside as you still can't back up what you're typing out.


----------



## mamooth (May 18, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I have never suggested that anybody has said that CO2 is the only factor at play so you can put that straw man back on the shelf.  However, I have said that CO2 seems to be the only factor that our AGW proponents are seriously worried about, the one that is the main topic of conversation on these AGW threads, and the only one cited in the OP.  So silly me, I focused on that.  Stupid of me I know, but oh well. . . .



Since greenhouse gases are the only factor we control, of course that's what people focus on. That's simple logic. It not like we can make the sun cooler, or move the orbit of the earth. If I'm designing an airplane, I don't focus on changing gravity.

Now, your problem is in how you'll only look at denialist propaganda sources. You need to try some competent, honest and neutral sources instead. Here's a good summary for you to start with, one that debunks the standard list of denialist nonsense. 

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Make sure you refute all 174 arguments point-by-point. After all, you use that standard on others, so it's only fair that it be applied to you.


----------



## mamooth (May 18, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Your still unsubstantiated opinion is noted and set aside as you still can't back up what you're typing out.



Nice attempt at running, but it won't work. I'll just go right back to the point you're running from.

Scientists take a pay cut to be on the AGW side. Yet you accuse them of greed. How can someone be greedy for taking a pay cut? You claim money corrupts, but then you give your allegiance to the side that's been corrupted by money.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2013)

Here's another more recent poll of scientists, however, that comes to a very differen conclusion than that GMU poll I posted:



> It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
> 
> Dont look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (May 18, 2013)

Your survey wasn't of scientists. It was of petroleum engineers working the Alberta Tar Sands. 

Golly, who could have predicted such a response?


----------



## mamooth (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I now only read and respond posts by the the stonger, more on-topic posters.



This is the DNFTEC rule. "Do not feed the energy creature."

That is, there are entities roaming the internet that derive sustenance from the negative emotions of others. One should deny them such nourishment. As it was with Captain Kirk and Klingon Commander Kang, one should resist the negative emotions, and drive them away with laughter instead.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Your survey wasn't of scientists. It was of petroleum engineers working the Alberta Tar Sands.
> 
> Golly, who could have predicted such a response?



Where does it say that?


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Just in case I haven't mentioned this earlier - I now only read and respond posts by the the stonger, more on-topic posters. There is more to life than having to wade through you and glslack's gibberish and spam.
> 
> ...








Sure thing little one.  Go ahead and slink back to your bedroom.  The fact remains you are a liar and can't back up any of the bullshit you post and you can't stand it when someone like me calls you on your lies.

I get it.  When you can't win you pack up your marbles and go home.  So go away permanently you little twerp.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Your still unsubstantiated opinion is noted and set aside as you still can't back up what you're typing out.
> ...







That is simply absurd.  Please back it up with links.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Your survey wasn't of scientists. It was of petroleum engineers working the Alberta Tar Sands.
> 
> Golly, who could have predicted such a response?







Really?  So did you pay the 32 bucks for temporary access or are you an academic with free access?  I just started the download so I'll be able to tell you all about it later this week when I've had a chance to review it.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Sure thing little one.  Go ahead and slink back to your bedroom.  The fact remains you are a liar and can't back up any of the bullshit you post and you can't stand it when someone like me calls you on your lies.
> 
> I get it.  When you can't win you pack up your marbles and go home.  So go away permanently you little twerp.


*Saigon* can debate rings around you and doesn't even need the A-game to do it.  I wouldn't talk too much about others not backing up their shit, when you didn't provide a link either.

Now that you called her a liar, care to prove it?

Did you do what she claimed?  Did you leave out that line from the professor?  Why don't you pony up the link and then we'll see who's the one lying?


----------



## mamooth (May 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Where does it say that?



"Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta."

That is, mostly petroleum engineers.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Where does it say that?
> ...



That's the claim of someone commenting on the article.  His credibility is about zero.  There's no way for me to verify it since you have to pay for access to the site where the study is located.   However, the article mentions two other studies of meteorologists with similar results.


----------



## gslack (May 18, 2013)

For anybody as of yet unaccustomed to debate with Saigon or mamooth, here is some pointers..

Mamooth constantly sticks his foot in his mouth ever more bold, absolute claims. Things like a child would claim like earlier he said this gem..

_*"Water vapor immediately rains out. CO2 doesn't. Human emissions of water vapor mean zilch, because they don't stick around. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. "*_

Now all we need to do to see how ridiculous that statement is to just look up at a cloud.. It's a ridiculous and untrue absolute claim. Not based on anything but his own belief in his own infallibility. Just like a kid would do...There is no grey area,he thinks in terms of absolutes or black and white just like a kid..

So when you have to debate him, remember this and capitalize on it. He will then attack you using alter-egos or friends but go away for a day or two, and come back and post like nothing happened..

Also notice mamooth cherry picks lines from a post and argues that and disregards or outright makes up your position out of the blue. You may see something similar in Saigon, but slightly different. He just deliberately doesn't quote you or your post at all, and makes up whatever he feels like..

Saigon IMHO is mamooth in drag. I think this because the manner is far too similar and methods they use far too much like a mirror image of one another. Also they both tell big stories about themselves that are not only untrue but painfully transparent. 

One thing unique (sort of but not unlike mamooths methods) to saigon is the complete lack of fair quoting what he is responding to. He states the posters name thusly; gslack: and then commences to dishonestly misrepresent your post he is responding to and then debate that. Completely ignoring what you actually said and your post. He does this habitually and it is not only deliberate, but completely dishonest and unethical, which shows his claim of being a journalist to be a fabrication..

When you debate them know going in they are incapable of honesty and ethical behavior.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> One thing unique (sort of but not unlike mamooths methods) to saigon is the complete lack of fair quoting what he is responding to. He states the posters name thusly; gslack: and then commences to dishonestly misrepresent your post he is responding to and then debate that. Completely ignoring what you actually said and your post. He does this habitually and it is not only deliberate, but completely dishonest and unethical, which shows his claim of being a journalist to be a fabrication..
> 
> When you debate them know going in they are incapable of honesty and ethical behavior.



Actually, that behavior is perfectly consistent with the behavior of left-wing journalists I'm familiar with.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I am sure you would also agree that CO2 is cited by the overwhelming majority of scientists as being the main factor (but not the only factor) in rising temperatures.



Yes it is cited...but based on what.  Show me one piece of actual measured observed proof that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise.  Just one.

Now since we know that you aren't going to produce any actual proof since none exists, we must, if we are thinking people, call those climate scientists who are making such claims into question and start examining why they would be making such claims.  Money is my bet.

Hence, it is also the issue that is most discussed here.


----------



## Saigon (May 20, 2013)

SSDD -

Firstly, it is not only climate scientists who have concluded that CO2 causes the warming, but physicists, geologists, biologists, and experts from every related field. It is also the conclusion of all 60 of the world's leading scientific organisations. 

Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence of the link between CO2 and temperature, but you refuse to look at it. 

Thirdly, we both know that money is not an issue, because we have seen on several threads that the funding of most climate-related science is not on a per-project basis. You must have "forgotten" that.


----------



## Saigon (May 20, 2013)

Here is a list of papers establishing the link between CO2 and temperature:

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300&#8211;7000 cm&#8722;1 &#8211; Toth et al. (2008) &#8220;A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm&#8722;1&#8230;&#8221;

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence &#8211; Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) &#8220;Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm&#8722;1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.&#8221; [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment &#8211; Miller et al. (2005) &#8220;The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.&#8221;

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions &#8211; Miller & Brown (2004) &#8220;High-resolution near-infrared (4000&#8211;9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath&#8211;Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. &#8230; This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].&#8221; [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 &#956;m. I: model and laboratory measurements &#8211; Niro et al. (2004) &#8220;Temperature (200&#8211;300 K) and pressure (70&#8211;200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2&#8211;N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm&#8722;1.&#8221;

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes &#8211; Boulet (2004) &#8220;The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by &#8216;retrieval&#8217; technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the &#8216;perturbers&#8217; are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.&#8221;

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 &#8211; Benech et al. (2002) &#8220;Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.&#8221;

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas &#8211; Teboul et al. (1995) &#8220;Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10&#8211;1000 cm&#8722;1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10&#8211;1000 cm&#8722;1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10&#8211;470 cm&#8722;1 are compared.&#8221;

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition &#8211; Rothman et al. (1987) &#8220;A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.&#8221;

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers &#8211; Miller & Watts (1984) &#8220;High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.&#8221;

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide &#8211; Tubbs & Williams (1972) &#8220;An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters &#947;0 for lines in the R branch of the &#957;3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of &#947;0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section &#963;.&#8221;

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases &#8211; Burch et al. (1970) &#8220;From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.&#8221;

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines &#8211; Burch et al. (1969) &#8220;The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm&#8722;1. &#8230; New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.&#8221;

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 &#8211; Ludwig et al. (1966) &#8220;Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.&#8221;

Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation &#8211; Burch & Gryvnak (1966) &#8220;Extensive measurements of the absorption by H2O and CO2 have been made in the region from 0·6 to 5·5 microm. Two different multiple-pass absorption cells provided path lengths from 2 to 933 m, and sample pressures were varied from a few &#956;Hg to 15 atm. Approximately thirty new CO2 bands were observed and identified, and the strengths of the important bands determined. The H2O data provide enough information for the determination of the strengths and widths of several hundred of the more important lines. The wings of CO2absorption lines were found to be sub-Lorentzian, with the shapes depending on temperature, broadening gas, and wavelength in ways which cannot be explained by present theories. The absorption by H2O and CO2 samples at temperatures up to 1800°K has been studied from 1 to 5 microm. The transmission of radiation from hot CO2 through cold CO2 and from hot H2O through cold H2O has been investigated to determine the effect of the coincidence of emission lines with absorption lines.&#8221; Darrell E. Burch, David A. Gryvnak, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, Volume 6, Issue 3, May&#8211;June 1966, Pages 229&#8211;240, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-4073(66)90072-0.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 &#956; band of CO2 &#8211; Winters et al. (1964) &#8220;Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm&#8722;1 to 2575 cm&#8722;1.&#8221;

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ &#8211; Davies (1964) &#8220;The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.&#8221;

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared &#8211; Burch et al. (1962) &#8220;The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.&#8221;

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared &#8211; Burch et al. (1962) &#8220;Total absorptance&#8230; has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm&#8722;1.&#8221;

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths &#8211; Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) &#8220;The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.&#8221;

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide &#8211; Martin & Barker (1932) &#8220;The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental &#957;1 appears only in combination bands, but &#957;2 at 15&#956; and &#957;3 at 4.3&#956; absorb intensely.&#8221;

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red &#8211; Barker (1922) &#8220;Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 &#956;. &#8211; New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 &#956; region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 &#956; and 2.767 &#956;. The 4.3 &#956; band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 &#956;. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 &#956; region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a &#8220;head&#8221; in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 &#956; band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.&#8221; [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre &#8211; Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum &#8211; Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) &#8220;Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near &#955; = 14.7 &#956;. &#8230; The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 &#956; to 16 &#956;, with the maximum at 14.7 &#956;.&#8221; [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Here is a list of papers establishing the link between CO2 and temperature:
> 
> Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300&#8211;7000 cm&#8722;1 &#8211; Toth et al. (2008) &#8220;A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm&#8722;1&#8230;&#8221;
> 
> ...



Why not just copy the entire blog here dude? It's basically what you did...

First paper, went to the link they supplied (not you) and found this in the abtract..



> Broadening coefficients are computed using empirical expressions that have been fitted to the experimental data.



Yep experimental data...Says it all doesn't it... But wait! there's more.. Seems the paper doesn't say or do anything in regards to AGW theory. Seems it's about trying to show their models for remote sensing..  ROFL..

Went to the next one found it was a similar type of paper, experimental and theoretical using you got it, computer models... Not real, just computer models. And the models measure what exactly? How pure carbon dioxide vibrates in certain IR conditions and frequencies... AND? Well that's it really, nothing about it warming the planet's surface, it's greater source or anything like that...

Next paper...Found this..



> Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.



I stopped there... It's a pattern and all the first 3 went to the exact same site. The blogger must have deal worked out with them to get traffic.. Anyway, they are all pretty much the same type of thing. Misrepresented papers that DO NOT show that CO2 warms the planet's surface in any way..

You seem to be missing the boat here socko.. The point is not whether or not CO2 can produce some bit of heat. The point is can it oppose it's own heat source and warm that heat source more than it already is. And well,we been over this time and again and that's a no..

Nice blog BTW, is it yours? LOL.. Saw the tab up top saying "Anti-AGW papers debunked" and took a look.. Virtually ALL of the so-called "debunking" was done by blogs like his own. Sorry but if a nameless blog or blogger can correct Prof. Akasofu, you can't say a word about watts or anybody else doing it from now on dude....ROFL, it's like a climate blog ring or something. A mutual assured traffic scam. Nice..


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Here is a list of papers establishing the link between CO2 and temperature:



Blah blah blah........and go all of that and every thing else in the history of science....not a shred of acyual measured, observed proof that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.....much less any actual proof that our small contribution to the total can have any effect at all.

Error cascade.     Error cascade.    Error cascade.  

It is an assumption that has taken on the disguise of fact that CO2 causes warming.


----------



## Saigon (May 20, 2013)

SSDD - 

As I said - you ignore the science. You always do.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> As I said - you ignore the science. You always do.



This is the proper and adult way to debate.. Notice the way I quoted your post and then responded to it thus?

Your childish refusal to properly quote people is getting old now socko.. It's quite clear why you do it, and it's inexcusable..


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> As I said - you ignore the science. You always do.



The fact is that there isn't any observed, measured evidence that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming...That is the fact.  The fantasy is that there is such evidence.  Everything you present is the output of models...no actual evidence and as much as you may wish it so...computer output from flawed models is not evidence of anything other than the failure of the models.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Amazing what these guys accept as evidence isn't it?  No wonder they have been so easy to fool for all these years and even when the models prove useless...they continue to believe.


----------



## Saigon (May 20, 2013)

SSDD - 

Actually, if you _did _look at the science, you would see that much of it is based on observational data on increases in both CO2 and temperature. 

This is what you miss out on by not looking at the evidence.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Actually, if you _did _look at the science, you would see that much of it is based on observational data on increases in both CO2 and temperature.
> 
> This is what you miss out on by not looking at the evidence.



Can't man up and quote anybody yet I see... You're supposed to a journalist living in Finland, yet have no concept of why proper quoting is important???


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



He won't.  He won't back up anything.  He has swallowed the assigned talking points hook, line, and sinker, couldn't explain most of them in his own words if he had to, and if he does post something other than his silly accusations, unsubstantiated statements, and insults to the rest of us, it is something cut and pasted from an AGW alarmist site with absolutely nothing to support it from any credible site.

And hell, I still don't know if humankind is seriously affecting the climate and I keep an open mind.  But I sure as hell know they won't fix it by tightening the screws of those countries that are already doing a good job of controlling greenhouse gasses while they give everybody else on the planet a pass.  And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.


----------



## Saigon (May 20, 2013)

Fox - 

I find the logic in your post very difficult to follow - where on this forum do you see people recommending we all give up our air con or lights?

Can you post some links to those quotes?

Because it seems to me that 90% of these threads is about establishing the science behind climate changes science without going too much in to possible solutions, and the other 10% is about new technologies. 

For all of the talk about alarmism from scientists - suggesting we will all need to live without lights if scientists get their way seems like some fairly extreme alarmism to me!


> And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.



Who do you mean? 

I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at here.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2013)

loinboy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sure thing little one.  Go ahead and slink back to your bedroom.  The fact remains you are a liar and can't back up any of the bullshit you post and you can't stand it when someone like me calls you on your lies.
> ...








I have PROVEN saggy wrong on so many occasions that the little twerp can't stand the heat.  Nor can you little sock.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> I find the logic in your post very difficult to follow - where on this forum do you see people recommending we all give up our air con or lights?
> 
> ...



And we are tired of your weak game.. You can't quote people fairly, yet you claim you don't understand somebody.. Why not quote them and cite them fairly for a change?

You have been asked repeatedly to do so, yet you persist in this behavior. Why? Because you know you can argue whatever you make up that way.. It's not funny, it's not cute, it's not witty or unique, it's trifling and immature. 

Quote people fairly or stop responding to their posts, or be considered a troll..


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Firstly, it is not only climate scientists who have concluded that CO2 causes the warming, but physicists, geologists, biologists, and experts from every related field. It is also the conclusion of all 60 of the world's leading scientific organisations.
> 
> ...







BS, it's CLIMATOLOGISTS predominantly who support the scam.  Real scientists are now running from the scam.  Soon they will be calling for the heads of the various fraudsters due to the damage to science in general that they have done.  Academic fraud is rampant within climatology.  The corruption of the peer review process has rendered everything the do suspect...especially when they publish papers that have already gone through _their_ peer review, only to see them demolished in hours when the general public gets to see them.

And ALL science research is based on a per-project basis nimrod.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> As I said - you ignore the science. You always do.








The papers you provided are not science.  They are science FICTION.  There was no empirical data in ANY of the papers you posted I checked.  Did you?


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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









They don't like ANYBODY Foxy.  Having dealt with these folks for as long as I have I can safely assure you that people are the lowest critter on the care meter.  They would happily kill everyone in India to save 3,600 tigers.  On the other hand I've shown them how you can save both but they don't care to hear it.  

Some are better than others but in the end they really do want the human race to be cut down to around a 100 million or so to run the machinery that keeps the elite alive and they will be in their compressed cities while the elite get to enjoy the great outdoors without the sweaty masses.

And I am sorry my verbiage annoys you at times, but I have had to deal with these idiots for so long now that my tolerance levels are low...very, very low.


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



They don't care about people, they care about the pretense of caring about people.

Case in point: They will support any humanitarian mission you can name, but will at the same time support every bit of constrictive regulation on anything labeled "for the planet" even though it will cause hardship, disease, or even death for millions in 3rd world countries.

It's sick..


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> I find the logic in your post very difficult to follow - where on this forum do you see people recommending we all give up our air con or lights?
> 
> ...



Saigon, you don't follow my logic because you seem to have a great deal of difficulty in reading comprehension.  In no place have I said anybody has proposed giving up our electrical conveniences.  In fact, I was pretty specific that nobody is going to do that. 

And in answer to your last question, from what I have read and observed, almost all, if not all, scientists who are pushing the AGW theory as a serious problem are ALL receiving money from governments or organizations who want that to be the conclusion.  You don't find ANY of those governments or organizations appreciating or applauding scientific studies that do not support the AGW models being used to justify policy.

And the policy being pushed is to restrict the liberties, choices, options, and opportunities of the people which in turn increases the power and ability to direct government's own self interests.  If government is successful in squelching or marginalizing anything that doesn't fit the ordered propaganda, and can sufficiently scare and convince enough gullible people, it can increase its power until it can do anything to us it wants.

And there are scientists more than willing to compromise their personal integrity and veracity in order to be able to keep the grant monies pouring in.  Some have admitted it as has been posted here and in other environmental threads at USMB and all over the internet.

Which begs the question.  If that grant money dried up, and scientists weren't being handsomely paid to be AGW alarmists, I really wonder how much scientific consensus there would be in favor of AGW?

I don't believe I have run across a climate scientists who is NOT receiving AGW grant monies who supports the AGW theory without serious reservations.


----------



## Saigon (May 20, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

I think my reading comprehension is fairly good, actually.



> And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.



WHO is asking for people to give up their appliances? Links?



> scientists who are pushing the AGW theory as a serious problem are ALL receiving money from governments or organizations who want that to be the conclusion. You don't find ANY of those governments or organizations appreciating or applauding scientific studies that do not support the AGW models being used to justify policy.



I can tell you with 100% certainity that this is not true, because it is actually impossible. 

Most climate research in Europe is conducted by universities - and universities here operate according to a kind of anti-political interference mandate that means that the scientists themselves decide what to research and when and how. Their funding is in no way linked to this, as universities are funded with a single grant - so that research is not funded on a dodgy per-project basis. 

The outcome being that no politician can "buy" conveniant research. It's simply not possible. (btw. My wife is a researcher at a university, though not in sciences)


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> I think my reading comprehension is fairly good, actually.
> 
> ...



Where did I say anybody is asking anybody to give up their appliances?   My statement says nobody is going to do that.  Two different things.  Clue:  reading into statements what is not there is a problem with reading comprehension.

Ah, you think the $55 million dollar NASA grant the University of Central Florida received just last month for a climate change project just materialized out of thin air?   $55 Million Grant Makes UCF, Florida History ? UCF Today

And that is just one of hundreds of such grants going to universities all over the country--at least those willing to be on record as supporting the AGW theory.  Remember we are are in a deep recession and the government is borrowing billions every single day just to pay the everybody bills.  But our government, along with many others, really REALLY wants the power of cap and trade which will be one of the single greatest assaults on our individual liberties ever imposed by our government.

Where did you think universities get the money to do the studies?  But any university who produces findings inconsistent with the government point of view finds grant monies pretty difficult to come by.  Or so I have read.  Or so I have been told by acquaintances affiliated with our local institutions of higher learning.

If you really believe that university studies are untainted by government pressures or pressures from organizations who work as surrogates for government initiatives, you really need to get out more and I still have a nice assortment of bridges to sell.

I vividly recall working as a research assistant for a professor working on a poverty study project awhile back.   She was being funded with a government grant.   I did some damn good work and came up with some very credible and important statistics on the subject.  She didn't use it.  I had to ask why.  What was wrong with it?  Nothing, she said.  But if I include that, I'll never get another grant.  Sorry.

That was my Lesson #1 in the bogus research that is classified as credible studies these days.  There have been other lessons.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOL, not to worry re your verbiage.  It doesn't annoy me much, and I'll take that little bit of annoyance to get the really good research you do.  

But you are right of course.  The pro-AGW people, the hard core militant environmentalists, etc. would impoverish their own grandmothers in favor of artificially protecting some endangered beetle or a minnow they think is one of a kind.   They don't give a sh*t about multitudes of people living in abject poverty and misery while they focus on what kind of light bulb the rest of us use. 

It never occurs to them that the most affluent of people are the ones who are most environmentally sensistive and protective and maybe, just maybe, helping people become more affluent is the best way to protect the environment.

And it never occurs to them that the very scientists who are putting out the most alarming studies and information don't seem alarmed enough to alter their own lifestyles.  You don't see those who would take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities altering their own lifestyles in a way that suggests they give a damn about climate change.

It never occurs to them that the stated motives of those holding the power might possibly be suspect.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...







What you say is absolutely true except for the propagandists like saggy et al.  They KNOW what they are spewing is crap.  They simply don't care so long as it furthers their political goals.  They are scum.


----------



## polarbear (May 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> *Where did I say anybody is asking anybody to give up their appliances?   My statement says nobody is going to do that.*  Two different things.  Clue:  reading into statements what is not there is a problem with reading comprehension.


You can`t reason with fence posts like "Saigon" etc.
Fact is there was legislation pending that amounts to just that.
Kommentar: Es ist falsch, das Verbot für Nachtspeicher-Öfen aufzuheben - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *                                 Laufzeitverlängerung für Stromfresser: Der Nachtspeicher-Irrsinn*


Translation:
An extension was granted for home owner`s "power eating Nachtspeicher"
This is a Nachtspeicher heating system:







When Germany`s "renewable energy" day time use hydro rates went through the roof many people installed these systems which heat a bunch of bricks at night when the rates are lower....hoping that there was enough heat stored for daytime use and that the winters stay mild...a hope that we know was dashed.
Along came Greenpeace and pushed for legislation to ban these systems because they draw power during the time when there is no solar power available.
Since power generated by wind turbines is too erratic Germans must now install "smart meters" which disable water heaters, cloth driers, washing machines etc. Unlike the night heating systems which the greens want to ban outright the rest of the appliances can only be operated when wind & solar lets you have the power.
If you don`t install a smart meter, soon you will pay a huge fine in Germany if your house exceeds a 2 KVA peak demand .
My hot water tank is wired for 220 and draws 10 amps, so each time the thermostat calls for power I would be racking up penalties...if I would live in Germany.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Actually, if you _did _look at the science, you would see that much of it is based on observational data on increases in both CO2 and temperature.
> 
> This is what you miss out on by not looking at the evidence.



There doesn't exist a single piece of empirical evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes more waming...

The fact is, siagon, that I do look at the science.  The difference between me and you is that I am able to separate actual science from pseudoscientific propaganda.  That is evidenced by the fact that I know there is no observed, measured, emprirical evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere equals more warming while you belive that such evidence exists when the only thing that exists is the output of computer models and an assumption that it is true when no real evidence exists to support the assumption.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2013)

gslack said:


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



He also is unable to differentiate between corelation and causation and seems completely oblivious to the fact that ice cores show that CO2 levels follow temperature.


----------



## polarbear (May 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Yeah but like the other "science expert" who took a Navy course in locker repair and makes ink molecules with "water chemistry" he can Google up the black body radiation of  273 K ice cubes and argue that the ice box gets warmer the more ice cubes you put in it because they radiate at each other in there, like in the white "mamooth photon" box. The more 273 K ice cubes, the more IR photons are buzzing around inside the icebox...they keep saying it`s simple logic but don`t realize that it`s meant for simple people, as in "Roy`s Yes Virginia, thermodynamics...." for dummies
There was an interesting article about Hansen today in Germany`s lefty "Der Spiegel".
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...sen-kritisiert-kanadas-oelsande-a-900102.html


> *                                 Klimaforscher James Hansen: Die Nervensäge*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Translation:
It`s a lengthy article covering Hansen`s visit to Germany to lobby against Canada`s oil sands. Hansen`s exaggerations have even pissed off the German green movement who fear loosing credibility because of Hansen`s outlandish thesis.
This time "Der Spiegel`s" fact checkers have  published how many NASA scientists had complained about Hansen`s wild exaggerations and published them with the NASA logo....and then was reprimanded by the Goddard Spacr Institute. That was just prior to  when Hansen alleged  in 2006 that G.W. Bush was trying to "silence" him and soon after quit his job at NASA.
Now he is planning to write a book called "Sophie`s Planet" which consists mostly of the letters he wrote to his grandchild "explaining" AGW...complementing Spencer`s "Yes Virginia," thermodynamics by dummies for dummies


----------



## gslack (May 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre -
> ...



Fox, he deliberately doesn't quote you or quote cherry -picked  sentences so he can put words in your mouth and effectively make up your argument as he goes. It's not a style thing, it's deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation. I have called him on it time and again, and so far he seems to get a free pass on it here. 

Best to just call him on it when you see it, and prepare to spend as much time clarifying your true position as debating his..


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



You're probably right.  But he gives us such wonderful lead ins to get good information out there.  I know that isn't what he's shooting for.  But give him a pass?  Naw.  The best way to deal with his schtick is to put the accurate information up.   And so far he hasn't been able to counter it with anything that doesn't make him look pretty clueless so far as AGW and climate science goes.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

Please try and answer questions. 

1) 





> And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart


.

Who do you mean?

2. 





> And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.



Who is asking you to?

I explained earlier exactly why we know that European university research is not corrupted. Rather than address any of the points I raised, you simply repeated your own speech that all US university research is corrupt. 

Can you explain why you did not understand or accept my explanation? You can check the details anywhere and prove that it is entirely true.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

SSDD -



> The fact is, siagon, that I do look at the science.



Right - like you looked at the Finnish temperature records and the British Antarctic Survey?

I think not. You look at what backs your flimsy case - nothing else.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> I have PROVEN saggy wrong on so many occasions that the little twerp can't stand the heat.  Nor can you little sock.


So you're saying you can't back up what you said?

Which probably means, you're the liar!


----------



## gslack (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny you should mention Finnish... Sow how is it you are in Finland but not?

ROFL..


----------



## gslack (May 21, 2013)

loinboy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have PROVEN saggy wrong on so many occasions that the little twerp can't stand the heat.  Nor can you little sock.
> ...



And how many socks are there here? Place is like a sock repository lately...


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> He also is unable to differentiate between corelation and causation and seems completely oblivious to the fact that ice cores show that CO2 levels follow temperature.



So you accept that there IS correlation between CO2 and temperature?


----------



## gslack (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > He also is unable to differentiate between corelation and causation and seems completely oblivious to the fact that ice cores show that CO2 levels follow temperature.
> ...



What he is pointing out is that the "correlation" isn't that as CO2 levels rose, so did temperatures, but rather as temperatures rose so did CO2 levels.. There is a difference, but obviously you either didn't k now it, or are trying your usual tactic of diversion. Either way his point is the same.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your finnish temperature records were for a very short time and I pointed out precisely what I thought was wrong with your British Antarctic Survey.

I believe I provided you with some information from the British Antarctic Survey that showed convincingly that the present temperatures in the Antarctic are nothing unusual or disturbing as they found that it has been as much as 10C degrees warmer there within the past 12,000 years.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=british+antarctic+survey 

What is wrong with you that makes you lie in practically every post you make.  Is your position so weak that you find that you can't be honest about anything?


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It's like walking into Jim Henson's closet.  Puppets to the left, puppets to the right..puppets everywhere you look...and the sad thing is, even those directing the puppets are puppets themselves...

It's puppets all the way down.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > He also is unable to differentiate between corelation and causation and seems completely oblivious to the fact that ice cores show that CO2 levels follow temperature.
> ...



Therer is corelation between damned near everything and everyting else if you look hard enough.    Here are a few examples of how wrong assuming corelation is the same as causation can be from wiki.

Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and obesity levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes obesity.

The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be. 
Therefore firemen cause an increase in the size of a fire.

Lack of religion is associated with increased rates of depression. 
Therefore, lack of religion directly causes increased rates of depression.

Sleeping with one's shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache. Therefore, sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache.

Young children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to develop myopia in later life. Therefore, sleeping with the light on causes myopia.

As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply. 
Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.

Corelation is reason enough to give one suspicion to do further tests...not a basis to make outrageous claims.  Since no actual evidence exists that proves that CO2 causes warming and the empirical evidence we have suggests that CO2 follows temperature, your belief that CO2 causes rising temperatures is unfounded.  It is an unproven, unsupported, unjustified assumption.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

SSDD -

The Finnish temperature records date back 113 years, and present a very clear picture of gradually rising temperatures. You refused to comment on that data.

You provided a haöf dozen hilariously contrived reasons why you would not read the British Antarctic Survey, but provided no reason at all that made any logical sense. 

In both cases, you simply ignored the science, despite the fact that you had demanded to see it. In neither case did you either read the evidence, nor comment on the content nor methodology.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

gslack said:


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



His faith is strong...you have to give him that.  He sees proof and signs everywere he is told to see them by the high priests of his cult and all of the peer reviewed science that has been coming out that directly contradict his belief is being duely ignored.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

SSDD-

Yes, yes, but waffling aside - do you believe there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature?


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> The Finnish temperature records date back 113 years, and present a very clear picture of gradually rising temperatures. You refused to comment on that data.



What was to comment on.  I haven't said that some warming hasn't occured.  In fact, several times I have acknowledged around a half a degree or so in the past 100 years.  What I contest is that man's activities have anything to do with it beyond a heat island effect creeping into poorly placed temperature stations.



Saigon said:


> You provided a haöf dozen hilariously contrived reasons why you would not read the British Antarctic Survey, but provided no reason at all that made any logical sense.



You are a bald faced liar.  I told you why the paper was not convincing.  Your inability to read words and know what they mean apparently led you to believe that meant I wouldn't read the paper.  I couldn't have told you why I found it unconvincing had I not read it.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD-
> 
> Yes, yes, but waffling aside - do you believe there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature?



The evidence shows that increased atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rises...therefore there is a corelation between temperature rises and increased CO2.  There is pretty convincing proof that increased temperatures lead to increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of warmer oceans outgassing CO2.  There is no observed, measured, empirical eidence that increased CO2 results in warmer temperatures.

You argue like a religious zealot.  Ever discussed anything with a Bible thumper?  Their tactics are precisely the same as yours.  Looking for anything, no matter how slight to jump on as if corelation somehow did equal causation in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.  Just f'ing pitiful.

If you have some hard evidence, lets see it.  Otherwise, you have no point to make.  All of the hard evidence we have says the opposite of your claims.

By the way, showing the glaring errors in your argument and your incessant lies is not called waffling, it is called defeating you.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> And how many socks are there here? Place is like a sock repository lately...


And your point is what?

Or are bullshit innuendo's as far as you go?


----------



## Billo_Really (May 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> It's like walking into Jim Henson's closet.  Puppets to the left, puppets to the right..puppets everywhere you look...and the sad thing is, even those directing the puppets are puppets themselves...
> 
> It's puppets all the way down.


Sorry to break up your little boys club, but does either one of you have a point to make?


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

loinboy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It's like walking into Jim Henson's closet.  Puppets to the left, puppets to the right..puppets everywhere you look...and the sad thing is, even those directing the puppets are puppets themselves...
> ...



I have no idea what all of this shit about socks is - but if gslack or SSDD think there are any socks here, then they should both name them and report them to the mods. 

Neither will.


----------



## polarbear (May 21, 2013)

loinboy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It's like walking into Jim Henson's closet.  Puppets to the left, puppets to the right..puppets everywhere you look...and the sad thing is, even those directing the puppets are puppets themselves...
> ...



They made their point long before you showed up to side with "Saigon`s" little boy`s club.
The rest of us were not impressed when it became evident, that this "Journalist living in Finland" does not have a keyboard that can generate the Finn default key sequence and when he had to Google who Finland`s current Prime Minister is. Then he said amongst other things
"All I have to do is look outside my window to see the effects of AGW"...while all of Europe was in a deep freeze, which is bucking the fake hockey stick trend for 15 years now.
Scandinavia will always be warmer than the rest of the global northern land mass, unless the amazing CO2 can overpower the flow 150 million cubic meters per seconds  of warm water which keeps all of Scandinavia, Finland included warmer than it would be without the Gulf stream.


> A noticeable effect of the Gulf Stream and the strong westerly winds  (driven by the warm water of the Gulf Stream) on Europe occurs along the  Norwegian coast
> almost all of Norway's coast remains free of ice and snow throughout the year.[29] Weather systems warmed by the Gulf Stream drift into Northern Europe, also warming the climate behind the Scandinavian mountains.
> in Finnish *Köli
> [*]*


Besides, who gives a shit about the Finn temperature record...Finland is a the size of a mini golf course compered to Canada and if I were to counter with the unusually cold temperatures we had in Canada for the last 15 years assholes like you have called it "local weather" while "Saigon" is passing off tiny Finland`s weather as "Global climate"
*
[*]Köli...*another word this "Journalist living in Finland" has to Google &/or copy and paste because he never heard of it just like the name of the Finn PM and because he does not have any of these ASCII äöü and the rest of the Finn alphabetic keys. He is a troll, a fake, a liar and a retard just like the rest of your green on the outside, inside red AGW watermelon movement occult...an occult which is nothing but communist scum,...*your sig line:*


> *&#8220;When the giant...American working class, moves en masse on to
> the political scene, no force on earth will stop it from sweeping
> the ruling class away into the dustbin of history.&#8221;  *


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

Polar -

Finnish only has 2 extra vowels - ö and ä. The u with umlauts only exists in German.


----------



## polarbear (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Polar -
> 
> Finnish only has 2 extra vowels - ö and ä. The u with umlauts only exists in German.


Caught yourself in another lie...!
*Actually 3 lies at the same time.*
One is that you claimed that I`m on your "ignore list"
the other one is that the Finn keyboard has even more special characters than the German keyboard and includes a *Ü *"..


> *Lexibar* for Finnish special keyboard characters
> (Version 1.3b - 10/2010 - Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7 - 550 kb)


You are a fraud through and through and a stupid one to boot.
For a quite a while now you also pretended to be able to speak German while you write 


> The u with umlauts only exists in German.


The plural for Umlaut is Umlaute, not "umlauts"...shake hands with the "erudite numan" when he pretended to be fluent in French while writing "devotés" over and over again.
*3 lies at once, using only 2 short sentences*...that surpasses even libtards MSNBC`s Chris Mathews best performance.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

Polarbear -

The Finnish language has two more vowels than English - ä and ö. 

There is no u with umlauts in the Finnish language, nor on Finnish keyboards.

I don't speak German. 

And yes, of course I have you on ignore mode - who doesn't?


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Ok, now we seem to be making a little progress, anyway, in that you agree that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2. 

The thing you now need to accept - and I am sure you do, offline - is that CO2 causes an increase in temperatures, AND that an increase in temperatures causes a rise in CO2. It is not a one way street. 

Let me explain:

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.  Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

The term to google is Milankovitch cycles, as in orbital cycles.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latitutdes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.  This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012).  The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.  As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005).  This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

    Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
    CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
    CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ok, now we seem to be making a little progress, anyway, in that you agree that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2.



There is a correlation between eating carrots and dying in automobile accidents as well.  Do I need to accept that eating carrots leads to fatal automobile accidents?



Saigon said:


> The thing you now need to accept - and I am sure you do, offline - is that CO2 causes an increase in temperatures, AND that an increase in temperatures causes a rise in CO2. It is not a one way street.



Why would I need to accept that with not a single shred of evidence to support the belief?  Do you think I am as stupid and gullible as you?  NEWSFLASH!!!! I'm not.  



Saigon said:


> The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.  Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.



You say it as if you believe it...and you say it as if actual observed. measured evidence exists to support the claim but alas, it does not.  It is an assumption, built into computer models and nothing more.  There isn't the first bit of real world evidence to support the claim.



Saigon said:


> The term to google is Milankovitch cycles, as in orbital cycles.



Milankovitch cycles.  Yes they exist..but do you believe they are the only cycles that influence climate on earth?  Do you really believe that we have more than the most rudimentary grasp of what influences the climate on earth?  

I won't bother with the rest because you clearly believe it to be fact without any actual evidence to prove it is fact.....more correlation mistaken with causation...

When you have hard fact.....observed, measured evidence to support your claims, let me know...till then you are just talking to hear yourself talk and demonstrating how gullible you actually are.  And the fact that you constantly reference skeptical science is hard, observed, factual evidence that you are stupid and gullible.  Only the most disgraced of the disgraced still associate themselves with that cesspool.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

SSDD - 

So despite the fact that what I posted cited a half-dozen real-world studies, you claim that no such studies exist. 

Interesting.




> When you have hard fact.....observed, measured evidence to support your claims, let me know...



...and you will ignore it. Just as you did the Finnish temperatures, just as you did with the glaciers melting,and with the British Antarctic Survey. Be honest here, man, the last thing you want to observed, measured science.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

Here is an overview from the NOAA:

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent. 

Taking these different influences into account, it is possible to determine how much the temperature decreased when carbon dioxide was reduced, and use this scaling (termed climate sensitivity) to determine how much temperature might increase as carbon dioxide increases. An estimate from the tropical ocean, far from the influence of ice sheets, *indicates that the tropical ocean may warm 5°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide*. The paleo data provide a valuable independent check on the sensitivity of climate models, and the 5°C value is consistent with many of the current coupled climate models. 

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So despite the fact that what I posted cited a half-dozen real-world studies, you claim that no such studies exist.



Why do you lie about every single thing?  Or can you really not read?  I never claimed there were no studies,  I said that there was no hard, measured empirical evidence and your studies proved that point.  They all referenced computer models as opposed to actual evidence.  Computer models produce whatever they are told to produce. 




Saigon said:


> ..and you will ignore it. Just as you did the Finnish temperatures, just as you did with the glaciers melting,and with the British Antarctic Survey. Be honest here, man, the last thing you want to observed, measured science.



I understand.....making the false claim that I will ignore the evidence that does not exist relieves you of the embarrassment of admitting that it doesn't and never did exist.  F'ing pitiful.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Here is an overview from the NOAA:



Damned sad that an organization like NOAA would misrepresent the known fact that CO2 follows temperature


----------



## Foxfyre (May 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > So despite the fact that what I posted cited a half-dozen real-world studies, you claim that no such studies exist.
> ...



He doesn't read and comprephend well.  I don't know if his seeming dishonesty re what he posts is deliberate or due to a reading dysfunction.  But the misquoting or twisting intent of what others of us post does seem to be sufficiently consistent to allow us to believe it is intentional.


----------



## gslack (May 21, 2013)

Personally, I will be pleased when his proxy fails him and he's busted socking.. Frankly it's getting tiresome and completely obvious now, that something strange is going on with Saigon, mamooth, and their endless brigade of boot lickers.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Here is an overview from the NOAA:
> 
> One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent.
> 
> ...



And the NOAA put that information out five years ago and there has been considerable rebuttal of their statements by various scientists since.  Most especially the certainty of the statements when the paleoclimate record shows no clear correlation between CO2 temperatures and warming/cooling and a strong case can just as easily be made from the same record that  CO2 levels followi climate change rather than cause it.

Certainty and absolutes are words very foreign to true scientists who are studying paleoclimate phenomena.  But the NOAA receive all its funding from a government that is determined to keep the 'certainty' of AGW alive.  It would follow that NOAA 'scientists' are not eager to offend or go against the motives of those who write their paychecks.

As rebuttal:



> One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson, described as follows:
> 
> The first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called &#8220;among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years&#8221;.
> 
> ...



Another opinion:


> During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 increase is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. Figures 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 show, however, that human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the observed increases in temperature.
> 
> The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth.
> Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project



Dr. Christy speaks my mind in this short video clip:
CO2 Science

It is so much easier to buy into the scary scenarios the Agenda 21 and other AGW  proponents want us to believe  than it is to do the really hard work of researching the truth - a truth they aren't telling us.

And for the life of me, I still don't understand a mentality that WANTS us to willingly hand over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities without first knowing that this is necessary for the survival or comfort of the human race.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an overview from the NOAA:
> ...


Always?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> As rebuttal:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOLOLOLOL...here's the whole quote from Dr. Simpson, including the parts you left out (wonder why):
*"There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that mans release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical." *


----------



## gslack (May 21, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > As rebuttal:
> ...



Yes thank you for clarifying... And I disagree with her claim about following gore and the IPCC. They have been shown dishonest and inaccurate to a fault..

Next excuse please..


----------



## polarbear (May 21, 2013)

@gslack:
Check this out:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Like they say there is a sucker born every minute.
We could make a shitload of money from the "erudite numans", and assorted idiots that make "ink molecules", using "water chemistry", "Sai-goners", poophead "scientists who call themselves "phyisists", and rolling what`s his name etc...
I`ll make the Raney Nickel + a*REALLY spectacula*r demonstration and you go ahead and sell shares for an  

*"anomalous heat energy production reactor device"*
They`ll buy into it just for the reason that it`s got  got all their favorite buzzwords in it :
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
[1305.3913] Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an overview from the NOAA:
> ...



Ah....so you are going to ignore the science from the NOAA - the science you just claimed did not exist



> They all referenced computer models as opposed to actual evidence.



No sane person takes this to mean the studies have no value - and strangely enough, dozens of reports you have cited or referred to here as recently as yesteday reference computer models as well. 

A more intelligent approach would be to look at the science, and comment accordingly. We both know why you can not take this approach.

Pretending that ALL models are in some way compromised is simply a means to ignore science in favour of haruspicy.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

I am still waiting for you to answer the two questions from earlier. Please try to post with integrity.


1) 





> And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart




Who do you mean?

2.





> And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.



Who is asking you to?

I explained earlier exactly why we know that European university research is not corrupted. Rather than address any of the points I raised, you simply repeated your own speech that all US university research is corrupt.

Can you explain why you did not understand or accept my explanation? You can check the details anywhere and prove that it is entirely true.


----------



## Saigon (May 21, 2013)

Gslack, SSDD, Polarbear -

As the three of you have claimed that this board is full of socks, can I ask you to name the handles you suspect to be socks, and report them to the Mods?

There is no reason for anyone to use more than one handle on these forums - and I actually I very much doubt anyone is.

I dare say the Mods canfirm that people are posting from where they say they are posting from if anyone has serious doubts about someone's authenticity. Have at it, I say.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack, SSDD, Polarbear -
> 
> As the three of you have claimed that this board is full of socks, can I ask you to name the handles you suspect to be socks, and report them to the Mods?
> 
> There is no reason for anyone to use more than one handle on these forums - and I actually I very much doubt anyone is.



Why? LOL, you're a liar, a fraud, and show yourself as such on a daily basis. If asking a mod if your IP's are the same or not can solve the issue, they already would have.. Your a proxy monkey and your USA IP from Finland shows that. A proxy is a way hide sockpuppetry junior. Just like your using now.. They are getting better at proxy spotting, soon they will nail yours too..


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

polarbear said:


> @gslack:
> Check this out:
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, followed the forbes links and found this on it..



> Rossi Responds to Smith's Challenge to Prove E-Cat Works - Forbes
> 
> *Rossi Responds to Smith's Challenge to Prove E-Cat Works*
> 
> ...



In other words, you have to buy one to see if it works. And from what I gather you have to sign an NDA and pay up front, to even be considered to be added to the list of "buyers"..

So evidently it's a bad idea to show people that something actually works BEFORE you pay for it and sign a "no money back" contract.. ROFL,how people can be sucked in by this insanity is beyond me...


----------



## Billo_Really (May 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I have no idea what all of this shit about socks is - but if gslack or SSDD think there are any socks here, then they should both name them and report them to the mods.
> 
> Neither will.


I have no idea what a "sock" is.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 22, 2013)

polarbear said:


> They made their point long before you showed up to side with "Saigon`s" little boy`s club.


I'm not talking about what they said to *Saigon*, I'm talking about what they said to me.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

loinboy said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea what all of this shit about socks is - but if gslack or SSDD think there are any socks here, then they should both name them and report them to the mods.
> ...



Sure ya don't socko, you just happened to show up and have an uncontrollable urge to attack people you don't know...LOL, happens a lot where Saigon, mamooth and numan are concerned. Almost like a pattern....

You joined this site in 05' and you have no idea what a sock is? ROFL, sure I believe you.. BTW, did you know I am also the pope?


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

loinboy said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > They made their point long before you showed up to side with "Saigon`s" little boy`s club.
> ...



Yes you the sock..


----------



## Billo_Really (May 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> Sure ya don't socko, you just happened to show up and have an uncontrollable urge to attack people you don't know...LOL, happens a lot where Saigon, mamooth and numan are concerned. Almost like a pattern....


Listen fuckface, you can shove that bullshit up your ass!  I'm cruising through this thread and see this little punk-ass prick calling someone a liar and not providing any proof to back up that claim.  I gave him a chance to pony up the evidence before passing judgement.  When he didn't, I concluded he was the fuckin' liar and for the most part, deserved to be attacked.

If you're just going to come in here and talk shit, then you _should be _abused.




gslack said:


> You joined this site in 05' and you have no idea what a sock is? ROFL, sure I believe you.. BTW, did you know I am also the pope?


I know who you are.  You're *Westwall's* little bitch wife!

BTW, I Googled "sock puppet" and found out you're full of shit!


----------



## Billo_Really (May 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> Yes you the sock..


Throwing out shit because you ain't got the chops to debate the OP.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

loinboy said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Sure ya don't socko, you just happened to show up and have an uncontrollable urge to attack people you don't know...LOL, happens a lot where Saigon, mamooth and numan are concerned. Almost like a pattern....
> ...



Sure ya did socko... You kiss your momma with that mouth?

Carry on with your breakdown, it's all good. You can just happen to stumble by and see an injustice and take action all you want. But the problem is you didn't do that.What you did was come in and insult him and defend your pal. Unwisely I might add, because he was lying..

And sorry, but raving at me doesn't get me mad.it just makes me laugh at you more.. So you can go back to trolling the boards for injustice forum righter of wrongs who just happens to drop by and attack people out of the blue..ROFL.

BTW, I said sock, and you got sock-puppet. And you joined in 05' but have no clue what a sock or sock-puppet was till you googled it???? ROFL.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

loinboy said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes you the sock..
> ...



LOL, you haven't offered anything to debate silly man.. I call it as I see it, you came in out of nowhere and started insulting somebody. You didn't do it reasonably or anything like a legit reason. You came in and went right after one person specifically. It's not a knew thing where saigon and mamooth or numan are concerned. hell, it's not even new for today with them.


----------



## Saigon (May 22, 2013)

Gslack -

Has it really not occured to you that the only poster here who never posts on topic, and posts only to "defend" his little pals is you?

Are you someone's sock?


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> Has it really not occured to you that the only poster here who never posts on topic, and posts only to "defend" his little pals is you?
> 
> Are you someone's sock?



No finnish fraud, that would be you.. DO you realize you that I have had 3 neg reps from you in as many weeks? I got several positives from others on the same posts but you it seems have an issue with neg-repping me every chance you get.  It's obvious junior, the fact I have 3 in a row from you only should be a wake up call to the mods..

You're joke fraud.. A big fat silly forum joke that keeps getting re-told everytime you post..LOL

Correction, make that 4 in a row...

4-28-13 

5-6-13

5-13-13

5-21-13

the funny thing is I got 4 positives between the 13th and 21st. LOL, abusing the rep system is a pretty lame tactic junior..


----------



## Saigon (May 22, 2013)

Glaskc - 

And of course it has not occured to you that your constant off-topic abuse, name calling and this endless horsheshit about socks is WHY you are gerting neg repped?

It's not difficult, man - stay on topic, post honestly, stop making up children's stories about other posters, and you won't get neg repped by me.

Or keep lying, keep spamming threads, keep making up silly stories about other posters and take the neg reps on the chin.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an overview from the NOAA:
> ...



Totally wrong. What real scientists state.

A23A


----------



## Billo_Really (May 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> Sure ya did socko... You kiss your momma with that mouth?


Going after family members is against the rules.




gslack said:


> Carry on with your breakdown, it's all good. You can just happen to stumble by and see an injustice and take action all you want. But the problem is you didn't do that.What you did was come in and insult him and defend your pal. Unwisely I might add, because he was lying..


I saw someone call someone else a liar and asked for proof.  Neither one of you have provided any. I did what I always do when someone makes a claim.




gslack said:


> And sorry, but raving at me doesn't get me mad.it just makes me laugh at you more.. So you can go back to trolling the boards for injustice forum righter of wrongs who just happens to drop by and attack people out of the blue..ROFL.


Asking for proof is not an attack.




gslack said:


> BTW, I said sock, and you got sock-puppet. And you joined in 05' but have no clue what a sock or sock-puppet was till you googled it???? ROFL.


That's right!  Until now, I didn't care to know.

As far as the OP, I don't consider climate change a debatable issue.

_*People who argue against climate change,  would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.  *_

That's how stupid I think your argument is.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Glaskc -
> 
> And of course it has not occured to tou that your constant off-topic abuse, name calling and this endless horsheshit about socks is WHY you are gerting neg repped?
> 
> ...



See junior, its just you that's doing the neg-repping.. I got 4 positives from four people and 3 of them were for the same thread, in between your last two negs.. 

All of those negs were from you alone. One for every week, that's abusing the rep system by any standard..

We aren't talking about neg reps from various people schmuck, they are ALL FROM YOU..

It's okay junior, sooner or later someone here will have to do something about you.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, you haven't offered anything to debate silly man.. I call it as I see it, you came in out of nowhere and started insulting somebody. You didn't do it reasonably or anything like a legit reason. You came in and went right after one person specifically. It's not a knew thing where saigon and mamooth or numan are concerned. hell, it's not even new for today with them.


Oh, I offered something!  

I was scrolling through trying to find if anyone responded to my post, when I ran across your buddy shooting his mouth off.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

loinboy said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Sure ya did socko... You kiss your momma with that mouth?
> ...



I didn't go after your family socko, I asked if you kissed your momma with that mouth after you had a cussing fit on here.. Grow up..

Yes, yes we all heard your tale about just happen to be browsing by and seen an injustice you just had to correct by insulting one person.. Sure socko, sure..

You asked for proof and insulted the man, you even did it in your previous post man. Your memory bad or something? You can't make the excuse of just asking for proof if you start asking by calling people names like the one you just called me in your previous post..

Sure socko, sure.. And if you just happened to be around and saw an injustice how the hell do you know what my argument is anyway?

Ya raging loon ROFL


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

loinboy said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, you haven't offered anything to debate silly man.. I call it as I see it, you came in out of nowhere and started insulting somebody. You didn't do it reasonably or anything like a legit reason. You came in and went right after one person specifically. It's not a knew thing where saigon and mamooth or numan are concerned. hell, it's not even new for today with them.
> ...



Ah, calling people names and throwing a fit or having a breakdown isn't exactly material for debate. It's just you raging and spewing at people..


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

loinboy said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, you haven't offered anything to debate silly man.. I call it as I see it, you came in out of nowhere and started insulting somebody. You didn't do it reasonably or anything like a legit reason. You came in and went right after one person specifically. It's not a knew thing where saigon and mamooth or numan are concerned. hell, it's not even new for today with them.
> ...



No you posted some silly crap trying to claim climate change is as real as gravity in some baiting post. That was your contribution..

Your first post to anybody after that in here was this one to westwall..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7254626-post225.html

Saigon can debate rings around you and doesn't even need the A-game to do it. I wouldn't talk too much about others not backing up their shit, when you didn't provide a link either.



			
				Loinboy said:
			
		

> Now that you called her a liar, care to prove it?
> 
> Did you do what she claimed? Did you leave out that line from the professor? Why don't you pony up the link and then we'll see who's the one lying?



Notice the asking for proof while you insulted him... yeah me too... Why not ask Saigon to do his own homework? Because you came to play internet tough guy and bark at people for the supposed internet girl. ROFL..


----------



## Billo_Really (May 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> I didn't go after your family socko, I asked if you kissed your momma with that mouth after you had a cussing fit on here.. Grow up..
> 
> Yes, yes we all heard your tale about just happen to be browsing by and seen an injustice you just had to correct by insulting one person.. Sure socko, sure..
> 
> ...


Here's what I said, dumbass!



> _*Saigon* can debate rings around you and doesn't even need the A-game to do it. I wouldn't talk too much about others not backing up their shit, when you didn't provide a link either.
> 
> Now that you called [him] a liar, *care to prove it?*
> 
> Did you do what [he] claimed? Did you leave out that line from the professor? *Why don't you pony up the link and then we'll see who's the one lying?* _


I love how you claim that was the insult, but don't think   *Westwall* calling *Saigon* a liar without showing any proof, was not.

We're getting off-topic and you can go to hell!  That's all I have to say about this.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

loinboy said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't go after your family socko, I asked if you kissed your momma with that mouth after you had a cussing fit on here.. Grow up..
> ...



LOL, you just changed the her to him otherwise it's exactly what I posted.. And we can see perfectly clear how you feel about Saigon and anybody who doubts him...ROFL


----------



## Saigon (May 22, 2013)

Gslck -

Please read and respond to post #310.

Once again, I do not neg rep on-topic or polite posts. I do neg rep off-topic abuse, lies and these stories about people being socks etc.

So it's entirely your choice.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslck -
> 
> Please read and respond to post #310.



Already did that junior... #313

Clarified exactly WHO is neg-repping me. And that would be you. Here it is verbatim again....



> See junior, its just you that's doing the neg-repping..* I got 4 positives from four people and 3 of them were for the same thread, in between your last two negs.. *
> 
> *All of those negs were from you alone. One for every week, that's abusing the rep system by any standard..*
> 
> ...



I bolded a bunch of it for clarification and to show you are lying about "people" doing it. The "people" is just you..No your immature behavior is your choice punk. Also, abusing the rep system is your choice as well. The "choice" in acting like child is yours. SO its up to you if you want to keep tempting fate and abusing the system. Personally I hope you do keep it up, and we can be rid of you and your facsimile's...


----------



## Saigon (May 22, 2013)

Gslack - 



> .No your immature behavior is your choice punk.



So you lying, making up children's stories about other posters professions and where they live etc, and your constant swamping of threads with off-topic abuse is NOT immature, but neg repping you for it, is?

Interesting. 

btw. The system allows for neg reps every 48 hours. By all means confirm that with the mods.

Over and out.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes, why go with the opinion of those who are not skeptical but have not proved their case?  She admits science has not made a sufficient case that AGW is a threat to the planet, but we nevertheless should go with the mandates of those who haven't proved it but who have strong motive for convincing the rest of us that they have?  When there is growing evidence that they are being dishonest with the data they use to convince us?

Hell, why don't we all go back to building fall out shelters just in case somebody sets off a nuclear bomb near us?   Why don't people in Nebraska require earthquake proof coding for all their buildings just in case they get hit by a big earthquake?  Why aren't we constantly monitoring the Canadian border just in case Canada decides to attack us?    We can go from logical to ridiculous very quickly when you start dealing with 'what ifs'?

And if we are going to give others the power to direct our lives--something that would have the Founders rolling over in their graves no matter who the others are--why in the world do we want to give those power who we know won't have our best interests at heart?

Sometimes it just makes a person want to bang her head against the wall in frustration at the illogic and stupidity of it all.


----------



## Saigon (May 22, 2013)

Foxfyre -

I am still waiting for you to answer the two questions from earlier. Please try to post with integrity.


1)
Quote:


> And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart






> And if we are going to give others the power to direct our lives--something that would have the Founders rolling over in their graves no matter who the others are--why in the world do we want to give those power who we know won't have our best interests at heart?



Who do you mean?

2.
Quote:


> And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.



Who is asking you to?

I explained earlier exactly why we know that European university research is not corrupted. Rather than address any of the points I raised, you simply repeated your own speech that all US university research is corrupt.

Can you explain why you did not understand or accept my explanation? You can check the details anywhere and prove that it is entirely true.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, your behavior and your history here shows you to be lying junior. Your no more a finnish journalist than I am a turnip. The abuse from me you get in response to your own abuse directed at me and others.. I can go through many such posts and show this fraud.

Neg-reps to the same person every 48 hours? LOL, really junior? You sure you want to make that claim? Don't think so because A few times I tried to neg you back and it wouldn't let me. Also I tried to positive rep a few people within a few days and couldn't do it. I don't know how the rep system allotment works, but I do know I can't neg or posi rep the same person every 48 hours.

Stop trying to excuse your behavior with nonsense and half-truths junior. It's pathetic.

Quit crying you know what ya did, so do I.. I called you on it, I didn't go to a mod over it, so quit worrying. A mod will notice it sooner or later, in the meantime, you abuse the system and when I notice it, I'm going to call you on it. Don't like it? Don't do it...

And why aren't you ignoring me like you claimed you were doing? You claimed a few times to have me on ignore, why not actually do it? LOL..

Oh and notice that I quote you accurately and respond to that quote? Why yes you do.Now look at what you did your last two posts to me. First one you didn't quote me at all, the second one you cherry-picked a line and went off on your usual fit...And you have the nerve to question anybody else's honesty? Some journalist.. They don't teach proper quoting and citation in finland? Oh, don't worry fraud that was rhetorical, we know your not in finland. LOL


----------



## Saigon (May 22, 2013)

Gslack- 



> Your no more a finnish journalist than I am a turnip.



So if I prove to you that I am a Finnish journalist - for instance by sending you links to my stories - would you agree to leave the board? Would that seem fair?

I have actually posted stories here on this board - there is one on Burundi in the Africa section which includes pics of me, for instance. 




> Neg-reps to the same person every 48 hours? LOL, really junior? You sure you want to make that claim?



Yes. By all means go and check.

Here is the rule for you: 

_Members may NOT negatively impact the reputation of the same person more that 1 time in a 48 hour period. If a member negatively impacts another person's reputation more than 1 time in a 48 hour period (2/48 Violation) the following will happen:_


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aww look you can learn A quote. good start..

Hmm, this sounds a lot like some other poster.. He said similar things regarding a DD214.. ROFL... Yes, of course anything on the net is true.. Gimme a break dude. You want to claim you're a Journalist in Finland be my guest, just don't expect me to buy it when you act like this all the time. You act like your 10. Just like mamooth, you say your this or that, but act like you're a juvenile, and when I doubt your story because it doesn't fit, you respond with this "I got proof" crap...

Please...

EDIT: you edited your post after I responded so I will fix it now..

The rules may be a 48 hour limit, but I do know the system also is not perfect. I know for a fact I have been unable to positive rep people all too often, the popup asks me to spread some reputation around before repping this or that person. There are posts and threads showing this..http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/255606-is-the-48-hour-double-neg-rep-rule-bs.html

But if that's the rule so be it.. But how does that change what you're doing? If you neg me once a week for the last 4 I am quite sure that will be abusing the system by any standard. So you manage to walk a safe line and do it once a week, and that makes you less of a weasel? ROFL, only you would think that junior. ANd you wonder why I don't believe your journalist in finland nonsense...


----------



## Foxfyre (May 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> I am still waiting for you to answer the two questions from earlier. Please try to post with integrity.
> 
> ...



Saigon, thank you for your interest, but since you ignored my responses to your earlier questions and continue to distort the points I make, I will respectfully decline to address your now tiresome and repetitious requests.  You obviously lack the intellect or the ability or the will--you pick--to understand what others are saying.  I don't always succeed, but I do try not to engage in exercises in futility.


----------



## Saigon (May 22, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

So you refuse to answer questions?

You are just basically trolling?


btw. If I have missed a response from you earlier, give me the post #, and I'll respond to it now. I don't see every post, so I may not have seen it.


----------



## Saigon (May 22, 2013)

What Foxfyre claims:



> But he gives us such wonderful lead ins to get good information out there. I know that isn't what he's shooting for. But give him a pass? Naw. The best way to deal with his schtick is to put the accurate information up.



What Foxfyre does:



> I will respectfully decline to address your now tiresome and repetitious requests.



That was brilliant, Fox - way to get that "good information out there". 

I loved that "accurate information".

Brilliant posting.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 22, 2013)

Saigon, rave on little man.  We've got your number.  I answered your questions.  You ignored the answers.  And you only make yourself look more foolish by beating that dead horse.  Subject closed.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

Appeals to authority (the forum in this case), make you look desperate for acceptance as well as pathetic.. Which answers other questions about your behavior.. You know the whole "I am a journalist in finland or I am a "nuke", story makes a lot more sense when I see this .. LOL


----------



## PMZ (May 22, 2013)

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground. 

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground. 

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.
> 
> We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.
> 
> Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?



Except the record is inconsistent.  The paleoclimate record shows that there have been times in the past in which the CO2 levels were higher but the climate was cooler than now.  And despite significant increase in CO2 levels over the last decades, the warming trend seems to have stalled.  Which should at least cause us to question whether CO2 was the cause of the warming in the first place.

Here is one scholarly scientific opinion that suggests that CO2 cools the planet rather than warming it.  Is that true?  I don't know.  And neither does anybody else posting on this thread.  But it is something we should at least look at before handing over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to others who don't have our best interests at heart.

See on Page 1 and 2 of this abstract:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Greenhouse gas effect is bogus.pdf

This abstract was published by the London Institute of Physics, a prestigious group who in general promotes the concept of AGW.  I read all their stuff on the subject though because they are more honest than most such groups and they do give a fair hearing to both sides of the debate.  We need a lot more of that.


----------



## gslack (May 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.
> 
> We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.
> 
> Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?



What ?

Wait....

You're telling me that we are going to revert geologically and atmospherically/climatologically, back to a previous state, because CO2 wasn't in the ground but in the air and so it will return??

Well as colorful as that is, it would show a cycle wouldn't it. And so far no one on the AGW side is willing to concede that there is a pattern so I don't think that's the case here..

Also, Co2 isn't just from the breakdown of bio-matter as we know it. it also comes from the earth itself volcanoes produce a great deal of it. No dead bio-matter needed, lots of things  can produce it  naturally with or without carbon-based life forms.


----------



## Saigon (May 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.
> 
> We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.
> 
> Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?



The problem here is assuming that because human acitivity is causing the atmosphere to warm now - humans must have made the atmosphere warm in the past - which we both agree makes no sense.

But our climate does not change dramatically by itself - it changes only when it is forced to change by some force - be that solar activity, the results of massive volcanic activitiy, etc etc. There are forces other than human acitivity which can induce climate change.

Going back through the history of the planet, we know when the climate has warmed, and we know fairly well what caused each spike to temperatures. 

We can also map CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and compare that to what happened when volcanic acitivity meant that we had high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere before. 

I hope that makes it clearer for you, but by all means ask any questions you like - if you can wade through the spamming!


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.
> ...




Funny how now you can quote people...

BTW, he didn't ask you anything that warranted that explanation.. Matter of fact he didn't ask anything. he made a statement regarding CO2 going from whence it came and how scientists wish and pro AGW pundits wish to prevent this..

Try actually reading what people write for a change, it will help prevent this type of thing...


----------



## Foxfyre (May 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



As several of us have been observing, Saigon's reading dysfunction causes him to read what isn't there and prevents him from reading what is there.  So with climate change, as well as in other topics, if he didn't post straw men, red herrings, and non sequiturs, perhaps he would have nothing to say at all?


----------



## PMZ (May 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.
> ...



Here's what is indisputable. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That means it's transmissivity is higher for the spectrum of radiant energy from the sun, than it is for the spectrum reflected back from earth. Energy is trapped on earth.

Fossil fuels are made from biological waste trapped under ground which is made from carbon dioxide.

We know during the years that fossil fuels were sequestered from the atmosphere that atmospheric CO2 concentrations predictably went down, and so did global average temperature. (The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago). Look at the graph that you referenced for that Period. Look at what happened to CO2 concentrations and global temps.

Cause and effect predictable from energy balance. Animal life could not flourish at the start of that period. It did after that period. 

For the last 100 years we've been steadily returning to the CO2 concentrations of that period by releasing all of that sequestered greenhouse gas. 

Now, we could do nothing and hope that something that we don't know about will save us from what we do know about. But, we know that we will run out of fossil fuels anyway.

So, despite what you wish, private industry is investing in sustainable energy, and the transportation industry is working hard on getting more good, and less waste out of each pound of greenhouse gas we dump into the atmosphere. 

We already spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year recovering from AGW enhanced extreme weather. 

It's pretty certain that the lowest cost path, based on what we know, goes through fixing, rather than ignoring, AGW.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



I didn't have to go past the bolded second sentence in your post to know that your scientific information is somewhat lacking.  But setting that aside, yes we do know that climate change appears to be cyclical both short term (within a 1000 year or so period) and long term in which we get into the mega millions and billions of years.

But the question has not been answered, to my satisfaction however, whether significant CO2 increases CAUSE global warming or whether they FOLLOW global warming.  Strong cases are made for both points of view.

But you did hit one truth.  It is likely that humankind will eventually use fossil fuels faster than they are created in the earth and will eventually have to utilize other forms of energy.  I have absolutely complete faith in humankind to figure out how to harness and use new forms of energy by the time we will seriously need them.

But until that time, they are and will continue to be used.  Modern humans, after all, are a natural result of evolutionary processes as much as any other living things on Earth are, and there is no reason to think human activity is not as natural as activity of any other living organisms.  But since humans of all living organisms have the greater ability to intentionally adapt to changing conditions, why not encourage us to be the best we can be?

Time and again we are told that we cannot return to an earlier, more innocent time of human existence re our morals and values.  Why should we believe it any more feasible to return to a more primitive way of life re our energy use?   Most especially when it is those already doing a good job who are expected to make the greatest sacrifices while the biggest 'polluters' are given a pass?

I for one do not wish to hand over my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to government entities who have given me no confidence they care about me in any way and their primary motive is to force my obedience and to possess my assets.   And I am simply not willing to agree to consigning huge populations of people to more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied ability to exploit their resources as we have already done.

Monitor global warming yes.  But we know from the scientific record that plants, animals, and people flourish much more in warmer climates than they do in cold ones.  Let's focus on helping people ADAPT to climate change and exploit it rather than perpetuate the often self serving myth that we must change something that in all probability is unchangeable by us.


----------



## PMZ (May 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



Let's start with basics. Fossil fuels were created only during the Carboniferous Period. They aren't being created any more. What we have is what we will have, less what we we use.

Every carbon atom in them is from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, used during that Period, by life, mostly plants and algae, to build themselves. When they died, during that period all of that carbon was sequestered from the atmosphere and held underground, to be transformed from dead plants and algae, by heat and pressure, into fossil fuels. 

As those fuels are oxidized, the vast majority of those same carbon atoms are turned into CO2 and re released back into the atmosphere, from wence they came, and resume their prior job of transmitting more solar spectrum radiation to earth, than they allow earth radiation spectrum back out into space, thus elevating the temperature of earth to something higher in order to maintain energy balance. 

Are you following so far?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm really not interested in a detailed geology/chemistry discussion, but thanks anyway.

I am more concerned on whether the most compassionate and constructive approach to the issue of global warming is:
1.  Nothing because we cannot affect it in any significant way
2.  Adapt to inevitable climate change
3.  Reverse climate change


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Got a problem there with that bolded and reposted part below...

_*Here's what is indisputable. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That means it's transmissivity is higher for the spectrum of radiant energy from the sun, than it is for the spectrum reflected back from earth. Energy is trapped on earth.*_

Afraid you have something backwards there. According to GH theory, The sun's rays pass through the GH gases pretty much unhindered, react with the surface and there get radiated up as IR, that IR interacts with GH gases which according to theory warms the surface more. Its reflected or radiated heat from the surface that GH gases interact with.

Sorry, but your premise is already backwards from the start.. Ask any body you like,look it up if you want but you have it backwards...

Also, CO2 isn't an element dude. Carbon is, so is Oxygen, but CO2 is a naturally occurring gas made from 2 oxygen atoms bonded to one carbon atom. hence the term C =carbon, O2 = x2 oxygen , CO2.. it wasn't sucked in from the atmosphere, it was created naturally from any number of natural actions within the planets interior or from decomposed bio-matter. Don't take my word for it.. here...

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



> Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume.[1]
> 
> As part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product.[2] However, photosynthesis cannot occur in darkness and at night some carbon dioxide is produced by plants during respiration.[3] Carbon dioxide is produced by combustion of coal or hydrocarbons, the fermentation of sugars in beer and winemaking and by respiration of all living organisms. It is exhaled in the breath of humans and land animals. It is emitted from volcanoes, hot springs, geysers and other places where the earth's crust is thin and is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution. CO2 is also found in lakes at depth under the sea, and commingled with oil and gas deposits.[4]



There are many ways both natural and man made that can create this gas. it's not a base element..


----------



## Saigon (May 23, 2013)

Fox- 



> I am more concerned on whether the most compassionate and constructive approach to the issue of global warming is:
> 1. Nothing because we cannot affect it in any significant way
> 2. Adapt to inevitable climate change
> 3. Reverse climate change



Why do you feel mankind needs to choose one of those options, whilst ignoring the others?

1.We know that we can influence conditions to some extent, because mankind created the ozone hole, and is now some way along the path to repairing it. We could definitely reduce carbon emissions - at considerable benefit to humanity in many areas of life - and then see what impact that has on climate.

2. Here in Europe we are already learning to adapt to warmer temperatures, desertification and in some area smore rain & snow, but at the moment Denialism makes it very difficult for Americans to do so. This is a long process. 

3. We don't know if we can do that or not. What we do know is that we canmassively reduce emissions quite easily, and enjoy less pollution as a result.

What we can also consider are the economic benefits of developing new technologies. Thousands of people now work in private sector companies all over the world building tidal turbines etc  - but right now the US does not seem to want those jobs.


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

People who refuse to learn, remain ignorant. Their choice. That renders them irrelevant. 

While they are wandering around deciding what other ignorant people to follow, people who know act accordingly.

The largest project mankind has ever taken on, the move to sustainable energy, has begun. 

That's where all new investment is going.

For the transportation industry, what has always been hypothesized as the force which would even move the ignorant, has come true. Expensive gasoline. If you love your fossil fuels, fine. Buy them. Smarter people are spending their money on more important things. 

Several times a year Mother Nature destroys a few thousand homes, takes a few hundred lives, makes homeless a few thousand people, and the ignorant blame bad luck. 

Pretty soon, as we find that we've built our farms where there's no longer water, and our cities where there's no longer land, the big bills will come due and the ignorant will blame politicians. 

Ignorance is the most expensive human limitation. 

Yet those who preach it get fabulously wealthy.

Go figure.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2013)

The capitalistic enterprises in the best position to know the cost of the present warming, the people who insure the insurance companies unequivacal position is that there are now more extreme weather events worldwide by a factor of at least 2 and maybe as much as 4. Swiss Re and Munich Re.

Climate Change: Insurers Confirm Growing Risks, Costs-Insurance Networking News

The politics of global warming have typically involved much debate as to the role climate change plays in growing weather-related risk.  Yesterday, however, at a Capital Hill a press conference on the cost of climate change, debate was not on the agenda. Pointing to a year of history-making, $1 billion-plus natural disasters, representatives of Tier 1 insurance companies took a definitive stance with members of the U.S. Senate to confirm that costs to taxpayers and businesses from extreme weather will continue to soar because of climate change.

Representatives from The Reinsurance Association of America, Swiss Re and Willis Re and Ceres, a nonprofit organization that leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address a variety of sustainability challenges, joined Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) yesterday to discuss the growing financial impact of global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2013)

And there is a real kicker waiting in the wings. Should the Arctic Clathrates begin to outgas in a major way, we are just along for the ride. This group of scientists think that is a certainty;

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency

Don't know how close to right they are, but only 13 years ago, scientists that predicted the total melt of the arctic ice for part of the summer by 2100 were called 'alarmist'. Now it looks as if that may happen by 2020.


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

Everything with some transparency to electromagnetic radiation exhibits changes in the degree of that depending on wavelength. If you measure the transmissivity over a range of wavelengths, some will be transmitted more, and some less. 

Greenhouse Gasses are those that transmit more at the wavelengths coming from the sun, than they do of those reflected by the earth. 

The temperature of earth is what is necessary to maintain energy equilibrium. At that temperature, energy in equals energy out. 

When more greenhouse gasses are added to the atmosphere, the first impact is energy imbalance with, relatively, the same coming in and less going out. The earth's reaction to that is gradual warming. At some elevated temperature, enough energy is forced through the greenhouse gasses to balance what is coming from the sun, and temperature restabilizes. 

100% pure unarguable radiation thermodynamics.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> And there is a real kicker waiting in the wings. Should the Arctic Clathrates begin to outgas in a major way, we are just along for the ride. This group of scientists think that is a certainty;
> 
> Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency
> 
> Don't know how close to right they are, but only 13 years ago, scientists that predicted the total melt of the arctic ice for part of the summer by 2100 were called 'alarmist'. Now it looks as if that may happen by 2020.



Here ya go Old Rocks.  WattsUpWithThat has put together ALL the charts and graphs re arctic and antartic sea ice all in one place.  But if you study them with an open mind, they really are disturbing for the dedicated pro-AGW religionist who bases his fears on sea ice:
Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?

And I will remind everybody that we have had satellite imagery for less than 34 years.  For anybody to seriously think that 34 years provides even a hint of conclusive evidence of the behavior of an ice pack that spans millions of years. . . well. . . .anybody want to buy a bridge?


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And there is a real kicker waiting in the wings. Should the Arctic Clathrates begin to outgas in a major way, we are just along for the ride. This group of scientists think that is a certainty;
> ...



A couple of points.

Sea ice has little do do with tundra. 

Fortunately science has other ways to measure than satellites.


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

An experiment that you can do at home. 

Hold your hand about one foot from an incandescent light bulb, a great radiator. Observe the effects. Your hand will warm up to whatever temperature is necessary to radiate exactly as much energy back into the room as it is receiving from the bulb. 

Move it a little closer. More energy received by your hand from the bulb. Energy imbalance again. It has to find a new higher temperature to re-establish equilibrium. 

So, the impact of higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere could be demonstrated by moving the earth closer to the sun. 

Anybody's want to try that?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It has had no other ways to measure the behavior of arctic sea ice before satellites.  And our AGW religionists won't accept notations from ship logs, arctic fishermen and hunters, etc. who report the absence of sea ice exceeding current history way back when.  But you find a whole lot of religionists who get all excited when the very VERY short period of satelitte imaging shows a decrease in sea ice.   And they don't even want to discuss that if the ice never melts and just continues to expand, we will all be up to our hoo has in ice no matter where we live.  Or that it is unreasonable to expect the climate in the Arctic tp be static and unchanging when no other place on the planet has a completely stable climate that never varies.


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I don't enjoy your gambling with humanity's future hoping that something that we don't know about will miraculously appear to counter what we do know about. 

More greenhouse gas in the atmosphere require the earth to get warmer. Why should we ignore simple science to hope for miracles?

It's simple economics. The real price of fossil fuels is unaffordable. Civilization has been built based on yesterday's climate. Not changing the climate is cheaper than adapting civilization to a new one.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I don't enjoy your approval of foreign entities, most of which dislike us and absolutely do not have our best interests at heart, pushing legislation and powers that will take away my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.  Most especially when there is reason to believe that their justification is based on what may be flawed or even bogus science.

Helping civilization to adapt to inevitable climate change is a hell of a lot more productive and affordable than pretending we have the power to change our climate when we don't.


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What you want to be true is insignificant to the universe. Science is dealing with the workings of the universe. The facts behind AGW may well be disturbing to you, but that has no impact on how the universe works. 

What you are choosing is to not be part of what must be done. Your choice. We usually label such choices as irresponsible.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And I label irresponsible people who cut and paste opinion even as they demonstrate they don't understand what they are cutting and pasting.  Most especially when they presume the righteous arrogance to assign words, thought, actions to other people that they have to manufacture because they can't support them with anything somebody else said.  And most especially when they use non sequitur to do it.


----------



## Desperado (May 24, 2013)

Upon Further review:
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that &#8220;greenhouse gases&#8221; actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth&#8217;s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet&#8217;s surface.
Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Upon Further review:
> New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
> A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> ...



Very interesting.  I think it at least merits looking for other support for the theory.


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

Desperado said:


> Upon Further review:
> New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
> A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Here's the thing. What I post is what I know because I've invested the time to learn from credible sources. If you bothered to check and learn from credible sources you could know it too, I presume. You don't. You repeat what big oil wants you to believe in order for them to follow business's one rule. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. 

That's all your choice. People who take action on solving the problem are used to people like you and simply regard them as irrelevent to the solution. 

Lots of people have trouble distinguishing between what they know to be true and what they wish was true. Don't take it personally, you among massive company.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2013)

These guys post links to people like Anthony Watts, an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, and expect those links to be accepted as equally credible to the links to articles from peer reviewed scientific journals.

Still remains, no Scientific Societies anywhere on earth deny AGW. Not even in Outer Slobovia. No National Academy of Science denies AGW. Not even that of Saudi Arabia. And no major university in the world has a policy statement that denies AGW.

All we have are fruitloops and big energy doing the denial.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



As are you among the AGW religionsists who are certain they know everything and are certan that the skeptics at any level  have done absolutely no homework, no study, no research, and have not come to their own informed opinions via educating themselves.  You would offend me and possibly others less if you assumed less, were just a bit less smug and self righteous,  and observed and read more carefully.


----------



## deltex1 (May 24, 2013)

I have done my part...have not farted for the last 5 years.


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It is not untypical for scientists to value truth and question opinion. That's why we became scientists. That's what we do. 

Just as I am certain that creationists and flat earthers are wrong, I am certain that physics knows many things that you don't. There is just no credible scientific support for believing that AGW is not real. There is just no economic support that denying it leads to the most expensive alternative. 

Again nothing personal. There's much that I don't know and a few things that I do know. I presume that it's the same with you. 

There was a time when deniers were an obstacle to progress but we're beyond that now for the most part.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People who refuse to learn, remain ignorant. Their choice. That renders them irrelevant.
> 
> While they are wandering around deciding what other ignorant people to follow, people who know act accordingly.
> 
> ...



LOL, dude you just made some pretty ignorant claims and now you talk about people being willfully ignorant...

You just made some crazy claim that CO2 is a base element. Gimme a break man..


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> An experiment that you can do at home.
> 
> Hold your hand about one foot from an incandescent light bulb, a great radiator. Observe the effects. Your hand will warm up to whatever temperature is necessary to radiate exactly as much energy back into the room as it is receiving from the bulb.
> 
> ...



LOL, where to start....

*"Your hand will warm up to whatever temperature is necessary to radiate exactly as much energy back into the room as it is receiving from the bulb. "*

What kind of circle think gave that idea? Seriously man, its about as unscientific a claim as i  have seen. ALmost as silly as your previous "CO2 back to the earth and back to the atmosphere nonsense...

No dude, you hand will warm to whatever temperature the energy coming from the bulb cause, minus the cost of the transfer..There is no equilibrium until your hand reaches the same temperature as the bulb.. Jesus man, do you just make this crap up or what?


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > People who refuse to learn, remain ignorant. Their choice. That renders them irrelevant.
> ...



You'll have to point out where I said that CO2 is a "base element". I've never even heard of a "base element". What are the other elements that aren't "base" called?


----------



## PMZ (May 24, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > An experiment that you can do at home.
> ...



Don't know much about radiation I see. 

You claim that holding your hand near a light bulb will result it it getting continuously hotter until it's the same temperature as the filament. Does that mean that earth has been getting warmer and warmer and will eventually be the same temperature as the sun? Now that's global warming!

It's very easy to imagine now how easily you can be fooled.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2013)

There are a few posters here whose ignorance is truly astounding. Gslack is one of them. You will meet many more that make you wonder how they operate a keyboard.


----------



## Saigon (May 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And there is a real kicker waiting in the wings. Should the Arctic Clathrates begin to outgas in a major way, we are just along for the ride. This group of scientists think that is a certainty;
> ...



I can totally understand that people look at some of these partisan sites and can one very, very skewed impression of reality.

This is a good example of how people twist facts:

Have we had satellite data for only 34 years?

Dedicated satellites for this purpose were only launched in 1978, that is true, but prior to that images were produced by NASA's Nimbus spacecraft, which were launched in 1964.

Did your source tell you that?

No, it didn't. It offered you a bridge, and you bought it. 

Prior to that we have ice charts dating back to 1930, temperature records dating back to the 1880's - so observational data now going back 130 years, anyway.

This links gives information dating back 5,000 years: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/


----------



## Saigon (May 24, 2013)

PMZ -

I would agree with Old Rocks that it is best to put 2 or 3 of the completely illiterate spammers on Ignore Mode, and that allows the rest of us to continue some kind of on-topic discussion.


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Your silly claim...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7271635-post333.html



			
				PMZ said:
			
		

> *The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground. *
> 
> We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.
> 
> Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?



Now in order for the CO2 to as you put it_ "recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground."_ we have to assume you meant that CO2 was an element and cannot be broken down..

Through that cycle Co2 is broken down into more base elements and then through various process can be made into CO2 again in certain conditions.

Further, you claimed that we (life) was created from CO2, which we weren't, we are carbon based, not CO2 based...

Please, spare me the wacky theories and esoteric nonsense..


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



NOOOOOOO!!!!!

That was your claim silly man... I explained what would have to happen to reach equilibrium which YOU CLAIMED!!

Your words...



			
				PMZ said:
			
		

> Hold your hand about one foot from an incandescent light bulb, a great radiator. Observe the effects. Your hand will warm up to whatever temperature is necessary to radiate exactly as much energy back into the room as it is receiving from the bulb.
> 
> Move it a little closer. More energy received by your hand from the bulb. Energy imbalance again. It has to find a new higher temperature to *re-establish equilibrium.*
> 
> ...



You just claimed it right there.. See it? YOUR CLAIM SILLY MAN!!

Now dude your nonsense is getting tiresome now. You spout off half-backed, and half-witted nonsense using some partial knowledge and frankly its just ignorant now...


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



its a periodic table of elements...Let me know if you see CO2 on it.. You won't...






Now when you have a compound and you break it down, you break it down into it's base elements. Such as those above on the scale... Nice try at BS stupid...

BTW, fossil fuels weren't made in the Carboniferous period, the belief is that period is what created current fossil fuels. Meaning the life from that period is believed to have made up fossil fuels. Meaning from then till now, the decomposition of life from that period over the periods from then till now, are what makes up most of our fossil fuels..

Dude are you high? or are just deliberately being obtuse?


----------



## Saigon (May 25, 2013)

Gslack - 

The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you. 

No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.


----------



## PMZ (May 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> PMZ -
> 
> I would agree with Old Rocks that it is best to put 2 or 3 of the completely illiterate spammers on Ignore Mode, and that allows the rest of us to continue some kind of on-topic discussion.



One of the sources of our current political troubles is that ignorant people like Rush are telling ignorant people like his audiance that they are no longer ignorant and they should stand up and scream that what they want to be true, is.

It's like, in his ignorance, facts are all political opinions, and by taking any position, that position becomes fact based. I guess that there is no denying that selling that snake oil has made someone with nearly zero knowledge in any field, who has never taken responsibility for anything, wealthy beyond measure, but then obtaining wealth without creating wealth has become the hallmark of our generation.

Wierd and very frustrating to folks who obtained knowledge, and created wealth, the old fashioned way. They earned it. 

Your advice on sorting out the contributers from the hangers on here is well taken.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2013)

Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.   



PMZ said:


> The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.
> 
> We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.
> 
> Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?


----------



## PMZ (May 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post. "

Fossil fuels are made mostly of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons we call them. Or if we eat them, carbohydrates. 

Hydrogen generally from water.

Carbon from organic compounds like expired life forms. 

Before they expired, these life forms grew themselves from what they took in. For plants, mostly carbon dioxide. For animals, mostly plants, or plant eating animals. 

Carbon based life forms. 

Ain't science grand?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.
> ...



Um, CO2 doesn't have any hydrogen in it either.  But my point was that your statement that fossil fuels are made from CO2 really doesn't sound like something a scientist would say.  Or anybody who took highschool chemistry would say for that matter.  And you have claimed to be a scientist in your 'we scientists' line in another post.


----------



## Saigon (May 25, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

I don't think you are understanding PMZs point. 

What happens when we burn fossil fuels? What gas is released?


----------



## PMZ (May 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



That's why I said hydrogen, mostly from water.

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather. 

That's where ignorance of science will lead humanity unless we continue to ignore you.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I have only six hours of college geology, but that is enough, Sir, to be pretty damn sure you don't have a clue what you are talking about.  I suggest you read up on the Carboniferous period, why it is called that, and the process of creating fossil fuels before you embarrass yourself any further.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, they are not made of CO2, but the organics from which they are made, was once CO2. Or is a referance to the carbon cycle in biology beyond your so limited knowledge?

AOL Search


----------



## Old Rocks (May 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



*LOL. From your posts, I would say that you have never learned much in that class. And my last Geology class was Eng. Geology, 470/570. 

No, I did not finish then, and so now I am in the process of finishing. 22 credits this year, while working 40 to 45 hours a week as a millwright in a steel mill. 

And there are many petroleum deposites from the Tertiary.*

http://cseg.ca/assets/files/resources/abstracts/2003/440S0203.pdf

ABSTRACT
This story was born in the South Atlantic margin basins, skipped along East Africa and progressed around SE Asia. We show examples in Tertiary sequences in basins (Congo Fan, Angola; Baram Delta, NW Borneo; Campos Basin, Brazil; Pearl River Mouth Basin, China; Rufiji Trough/Lamu Basin of Kenya/Tanzania; Niger Delta, Nigeria) where striking correlations were observed between geologic features that control sedimentation and signatures of multiple potential field attributes.
Working in a GIS environment enabled faster, more precise interpretations and digital presentation of results. Stacking hundreds of geo-referenced images from published experts on GETECHs multi-featured potential fields data allowed the reinterpretation, realignment and extrapolation of long-recognized features. Data signatures in map view yielded unexpected geologic inferences using simple tools and basic concepts.
The study began with reinterpreted extents of continental, oceanic and mixed crust to help investigate hydrocarbon maturation. However, the regional work revealed surprising correlations between gravity imagery and published reservoir and source distributions such as:
- inter-raft sediment pathways, post-salt depocentres and unconfined basin floor fans, Congo Fan
- basement control on Oligocene fans, bypass zones and source pod locations, Campos Basin
- correlations between gas hydrates, toe thrust belts and basement structure, Niger Delta
- hydrocarbon migration catchments offshore Kenya/Tanzania
- projections of base of slope/basin floor fans, offshore NW Borneo

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625a/Chapters/ES.pdf

The current coal resource assessment investigations in the Northern Rocky
Mountains and Great Plains region concentrated on selected coal beds and zones in
rocks of Tertiary age in four basinscoal resources that are most likely to be
utilized in the next 20-30 years. These coal deposits are described in detail and
estimates of quantity and quality are made for the Powder River Basin in Wyoming
and Montana, the Williston Basin in North Dakota, the Greater Green River Basin in
Wyoming, and the Hanna-Carbon Basin in Wyoming. Coal availability and
recoverability for selected areas in the Powder River Basin are assessed, as well.
Table ES-1 summarizes the total resources in millions of short tons in each of the
four assessed basins. In other basins in the region, Tertiary coal resources that are
less likely to be utilized in the next 20-30 years are summarized but were not
assessed. These unassessed areas include the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming; Bull


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2013)

Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources.   Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology?  Right out of your own head and knowledged?  Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?


----------



## PMZ (May 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources.   Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology?  Right out of your own head and knowledged?  Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?



Where do you believe that the carbon in hydrocarbons came from?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.
> ...



CO2 at different times is a byproduct of and also a component of various geological and biological processes and phenoma yes.  But you want us to believe that CO2 existed before carbon and oxygen existed?  Are you really attempting to make a case for that?   You are saying as PMZ said that fossil fuels are made from CO2?  Your link sure as hell doesn't make a case for that.  Geez Old Rocks.  You really do need to demand your money back from all those science courses you claim you are taking.


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.
> 
> No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.



So you don't think CO2 breaks down into it's base elements, but rather stays as CO2 through out the eons like PMZ is implying here?

OF course you do, because you are a moron, and like PMZ full of it..


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well at least most of us know that fossil fuels aren't made out of CO2 which is what PMZ, the 'scientist' claimed in an earlier post.
> ...



Dude you are an idiot...

Carbon exists already. It's there naturally BEFORE CO2, BEFORE LIFE, BEFORE YOU, BEFORE PLANTS...

It's an element dumbass, it was created. Sea life is also carbon based, even though they live in water. Jesus man, you're just rambling nonsense..

You just ignore when your stupidity is outed and keep on rambling like it didn't happen..

Scientist? My ass...


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2013)

Oldsocks, kid is at it again. PMZ or whatever her goes by now is using the same nonsensical arguments he used previously as konradv. 

The dead give away is all the pro-agw posters giving him a free pass to post whatever idiotic nonsense he wishes, without a word to correct any of it..

If I or anybody made such ant--scientific claims they would one and all attack to no end. Yet it comes from one of their own so it's all good. Their desperation to help him and make it seem logical is all too funny..

Be careful boys, his ignorance is getting worse, and his circle talk is backing him into a corner. He usually spends his time posting conspiracy theories, so just be warned...


----------



## PMZ (May 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So, in your scientific opinion, fossil fuels assembled themselves from stray bits of carbon and hydrogen laying around in their elemental form?


I think that any 9th grader who claimed that would find himself back 8th.


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



No ding dong, You seem to think CO2 created life, or life created CO2,or that life is CO2 based, or that CO2 remains CO2 throughout the cycle, and never breaks down to its base elements..

Which is it this time BS man?

Remember when you implied that you had never heard of base elements before? LOL, you implied you're a scientists yet you never heard the term used to describe the breakdown of compounds into their base elements. Gimme a break dude...

Dude you first implied CO2 was an element, then you implied all life came from CO2, then you claimed fossil fuels were created in the carboniferous period, when they weren't created then, they were created in the eons since that period, from bio-matter from that period. 

Dude you have about 2% of actual knowledge on this, and it shows. Your claims are nonsensical and inaccurately based on things that have some truth in them.  

You ignore posts that call you on this until you have no choice and it's too obvious to do so. This fake scientist crap is tiresome and getting older by the minute.


----------



## Saigon (May 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources.   Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology?  Right out of your own head and knowledged?  Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?



Both Old Rocks and PMZ are absolutely correct. 

No one said that fossil fuels are made out of CO2. 

This article gives you a basic overview:

_The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.

The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere &#8596; biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]_

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This part of the debate began when foxfyre seemed not to understand what PMZ meant by carbon sequestration - here is an overview of that, too:

_Carbon sequestration is the process of capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)[1] and may refer specifically to:

    "The process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a reservoir."[2] When carried out deliberately, this may also be referred to as carbon dioxide removal, which is a form of geoengineering.
    The process of carbon capture and storage, where carbon dioxide is removed from flue gases, such as on power stations, before being stored in underground reservoirs.
    Natural biogeochemical cycling of carbon between the atmosphere and reservoirs, such as by chemical weathering of rocks.

Carbon sequestration describes long-term storage of carbon dioxide or other forms of carbon to either mitigate or defer global warming and avoid dangerous climate change. It has been proposed as a way to slow the atmospheric and marine accumulation of greenhouse gases, which are released by burning fossil fuels.[3]

Carbon dioxide is naturally captured from the atmosphere through biological, chemical or physical processes. Some anthropogenic sequestration techniques exploit these natural processes,[4] while some use entirely artificial processes. _

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

I think this makes the facts quite clear, and hopefully Foxfyre will be open and honest enough to admit that.


----------



## gslack (May 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources.   Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology?  Right out of your own head and knowledged?  Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?
> ...



Nice try Saigon, but his words have been seen over and again. If he were a scientist, he would have stated what he meant in way that reflected what you claim he meant. They don't and his words show this.

You and oldoscks show desperation in trying to tell us what he actually means or meant, but his words are very clear. And if he were the scientist he claims he is, and you two seem to believe, he could do this easily the first time and wouldn't need your constant gardening..


----------



## PMZ (May 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



This whole thread is a telling example of today's troubles, which stem periodically in history from a common condition. The empowerment of ignorance over knowledge. The most notable example of which are labeled the Dark Ages. 

Humanity became dominant over lesser species by thinking and specialization. We each could choose to dedicate our lives to specific studies, contribute to the expansion of mankind's total knowledge in that area, but pay the price of having to rely on other folks, who chose other specialties, to do their job too. 

Periodically that train gets derailed, and people start assuming that knowledge is a right, not an effort, and that all opinions on all topics are equally probable to be correct.

Thus we have very, very inexpert junior scientists selling the little that they know, as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

To me, that is a time to follow the money. They are selling something, but not what's claimed.


----------



## gslack (May 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



You just had a Billy Madison moment... I'm stunned, truly. You wrote 4 paragraphs, went from today's troubles, the dark ages, and then onto junior scientists, only to end it with "follow the money". And the amazing thing here is, not at any point did you address either the thread topic, or my post you responded to...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

Amazing..


----------



## Foxfyre (May 26, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Grinning and stepping onto soapbox. . . .

You know, after spending quite a few years in this medium I have made some observations and have drawn some conclusions.

We all know there are numbnuts who do nothing but troll message boards.  Their only contribution is some sort of idiotic expression or insult usually totally unrelated to the topic.  To admin's credit, they have implemented some policy that has weeded out quite a few of these and I for one appreciate that a lot.

But then there are the smarter ones who do this as a hobby or form of recreation and without any personal interest in actually learning something, sharing something, teaching something, engaging in debate, or testing their opinions/theories.  These are masters at subtlety but quite effective in giving the impression they are participating, but in fact are deliberately and intentionally derailing the thread.  That is their motive.  Some are quite good at it.  And when they succeed, I'm sure they privately gloat that they have met their goal.

And then you have those folks who entertain themselves by writing elaborate wordy expoundings that, when you look at them closely, say absolutely nothing.  And if they get somebody to take the bait and actually seriously comment on the nothingness of their post, they almost certainly snicker and pat themselves on the back.  They are thrilled they got somebody to take the bait.

I'm happy that you were a smart fish and didn't.  

Stepping off the soapbox.


----------



## gslack (May 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



LOL,yeah the nonsense can get blinding and if a person isn't careful they can fall into the void of circle talk.

Talking to that guy is like a spiritual discussion with Shirley MacLaine. A lot of talk about nothing, and crap she pulls out her metaphysical, as well as physical butt.


----------



## Saigon (May 26, 2013)

Foxfyre -

I assume you have had a look at the two links I posted on the carbon cycle - does that now make sense to you?

Do you now understand PMZ's original point?


btw  - please try and stay on topic!


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> These guys post links to people like Anthony Watts, an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, and expect those links to be accepted as equally credible to the links to articles from peer reviewed scientific journals.
> 
> Still remains, no Scientific Societies anywhere on earth deny AGW. Not even in Outer Slobovia. No National Academy of Science denies AGW. Not even that of Saudi Arabia. And no major university in the world has a policy statement that denies AGW.
> 
> All we have are fruitloops and big energy doing the denial.








Oh looky here...they're finally coming around....


"The MoS has campaigned tirelessly against the folly of Britains eco-obsessed energy policy. Now comes a game-changing intervention... from an expert respected by the green fanatics themselves

Last week, I was part of a group of academics who published a paper saying that the faster, more alarming, projections of the rate at which the globe is warming look less likely than previously thought. 


That may mean we can afford to reduce carbon dioxide emissions slightly slower than some previously feared  but as almost everyone agrees, they still have to come down.


So the time has come to focus on something just as important: that 90 per cent of the measures adopted in Britain and elsewhere since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money  including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems."


Read more: Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist | Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist | Mail Online


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Show us EMPIRICAL DATA that supports AGW.


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> There are a few posters here whose ignorance is truly astounding. Gslack is one of them. You will meet many more that make you wonder how they operate a keyboard.







And your constant need to create socks to support your BS is duly noted.


----------



## Unkotare (May 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Do you know [sic] understand PMZ's original point?









Try again in English, please.


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources.   Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology?  Right out of your own head and knowledged?  Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?
> ...







Where do you believe the C came from?  Explain the carbon cycle in your own words Mr. "scientist".


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> I assume you have had a look at the two links I posted on the carbon cycle - does that now make sense to you?
> 
> ...









Where did the C come from....


----------



## gslack (May 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> I assume you have had a look at the two links I posted on the carbon cycle - does that now make sense to you?
> 
> ...



Oh stop trying to cover for the moron will ya.. He rambled half-baked nonsense from start to finish all the excuses from you and oldsocks won't change it. 

He knows what he said, he knows what he meant he repeated the nonsense enough. He's a big enough boy to claim hes a scientist on here then he should be a big enough boy to handle his own explanations. let him speak for himself. We already know you're a fraud, let him prove himself one as well..

Unbelievable the level you guys get away with this obvious crap now. What is it going to take for somebody to finally call this crap what it is and be done with it. This tag-team stupidity nonsense is WAY TOO OBVIOUS NOW.

You guys go too far and they will have to do something. So please continue your crap...

And we are on topic weasel, you are trying to fix juniors screw up and cover for him. I asked him to support his claims and he spouts off nonsense again and you, again, try and fix it for him. 

Why don't you stay on topic for once, quit whining, and neg-repping, and let him answer for his own posts. Now go cry about me again punk.


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2013)

So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:



> Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.



It absolutely amazes me that people will attack statement they know full well to be true, simply because they have so much pride invested in their previous posts.


----------



## gslack (May 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No despite two pages of your obsession with protecting junior, you still try and do it anyway. The only diversion is your doing, trying to fix his nonsense, and citing one paragraph out of context does not cover up the plethora of BS he has written..

He called himself a scientist yet cannot make a logical argument. And you feel the need to cover for him. Why? If he's a scientist why are you trying to cover for him? 

Oh we know why don't we. Your little gang has gone too far now, and your desperation here only proves what I have been saying all along.

If it were me or anyone who doesn't agree with AGW, who said this mush nonsense and posted such mindless drivel, you would be hounding us to no end. But since it came from one your own, and an obvious pal, you are going to defend it no matter how ignorant it is..

You agree with his claims then? Fine then you agree with his implication that life came from CO2, and that CO2 does not break down into it's base elements but is sequestered as CO2 in the ground and we are releasing it again by burning fossil fuels. You further agree with his claim that the Carboniferous period created fossil fuels, not that it was formed from bio-matter left from the period and then through decay and natural processes became the fossil fuels we have now through the ages.

Those were his claims, and those are what you are trying to cover up. You know it, I know it, we all know it, and we see your behavior and actions all too clearly.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








BS spam and hogwash, yes I realize I'm being superfluous..is what you and your socks do old boy.   Propaganda is your business.  But you're not doing too good.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If every scientist you know believes that CO2 existed before carbon existed, whether in hydrocarbon fuels or anywhere else, surely it would be no effort at all to find at least one credible scientist who has said that on line.  Please post a link.   (I will say that I know a lot of scientists, and I'm pretty darn sure every single one of them would laugh in your face if you told them that.)

PMZ is already on record as saying that CO2 was what the fossil fuels are made from.  Which is about as silly as anything I have EVER read on one of these forums.

Your defense of that makes you look just as silly you know.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:
> ...







He HAS to defend PMZ, it's his sock so he MUST support his sock don't you know.  I do find it amusing how many socks these imbeciles feel compelled to create to try and support their meme.  I can count at least 12 in the last few months.

Pathetic.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, I love these people with their "it's just a trace" idiocy. One gram is a very small amount, so just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cynide. Cannot possibly hurt you, right?



1 gram of potassium cyanide dissolved in a large lake or ocean, however, would not be harmful to anything and would not even be discernible.  However your analogy is a bit lacking as we do not need potassium cyanide in our bodies in any amount.  We do need some CO2 in our blood, however, for normal brain and lung function.


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

If you actually read what PMZ posted (as opposed to the various attempts to pretend he said something else) and then read a scientific explanation - you will find he is 100% correct.

I suspect you know this already.

If you do not agree - please point out EXACTLY where he is wrong, using his own quotes.


----------



## gslack (May 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> If you actually read what PMZ posted (as opposed to the various attempts to pretend he said something else) and then read a scientific explanation - you will find he is 100% correct.
> 
> ...



BULLSHIT!!!!

I quoted him precisely, his words are all here..

Unlike you I quote people..


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> If you actually read what PMZ posted (as opposed to the various attempts to pretend he said something else) and then read a scientific explanation - you will find he is 100% correct.
> 
> ...








How dare you lecture Foxfyre, she has always presented accurate responses and never once altered a quote...unlike yourself.  She doesn't need to obfuscate and lie.... unlike you.


----------



## polarbear (May 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre -
> ...


Yeah well they do that and nothing but...with "skepticalscience.org" "blogger-science". We got a "water chemistry/nuclear expert" making "ink molecules", another one is adding "botulism drops" into a swimming pool in Finland and we also have a "physisist" which is apparently not quite the same as a physicist  lecturing you that he can dissolve Limestone in the ocean with global warming. I guess you did not want to waste any of your time telling him that it`s common knowledge amongst geologists that Calcium Carbonate is unique because unlike most other substances it`s more soluble the colder the water is. Even house wives that have to scrape out the "kettle stone" from their cooking pots know that.
Strange how far these characters divert from the original question of this thread because they have no answers...then again neither does the IPCC.
Their latest estimate was:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf


> The atmospheric increase since the preindustrial era contributes ~1.7 W m&#8722;2 of radiative forcing (see, e.g., NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI))


And not even that materialized during the last 15 years even though we climbed to ~390 ppm CO2 in the meantime.*...and lately we are even cooling:




*I guess it all boils down to the simple fact that the CO2 15 µm absorption band absorbs more incoming 15µm solar IR than the earth can produce at a comfortable temperature....which the CO2 is supposed to absorb and "back radiate".






Don`t let that 0.5 W/m^2/nm throw you. The sun`s surface is ~ 5500 C and that has a total band radiance of 1760.39 W/m2/sr from 14 to 16 µm.

At the distance we are from the sun  the CO2 in the atmosphere shields us from about 20 times more IR watts per m^2 @ 15 µm than what a 20  to 30 C warm earth could possibly produce as IR energy at that wave band with the rest of the solar radiation that went through down to the surface .

The peak IR at +20 C is nowhere near the 15 µm CO2 absorption band but is at 9.88 µm and gets shorter the warmer...in other words even farther away from the absorption band. If you integrate from 14 to 16 µm, straddling the 15 µm peak all you get is a total band radiance: 12.3786 W/m2/sr....of which only 6.2 W/m2/sr is in the center of CO2 absorption spectral line.

But let`s be generous and give them the whole band. 
We can also drop the "sr" the solid angle because the IPCC says it does not matter, all of it is absorbed because the surface is surrounded by CO2.
But they also say that 50% of that goes up and out and the other 50 % radiate back. 
That leaves us with 3.1 watts/m^2 "back radiation" from CO2 compared to ~250 watts/m^2 that were shielded by the CO2 in the upper part of our atmosphere.
Next lets put the amount of *energy *which is absorbed in the first 10 meters above ground with over 300 ppm  CO2 into a *Temperature *perspective. Energy is not necessarily heat as in "hot" but can be expressed as an equivalent black body temperature.

IanC likes it better that way and I thought I should oblige IanC, because I liked his Marcott proxies post, that shot the AGW hockey stick graph to pieces.

Anyway, if you do that conversion, that`s called the "effective temperature"...it is how we estimate how hot distant stars are by comparing it with a black body temperature that has the same  radiation energy profile and a matching peak wavelength. 

A black body that has it`s peak emission at 15  µm like the evil "man made CO2" and  "re-emits" at 15  µm happens to have an "effective temperature" of - 80 C.





The ice cubes in my freezer are "effectively" 8 times warmer than CO2 that just absorbed all the IR it could and "back radiates" it.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2013)

polarbear- reasonable point which I have brought up before. the atmosphere does keep us both cooler in the daytime and warmer in the nightime.

the earth is in an equilibrium state with numerous sub-systems that buffer disturbances. any time you take one piece out to examine on its own, you can easily fool yourself about its importance or insignificance to the overall whole. IR radiation from the Sun is already part of the equilibrium, and has been taken into account for reality (rather than climate models). CO2 is changing and therefore affecting the equilibrium. Modtran is an attempt to estimate the effect_assuming no changes in the other conditions._ obviously other factors will change in response and I believe it will be a stable negative feedback rather than an unstable positive feedback. after all, the earth is still here after many opportunities for calamity.

you keep implying that CO2 heats the surface directly by radiation. it does not. the net flow of energy is from the surface to the atmosphere to space, all in accordance to the second law of thermodynamics. CO2 _indirectly_ heats the surface by impedeing energy loss in a specific IR band, changing the surface equilibrium temperature that is controlled by solar input( temperature independent) and surface output (temperature dependent). is that really so difficult to comprehend? you can change the surface temperature by either raising input or lowering output. CO2 lowers output.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 30, 2013)

Global cooling anyone?  From Forbes last Sunday - emphasis mine:



> At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But *in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA&#8217;s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,
> 
> &#8220;Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. *  Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.&#8221;
> 
> ...



If CO2 heats the atmosphere, given the hardships on millions created by the last little ice age, maybe we need to start generating a lot more CO2?


----------



## polarbear (May 30, 2013)

IanC said:


> you keep implying that CO2 heats the surface directly by radiation. it does not. the net flow of energy is from the surface to the atmosphere to space, all in accordance to the second law of thermodynamics. CO2 _indirectly_ heats the surface by impedeing energy loss in a specific IR band, changing the surface equilibrium temperature that is controlled by solar input( temperature independent) and surface output (temperature dependent). is that really so difficult to comprehend? you can change the surface temperature by either raising input or lowering output. CO2 lowers output.



No it`s the IPCC which is implying that by saying,... 50% of the 15 µm IR which the CO2 absorbed  is re-emitted down and 50% up. There are numerous publications to that effect and I don`t feel that I need to post the links to any of these.
After all when a substance absorbs light of a specific wavelength that`s how it works in general. You have a source, an absorbing substance and a detector. % absorption is what`s missing at the detector compared to what the source emits. The light that has been absorbed is emitted again by the absorbing substance but in all possible directions. Look it up !
I`ve done a lot of spectroscopy for a living and I don`t have to look up how it works. Do you know the guts of an IR spectrophotometer?
If you have to scan over a wide band then often the source is a Barium filament lamp. In no way does CO2 or any other IR absorbing substance "impede the energy flow" *from the lamp*. 
God, if that was the case there would be no way to calibrate a scanning IR spectrophotometer. For  scan calibrations say from a wave number of 2500 down to 600 we often use clear polystyrene as an absorbing substance because it has more than a dozen very sharp and intense absorption peaks that serve as wave number markers to calibrate the monochromator.
In the regions between these peaks you get a 100% transmission with which the instrument is "nulled". In other words that`s where the detector gets 100 % of the source output which was going in that direction, as if there were no absorbing substance at all between the source and the detector.
You make it sound as if the photons that were absorbed were "impeded" from leaving the lamp.
In reality you can detect all of them all being re-emitted from the absorbing substance in all possible directions.
IanC, there is a big difference between reality and the way you have interpreted the stuff that you found on the internet.
If you want to read some books on analytical spectroscopy I could send you some that are sitting on my book shelf.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 30, 2013)

Well I don't pretend to understand a  bit of that Polarbear, and in all honesty, just don't have sufficient interest to sit down and learn to understand it.  

But I will say, if CO2 is a significant factor in all this, and if the info I posted earlier today on global cooling is the real deal, you and Ian and such better figure this out in a big hurry so we know whether we need to be decreasing or increasing CO2.


----------



## polarbear (May 30, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Well I don't pretend to understand a  bit of that Polarbear, and in all honesty, just don't have sufficient interest to sit down and learn to understand it.
> 
> But I will say, if CO2 is a significant factor in all this, and if the info I posted earlier today on global cooling is the real deal, you and Ian and such better figure this out in a big hurry so we know whether we need to be decreasing or increasing CO2.


Okay I edited it and made it a bit shorter. It is however of vital importance that you do understand and you can too. There is no such thing as "can`t".
The problem is if I explain it using easy to understand analogies then it gets ridiculed minutes later. But I don`t really care because it`s not up to the trolls and spammers to evaluate me, that was done when I wrote my exams. So they can`t get under my skin because  all I have to do is look at my semester scores and my final exams.
So picture a beam of light with a wavelength of 15 µm  as a white q-ball smacking into a racked set of red snooker balls.
Use the 15 µm as an angle analogy how far off your aim from the center was. Beyond that angle it`s a "scratch" and the q-ball slams full force into the opposite end rail (going out into space...all the light that CO2 can`t absorb )
Had there been no red balls (no CO2), the q-ball would have impacted full force at the rail. But the red balls absorbed the energy and disperse it in different directions. Some of them impact on the rail where you had q`d off ( radiated back some of the energy that they got from the white q-ball).
There is nothing wrong using analogies as long as you don`t stay with them unconditionally, because photons don`t have a mass like snooker balls.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 30, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well I don't pretend to understand a  bit of that Polarbear, and in all honesty, just don't have sufficient interest to sit down and learn to understand it.
> ...



But why?  Why is it important to know that.  I've got YOU to explain it should I need the information explained to somebody.

My interest is in what I can and cannot control--what we as a people can and cannot control.  I want to know HOW it works only in the sense of what I need to know to control what I can control.  In other words, I don't have to understand how a motherboard works in order to appreciate and use a computer.  ( (Okay, some things I want to know just because I'm curious.) 

In the whole global warming debate, my interests are purely selfish and altruistic.  If we're all gonna fry someday regardless of what we do now, then why spoil the enjoyment of now?   If we actually do have the power to alter our climate without blowing the hell out of most of us or wiping out most people on Earth, then tell us what we have to do. 

But don't tell us to do stuff that isn't going to make much difference to anybody other than to those in government who will enrich and empower themselves in the process while stripping away our individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

And if we are empowered to help people adapt to climate change whether that is for a warmer or cooler climate, why aren't we focusing on that while we still have time to get ready?


----------



## gslack (May 30, 2013)

Bears one of the sharpest tools in the shed, IMHO.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 30, 2013)

gslack said:


> Bears one of the sharpest tools in the shed, IMHO.



No argument from me there.  I'm just saying that I don't have to know how to calibrate an IR spectrophotometer or even know what one is in order to know that I don't want to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities in a futile pretense of altering what is most likely a normal climate shift.   But I would like to know what's coming so that I can properly prepare for it.


----------



## polarbear (May 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bears one of the sharpest tools in the shed, IMHO.
> ...


Just like you, I don`t worry about things that are beyond human  control either. Just like you, I would not pay the witch doctor to end a drought but you are also just like me by wanting to know what really caused the drought, or what is cause and effect in general.
Now it all depends how deep you want to dig and "these things do run deep"...I think that is stated somewhere in the bible.
That leaves you with some choices. You could either let faith decide, or dig as deep as it takes to get to the bottom of the matter.
Mankind chose the latter.
The problem is that during the digging process we dug a maze of tunnels and some people run around in circles in that maze which is an analogy to "circular proof".
IanC for example is not far off the mark. He is almost all the way through the maze but only inches from the finish line he took a wrong turn.
Could be I mis- interpreted his statement what he means by "impede".
There is a good reason why a lot of people who study physics chose to study German. English is an elegant language but too many words can have several meanings which depend on the context. 
So unless the entire (long winded) context is there it is difficult to make a precise statement. "impede" would translate to "verhindern" ...and if you start out with the German word "verhindern" then the most accurate translation is "blocking"...and there is no way you could "verhindern" photons from being emitted by an exposed radiation source. 
IanC is not stupid and I rather suspect it`s the ambiguity of the words he chose,...so I`ll wait for him to elaborate the "impede".
Meanwhile I`ll elaborate my position again with a shorter context, taking the risk of being taken out of context.
Could be IanC meant to say "impeding" the rate at which energy is lost from the hotter object, in other words how fast it can cool down.
Nobody argues that a second, warm object can slow the rate of radiative cooling of a hotter object, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the IPCC`s insistence that this can be re-phrased as "heating".
But climatologists do rephrase it and have the warm object heat the hotter object to an even hotter temperature.
Yes it is possible to achieve a higher temperature if the hotter object has an INTERNAL heating source and was at equilibrium when the "warm" but cooler object was not in the vicinity.
But in no way can yo raise the temperature of the hotter object if the 2.nd object also "impedes" the* EXTERNAL heating source, the sun* to a higher degree than you "impeded" the radiative cooling of the object that the sun heated. And with a 120 km thick atmosphere at ~ 380 ppm CO2 the external heating source the sun is *seriously "impeded"* in the 15 µm IR band. So now you have to find out if the rest of the spectrum can feed enough energy to planet earth to *OVER COMPENSATE* for the CO2 "impedance" *at 15 µm*.
Black body math says it can not...because already at the initial equilibrium temperature the bulk of that heat radiates "un-impeded" well below 15 µm right trough CO2, no matter how concentrated.
And the hotter you try to make the earth the farther away (lower than)  from 15 µm and less "impeded" by CO2 will earth radiate heat.
Not just that but it will do that not just by a factor of "times the higher temperature" but by a factor of the higher temperature* to the forth power.*
But if you prefer not to dig so deep, then all you have to do is look at what`s going on in the "goldy lock (temperature) zone" of the sun.
The ISS and all of our satellites are in the same "goldy locks temperature zone". But unlike planet earth, there is no atmosphere shielding the ISS.
Despite the materials that our best technology has to offer as far as albedo effect etc. is concerned the "sunny side" of the ISS sizzles at over + 120 C.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bears one of the sharpest tools in the shed, IMHO.
> ...



I'm a little curious as to how not preparing for a rise in temperatures gives you more options than preparing for a rise in temperatures does. 

I also don't know why adapting to increased temperatures might lead to less liberty than keeping your head in the sand - can you explain that? Is there some particular liberty that is sacrificed by utilising science and technolohy?

I would have thought the best response was that taken by most conservative parties around the world - drive business, create jobs, focus on improving the standard of living, and use private sector solutions.

Why do you oppose that?


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you keep implying that CO2 heats the surface directly by radiation. it does not. the net flow of energy is from the surface to the atmosphere to space, all in accordance to the second law of thermodynamics. CO2 _indirectly_ heats the surface by impedeing energy loss in a specific IR band, changing the surface equilibrium temperature that is controlled by solar input( temperature independent) and surface output (temperature dependent). is that really so difficult to comprehend? you can change the surface temperature by either raising input or lowering output. CO2 lowers output.
> ...



Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.


----------



## polarbear (May 31, 2013)

IanC said:


> Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.



Just a minute there IanC. *I do know the difference* !
*I was the one who said that CO2 absorbs 15 µm IR and the re-despirses it in all possible directions.* So sayeth also all the equations when they factor in "sr", the "solid angle".
And it is the IPCC that says that a portion of the re-dispersed 15 µm IR heats planet earth...so does Hansen, so does Roy Spencer and so did you only weeks ago.
Now you start "morphing" your statements away from that and have me "not understand the difference"....in true liberal fashion I might add !
Need I dig up again *what you said *when I put a thermistor in the focal point of a 6 inch reflector telescope and pointed it at a window pane that was at room temperature and at a -20 C cold country side ?
Need I dig up what you said to SSDD when he linked you to some "solar refrigerator" web pages ?
You know damn well what I said and what you have been saying...
*So does everybody else* who has been on this subject.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2013)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



At least Bear is talking about stuff I believe he actually knows and I believe can back up with credible evidence/sources.   And I am quite sure that his explanations are really interesting to those scientists among us who enjoy the detail.   And I have no problem with it being included in the discussion.

I still don't understand a lot of it because honestly I'm focused on other things and don't WANT to go to the time and mental effort of understanding some of the technical scientific stuff on this particular subject that I don't have to know to understand the broader concept.

And at least Bear doesn't cut and paste big blocks of stuff and computer generated charts and graphs that are non sequitur to the discussion and which those who post it obviously don't understand.  And he doesn't keep asking questions that have already been answered many times over and/or imply members said thngs they never said.

I'm not sayng that you do that either, Ian.  But some here do.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2013)

So I am curious what our more serious members here think about that Forbes article I posted yesterday.  What do you think are the chances that the theory is right  that we are now at a tipping point in which prolonged global cooling is ahead?


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> So I am curious what our more serious members here think about that Forbes article I posted yesterday.  What do you think are the chances that the theory is right  that we are now at a tipping point in which prolonged global cooling is ahead?



You may get more replies if you were willing to discuss the replies you did get. Such as those just above this comment in #426.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2013)

> I am curious what our more serious members here think about that Forbes article I posted yesterday.



Well, it came out of an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation. 

Are they a scientific organisation, or a political one?

Did you consider the story to be balanced and objective, when you read it?


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



in my experience polarbear is a blowhard who goes off chasing red herrings rather than directly address the issue at hand. I have no problem with that except that he dishonourably supports weak thinking by sycophants like gslack by ignoring their fundemental mistakes while attacking those 'with a different position' by making strawman claims against them or criticizing their 'ambiguous' grammar.

BTW, I am a fullblown skeptic who sees the whole CAGW CO2 theory as insignificant. I just believe that _denying_ the physics mechanism behind it is detrimental to the skeptical cause. as do the majority of big time influential skeptics (yah,yah, appeal to authority, blah,blah). 

CO2 is a barrier to free escape of 15 IR radiation from the surface (or in from the Sun, as I pointed out long before polarbear did). some of that dispersed energy returns to the surface where it 'cancels out' some of the surface outgoing radiation but the net movement of energy is always away from the surface to the atmosphere under normal conditions. CO2 does not heat the surface, the sun heats the surface. CO2 changes the equilibrium by reducing the output from the surface. just not by any significant amount.

edit-  CO2 does significantly affect the surface temperature, mankind's addition to the CO2 content of the atmosphere does not significantly alter the temperature


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.
> ...



I wish you would go back and read those threads over again, and actually read my comments rather than work from your faulty memory of what you _think_ I said. BTW, I totally pwned you on that subject. please.....dredge it up again.


----------



## gslack (May 31, 2013)

IanC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Really Ian? By fundamental mistakes you mean questioning your logic right?

Please point out these fundamental mistakes to me.. Oh and make sure you point out the post from a couple years ago,you the ones.. Fermat's last theorem rings a bell...I remember a certain internet fake mathematician who didn't recognize it. And then tried to pretend it was an obscure formula that most didn't know about. 

LOL, one of the most famous simple equations around, one that took hundreds of years to be proven by a computer,one not everyone would know about, but every serious mathematics student most certainly would.

You can insult me all you like, but it will hide the fact you got caught several times by me, being full of it.

Polarbear does the math. he shows it here quite often, if not at least explains it. You on the other hand, all you do is post a comment here or there about someone else's work, giving hints of good logic and mathematical base, but always lacking in some fundamental way.

Oh and let's not forget your "numan" qualities..."Red Herring, Red Herring!".. LOL


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2013)

In recent decades, humankind has advanced scientific knowledge by huge leaps and bounds.  And yet I personally believe we still only have a tiny fraction of all there is to know.  A civilization from a distant planet able to visit us here would be maybe 100,000 years more advanced in technology and understanding of how things work than we are.  Or 50 years more advanced than we are.  Who knows?

I was just watching a news story of a 14-year-old boy who was diagnosed as autistic and severely disabled at Age 3.  Turns out this kid has an IQ off the charts--far surpassing Einstein.  He taught himself and mastered advanced calculus in two weeks and now teaches advanced college math courses.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been regarded to about as close to settled science as it gets for some time now.  This kid believes he can show how Einstein was wrong and is currently working on that project.

If he succeeds, how much more wrong about environmental science might  far less capable and knowledgable scientists be?

We are all wise to not swallow hook, line, and sinker and deem credible a lot of self-serving 'science' that has a high potential for significant error.

You folks excessively obsessed with CO2 and whether that is or is not warming the planet in a dangerous way are quite likely to miss out on the possibility that we have entered the process toward an inevitable little ice age.


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2013)

Why don't you apply your "well, we could be totally wrong!" logic to any and every other field of human endeavor? Your very convenient selective application of such awful logic to only the global warming issue would seem to indicate that even you don't take it seriously.

By the way, your Forbes piece was laughable, as no one seriously thinks the sun is getting colder, and temperatures were still increasing as the sun was waning in the last cycle. It was junk science from a political hack. Even if the sun did get colder, the cooling effects of it would be overwhelmed by the warming effects of a few years of CO2 emissions. There's no ice age imminent, as humans have probably already cancelled the next ice age with our actions. In any case, roasting the earth now to prevent an ice age in 23000 years is a dumb idea.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Why don't you apply your "well, we could be totally wrong!" logic to any and every other field of human endeavor? Your very convenient selective application of such awful logic to only the global warming issue would seem to indicate that even you don't take it seriously.
> 
> By the way, your Forbes piece was laughable, as no one seriously thinks the sun is getting colder, and temperatures were still increasing as the sun was waning in the last cycle. It was junk science from a political hack. Even if the sun did get colder, the cooling effects of it would be overwhelmed by the warming effects of a few years of CO2 emissions. There's no ice age imminent, as humans have probably already cancelled the next ice age with our actions. In any case, roasting the earth now to prevent an ice age in 23000 years is a dumb idea.



Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming.  I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling.  Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



ahhhhh.....you are going back to when you were wirebender's toady. I answered your question by stating it was an old time mathematician with an unanswered question. I believe I suggested Decartes. I then asked you about the pH of water as the temperature increased and you refused to even make a guess. back then you were stating that studies on physical waves _in oil_ were making startling advances in the understanding of photons. I wish I could think of more of your whoppers but typically they make so little sense that they are difficult to remember. I dont really care if you latch yourself onto wirebender or SSDD or polarbear and just uncritically agree with whatever they say. but it doesnt mean that you are intellectual ballpark as they are. even when they are wrong they are still a helluva lot smarter than you.


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming.  I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.



I pointed out the hypocrisy of you only applying your "everything we know could be wrong!" logic solely to global warming, thus demonstrating how invalid the logic was. I directly addressed your point. And instead of you addressing your own point, you now go with a victim act. It's getting old. As is your innocent and independent act, given how obvious your cult affiliation is.



> So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups,



You misspelled "lied about several scientific groups."

If you've got a specific point to make about the science, then talk about the science. Don't keep pulling the "refute my whole cut and paste point by point!" song and dance. That gets the derision it justifiably deserves. 

I already told you you need to study this, and to refute all 174 points, as all of your propaganda dumps are covered in it somewhere. You've ignored it so far.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Until you refute all 174 points, please don't bother with your "you must refute my sources in detail, but I can totally ignore your sources" schtick. Either both or neither of us get to play the dump game.



> Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?



Has anyone else noticed how, when you flummox a denialist cultist, they usually respond by fleeing from the issue in favor of some red herring, such as implying someone is a sock? Rather cowardly and dishonest of them. If they could address the issues, they would. They can't, hence the reason for such evasions.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming.  I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.
> ...



Flee from the issue?  Not at all.  You're the one condemning me for focusing on the global warming issue instead of dragging everything else I have ever posted about into it, remember?

And I didn't ask for refutation of 174 points.  I would be happy with authoritative refutation of a single point made in the Forbes article I posted.   You refer to the author as a political hack though he boasts some pretty damn impressive credentials.  But I was not nearly as interested in his point of view as I was interested in the opinion of the scientific groups he cited.

Please pick just one of those groups and give me any kind of authoritative reason to believe they are wrong as reported in that article.  That's not too hard is it?

And I accused nobody of being anybody's sock.  I just noted that you and Saigon and PMZ are remarkably similar in what you agree on--which is everything--in how you defend each other, in how you post, in the tactics you utilize, and in the syntax you use.  Just an observation.


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you apply your "well, we could be totally wrong!" logic to any and every other field of human endeavor? Your very convenient selective application of such awful logic to only the global warming issue would seem to indicate that even you don't take it seriously.
> ...



dont worry about those guys, they just believe that their unequivical explanation of very equivical data is the only possible explanation. polarbear, SSDD and wirebender are extremists at the other end of the scale. most of us have favourite specific opinions on certain aspects of global warming that are stated more emphatically than the evidence would suggest. eg westwall is certain that CO2 lags the temp by 600 years, old rocks thinks the clathrates are going to 'let go', and I think Michael Mann should be publically scorned and pilloried if not actually sent to jail.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2013)

IanC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I don't generally worry about the opinions of anybody on a message board unless I think they are dangerous to themselves or others in real life.  Deliberately dangerous I mean.  Not stupid dangerous.  

But yes, those of us who seriously discuss this subject all have somewhat different points of view.   That is what makes a discussion of the topic so interesting and, when people are willing to discuss the actual issues involved, makes it also informative and a learning experience.  If we all thought and believed and perceived exactly alike, there would be nothing to discuss and no point actually.  It would be like us discussing the path of the Earth around the sun.  There wouldn't really be much to say would there?

It is the unknowns and uncertainties and unpredictability of climate change, plus the possible ramifications for we inhabitants of the Earth, that makes it so interesting.

And my primary concern at this time is that we do not allow an over-reaching, self serving, ambitious, and/or misguided government to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to accommodate what very well may be flawed or bogus science no matter who perpetuates it.


----------



## gslack (May 31, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And there we see why I call you dishonest... 

Going to downplay the fact a self-proclaimed mathematician of some sort ( that'd be you) would not recognize Fermat's last theorem? And pretend that the double-slit experiment is somehow an improper experiment???

LOL, it's your persona you're outing here fake, so be it....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment



> The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.



A nice graphic...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Young_experiment.gif

Your fake mathematics "expert" nonsense is tiresome. You're a fraud just like all the other internet fakes we have on here lately. I don't think the fact you claim tobe something you're not, and lately we have a rash of people claiming to be things they are not is a coincidence at all.. 

Fact is you are a liar, and an obvious fake, and I for one am not fooled by your act.


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media.

I am sorry that you are somewhat slow witted but that is not my responsibility. Go back to your uninformed ad homs.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2013)

IanC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...







Actually the peer reviewed studies estimate a 400-800 lag.  Just to be accurate.


----------



## gslack (May 31, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



LOL, very funny yet somehow your inability or just preference of NOT READING what people post has just shown again how utterly full of it you are..

You're claims that wire's math was wrong previously and your continued claims against me and everyone else and our "slow-witted-ness" gives at least the impression you somehow think yourself mentally or at least educationally above the rest of poor souls. So any mistake as to your credentials are due to your pretense clown.. Don't act like an expert if you don't want to be called on it...

Now as to your misconception of the double-slit experiment. It works in more ways then the hypothetical superposition, it also shows the concept of wave-particle duality..

My quote again..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment



> The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.



Now you can play pretend dumbass now if you like but anybody with half the level of knowledge you pretend to have would know this and I wouldn't have to explain it over and over...The same type of experiment is accomplished in many different ways. Again someone with your claimed mathematical chops would know this.. Here read something...

Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? - MIT News Office



> Recently, Yves Couder, a physicist at Université Paris Diderot, has conducted a series of experiments in which millimeter-scale fluid droplets, bouncing up and down on a vibrated fluid bath, are guided by the waves that they themselves produce. In many respects, the droplets behave like quantum particles, and in a recent commentary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, John Bush, an applied mathematician at MIT who specializes in fluid dynamics, suggests that experiments like Couders may ultimately shed light on some of the peculiarities of quantum mechanics.



Now please play stupid and pretend you don't understand it again. We love seeing you dance..


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Lol, I stand corrected


----------



## PMZ (May 31, 2013)

Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process. 

It's strange that almost always, that process, while slow, is uncontested. The vast majority of scientific advancements are merely accepted as something that the narrowest,  deepest intellects have proven and the rest of us may struggle to understand, but have no ability or reason to question.

There have been a couple of notable exceptions. One is evolution and natural selection. Why has that been contested for so long? Not because it is based on weaker science, but because it conflicted with, at least in many minds, the completely unproven, unsupportable creation myths that seemed fundamental to organized religion. In other words, there was a huge stake put at risk by the discovery of the truth.

Another, similar situation is climate change. It is, in truth, a very certain discovery by science but it's truth disturbs established forces. In this case, big oil and all of its appendages who have a huge financial stake in our obsolete assumption that their waste products can be disposed of in our atmosphere benignly. 

In truth our permission for them to continue to do that has monumental costs associated with it. If we acted on our knowledge of the truth of climate change, and insisted that those who profit from fossil fuels bear the cost of disposing of their waste,  the financial impact on them and us would be catastrophic. 

Rather than take on that extremely difficult political challange, big oil, with some help from their friends, have funded their only possible defense. Reasonable doubt. 

Will that avoid any of the costs that science has proven will need to be spent in order to avoid even higher costs? No, they'll be made worse. Does it allow big oil a few more years of high profits before the inevitable reckoning? Certainly. That's why funding the reasonable doubt defense is such a great investment for them. 

Make more money regardless ofthe cost to others on steroids.


----------



## gslack (May 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process.
> 
> It's strange that almost always, that process, while slow, is uncontested. The vast majority of scientific advancements are merely accepted as something that the narrowest,  deepest intellects have proven and the rest of us may struggle to understand, but have no ability or reason to question.
> 
> ...



Yes and in all your rambling at what part in any of it did you say anything regarding this topic, or any other points raised in the various posts here?

Thank you for the philosophical rhetoric but it wasn't needed, nor asked for..


----------



## FactFinder (May 31, 2013)

*how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we *

That is damned egotistical. We are a speck on this planet...inconsequential. Y'all must be stuck in some population center heehee 'city dwelling' Take a close look, Most of the planet is uninhabited by humans. I think, that is a good thing given the warped perceptions.


----------



## PMZ (May 31, 2013)

It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.








Yep.  And there's ZERO empirical data to support the idea that CO2 is the driver of global temps.  There is however, empirical data that says it isn't.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it!


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process.
> 
> It's strange that almost always, that process, while slow, is uncontested. The vast majority of scientific advancements are merely accepted as something that the narrowest,  deepest intellects have proven and the rest of us may struggle to understand, but have no ability or reason to question.
> 
> ...









The money is being made by the warmist's idiot.  Over 100 billion given to them so far and they want to create an entirely new monetary system with them at the controls.  Do try and keep up.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> In recent decades, humankind has advanced scientific knowledge by huge leaps and bounds.  And yet I personally believe we still only have a tiny fraction of all there is to know.  A civilization from a distant planet able to visit us here would be maybe 100,000 years more advanced in technology and understanding of how things work than we are.  Or 50 years more advanced than we are.  Who knows?
> 
> I was just watching a news story of a 14-year-old boy who was diagnosed as autistic and severely disabled at Age 3.  Turns out this kid has an IQ off the charts--far surpassing Einstein.  He taught himself and mastered advanced calculus in two weeks and now teaches advanced college math courses.
> 
> ...



Apparently you are not aware that even Einstein regard his General Theory of Relitivity as flawed, and was seeking a Grand Unified Theory to the day of his death. Newton was not wrong, Einstein was not wrong, they advanced the understanding of the universe in their day. And, as we learn more, all present theories will be supplanted by that knowledge.

We are wise, if we think that present science is flawed, to do basic research into that science, and learn the source of those flaws. To stand and state that the science is flawed, with no knowledge at all of science involved, is an indication of extreme ignorance and egotism.

We should be slowly entering another ice age, by the Milankovic Cycles. Instead, we are rapidly warming. And the only major change that could drive that warming is the increase in anthropogenic GHG's.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process.
> ...



Really. Links and sources. Or is it all something you just pulled out of the nether regions?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.
> ...



Zero data, yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science for all the nations that have such, and all the major Universities say otherwise. 

You know that you are repeating lies, and you do so purposely in your support of the people that are creating a major crisis for our children and grandchildren. If you truly have a degree in science, you are a whore.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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








No problem....here is just what the US has spent........This does not count carbon trading schemes or the latest fiascos'.


"The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors."





Climate Money: The Climate Industry: billion so far ? trillions to come | Originals


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



No mystery there for those that understand how the Milankovic Cycles work. And it has been explained innumberable times on this board exactly what the mechanism is. For those still ignorant;

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

But the paid denialists still put this stupidity up as proof that CO2 is not a GHG, even when the proof of that is in that very cycle.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch


See also Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for George Carlo's organization.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton. 
SPPI is not a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

In August 2011, Institute President Robert Ferguson spoke on "Benefit Analysis of CO2"[1] (previously known as "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2"[2]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[3] He was accompanied by Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[3]



About ALEC




ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve model bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site. 

*Monkton, a known liar and fraud. Westwall's peer group.*


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







And you worship at the altar of skeptical science so we're even.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling.  Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?
> 
> Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?



Well, this is what NASA have to say:

"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks.""

Climate Change: Causes

Also please answer the question I asked before - the event was hosted by the Heritage Foundation - are they a scientific organisation or a political one?

Did you consider the story to be balanced when you read it, or did you think the story was openly and obviously one sided?


I would agree that Mammoth, PMZ and I are similar in that all three of us tend to stick to the topic and ignore the spamming and abuse that goes on here; but other than that I don't see that we have much in common. 

Apart from the obvious difference in topics we post on, I'd be surprised if you cannot spot the differences between US English and EU English.


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > In recent decades, humankind has advanced scientific knowledge by huge leaps and bounds.  And yet I personally believe we still only have a tiny fraction of all there is to know.  A civilization from a distant planet able to visit us here would be maybe 100,000 years more advanced in technology and understanding of how things work than we are.  Or 50 years more advanced than we are.  Who knows?
> ...



General Relativity has been shown correct so far yet AGW has yet to be even quantified. 

And your mention of *Milankovitch cycles* wasn't accurate. The theory by *Milankovitch* speculates that earth should juts be entering into an Ice age. AN ice age doesn't immediately make it cold silly. Takes a while, like on the order of hundreds of years or more. It doesn't instantly get noticeably colder. 

You know kind of like now when there hasn't been any warming for more than 10 years..


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling.  Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?
> ...



I wondered what the number 1 was for in your quote. I followed your link and clicked it. Goes to the IPCC 4th assessment report... LOL, a political body pretending to be scientific..

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)

NASA requires the cooperation of other countries to do it's job. And that cooperation is usually gotten through the UN... It's called placating...


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




I think you are the only one on this forum that I have called out for being mentally challenged, although I may have uncharitably compared konrad v to you once. I think I apologized to him afterwards.

that said, I would like to thank you for goading me into investigating the walking droplets.

video from a commercial program-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk]Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole] - YouTube[/ame]

from MIT-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE]The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets - YouTube[/ame]

PNAS article- Quantum mechanics writ large


> Some two centuries before the quantum revolution, Newton (1) suggested that corpuscles of light generate waves in an aethereal medium like skipping stones generate waves in water, with their motion then being affected by these aether waves. Times have changed. Light corpuscles are now known as photons, and the majority of physicists have dispensed with the notion of aether. Nevertheless, certain features of Newton's metaphor live on in one particular version of quantum mechanics. According to pilot wave theory, first proposed by de Broglie (2) and later developed by Bohm (3) with Einstein's encouragement, microscopic elements such as photons and electrons consist of both particle and wave, the former being guided by the latter. Although this physical picture has not been widely accepted, it has had some notable proponents, including Bell (4). Its principal appeal is that it restores realism and determinism to quantum mechanics, its weakness that the physical nature of the guiding wave field remains unclear. At the time that pilot wave theory was developed and then overtaken by the Copenhagen interpretation as the standard view of quantum mechanics, there was no macroscopic pilot wave analog to draw upon. Now there is.




while I think the similarities to QM are overblown and cherrypicked, there is no denying that droplet walkers are very cool to watch and give a strong visual image for waveform probabilities.


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.
> ...



hey polarbear-  here is a quote from a dyed-in-the-wool slayer argueing at Jeff Condon's blog-



> In summary, the facts are that radiation from a cooler body slows radiative cooling of a warmer body, but does not raise its temperature. Something else has to do so first. The upper limit depends upon the energy coming from this other source.



that is exactly what I have been saying all along. the sun warms the surface, the atmosphere impedes the radiative cooling, extra CO2 incrementally adds to that impediment therefore indirectly heats the surface.

SSDD- here is Condon's take on SLoT-


> Work, heat, entropy are all bulk concepts. The second law is a law only in the bulk context. It is a law in that after twenty trillion rolls, the probability is toward the heavy side of the die.
> 
> Backradiation is a sub-process which in no way violates the second law. This is a common misunderstanding from those who didnt grok the meaning of their basic physics rules. Saying it can or cant be explained by either theory is rather amusing to me because mathematically  en bulk  they are equivalent. Where slayers here have faltered is that they dont give a coherent message and too many members are scientifically weak.



to which the slayer responded with-


> The system referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be either a single (one-way) process or a sequence of interdependent components as explained here.



again, which I have been saying all along. back radiation is simply interdependent component of the overall net flow. although it can be calculated it cannot be thought of as an independent process which would happen without the other side of the equation also proceeding.


you guys are even more extremist than the slayers and PSI!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 1, 2013)

*the upside of more C02*

cycles 

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

WASHINGTON, DC&#8212;Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth&#8217;s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide &#8220;fertilization effect&#8221; has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia&#8217;s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

The team&#8217;s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding &#8220;strong support for our hypothesis,&#8221; the team reports.

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> *the upside of more C02*
> 
> cycles
> 
> ...



higher CO2 levels also give plants more resistance to drought because they dont have to open their pores as much to get enough 'plant food', therefore less moisture loss.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *the upside of more C02*
> ...



that too is a good thing


----------



## PMZ (Jun 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.
> ...



There is only zero empirical data if you mind is completely closed down. The trouble with data is that it doesn't seek you out.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 1, 2013)

The big oil marketing people who are the center of keeping ostrich heads in the sand only have a few tools. One is to keep those heads filled with details that are well beyond their comprehension that could, if only vaguely understood, sow reasonable doubt. 

But the details, while interesting, are completely within the big picture. 

The earth is a closed system, maintained at the optimum temperature range for life, solely by radiant heat from the sun. Radiant energy in minus radiant energy out determines the temperature. If there is more coming in than going out, there can only be one response ultimately. Warming to increase radiation out. 

Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere reduces radiant energy out. 

Everything else is a detail whose only effect, if any, would be on the the rate of warming, given the imbalance. 

Nasty news for us life forms. Expensive news. Catastrophically expensive news. But, for big oil, make more money regardless of the cost to others, determines their response. Sow reasonable doubt. 

Butts in the air, heads in the sand, has no impact on restoring radiation out. Only on the ultimate cost of undoing what we're doing.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2013)

PMZ -

I can't agree with you on this.

Big oil DID fnd "research" that conveniantly denied there was any link between CO2 emissions and climate change, but at the point a decade or so back that the science became undeniable, most major oil companies realised that they were better off coming clean - literally!

I think we all realise how difficult it must have been for companies who make their living from a product that creates CO2 emissions to admit the truth - but that is what they did, much as tobacco companies eventually admitted the link to cancer after decades of fraudulent research.

Chevron, BP and Shell have all acknowledged AGW, and have clear statements on climate change on their websites. 

In doing so, deniers lost one of the last remaining fig leaves, ofcourse.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








On the contrary, my mind is open to ALL possibilities.  It is you who wish to stop all discussion on the matter.  That was my first clue that you guys were full of crap.  Were you secure in your knowledge then all papers for and against would be welcome but no, you guys stopped publication of any paper that didn't support you.  That meant (in this scientists eyes) that you had something to hide.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> PMZ -
> 
> I can't agree with you on this.
> 
> ...









Reality differs with your propaganda.......

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-boosts-renewable-energy-spending-5020/

Big oil now seeing green - The Denver Post

Research: Big Oil putting more money into alternative energy programs -- Tuesday, February 17, 2009 -- www.eenews.net

Big Oil's Big in Biofuels - Businessweek


BP Alternative Energy continues to invest in a sustainable and secure energy future  producing low-carbon fuels and power, while developing sustainable energy technologies.  

 "BP made a commitment in 2005 to spend $8 billion over 10 years on alternative energy. We are investing at a faster pace than this, and at the end of 2011 we had invested approximately $7 billion, with more than $4 billion of that in the United States. 

 BP Alternative Energy focuses on those segments of the energy industry where we can profitably grow our business. This has led us to focus on wind and biofuels, businesses that are material, scalable, and suited to BP's core capabilities. We also invest in clean energy technologies to gain strategic insights on the advances occurring in this sector." 



BP Alternative Energy | BP in America| BP worldwide | BP.com

And on and on......your assertions are crap.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> PMZ -
> 
> I can't agree with you on this.
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree with you but, apparently the army of deniers that they recruited are carrying on the denial without them.

While big oil got all of the profits from oil, they can't possibly carry all of the cost of the risks, now known. That leaves we the people focused through our government as the only solution left standing. Therefore denier voters can stand in the way, and are. The future could unfold, as I've guessed, that the ostriches will continue to be overwhelmed at the polls and be therefore carried into irrelevance as well as infamy. The strength in democracy being its tolerance for error.

But we just can no longer afford dithering.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 1, 2013)

I live in NY where the windmills are sprouting like dandelions, and in FL where the same can be said of solar. I drive a Prius, as comfortable a car as can be found on the road, that gets 3X more from a gallon of gas than most previous cars. I see fewer and fewer filament bulbs, really heaters that give out some light, on the shelves at Lowes. Lots of good things happening.

Then I read about billion dollar hurricanes costing hundreds of lives and superstorm Sandies. 

The fat lady isn't even dressed yet much less tuning up.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 1, 2013)

While AGW is the culprit, the item which will break us, financially, is water. 

As AGW warms the climate we already see rainfall changing places. We built our farms where the water was. Now that it is moving, do we relocate the farms or the water. Moving water is pretty well known technology, but requires a great deal of energy. In the past the sun supplied the energy for the water cycle with no help from us. It evaporated, it moved, it condensed. In a warmer climate we'll either need to help mother nature, or relocate our farms.

One thing about big cities is that they tend to grow upon the water. Ports. Now the water is relocating from the arctic and Antarctic ice fields to the oceans and eventually around our skyscrapers. Move the skyscrapers or hold back the water. Big, big bucks.

Here's the only saving grace. We can kick the can down the road to our grandchildren instead of solving it.

I'm thinking that they're going to be pissed if we ignore it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ -
> ...




In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy.  This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.

I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel.  And we paid for a good chunk of that process.

Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago.   And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.

The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.

The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant.  If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Wow Ian, you were that close to being humble.. SO close... But again ya blew it. Thank you Ian,yes I know I was correct, and I didn't expect you to be big enough to admit it anyway..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."

Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?

There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> While AGW is the culprit, the item which will break us, financially, is water.
> 
> As AGW warms the climate we already see rainfall changing places. We built our farms where the water was. Now that it is moving, do we relocate the farms or the water. Moving water is pretty well known technology, but requires a great deal of energy. In the past the sun supplied the energy for the water cycle with no help from us. It evaporated, it moved, it condensed. In a warmer climate we'll either need to help mother nature, or relocate our farms.
> 
> ...








Ahhhh yes water...the NEXT reeeeeaaallly big thing.  Here's a clue for you, the fear mongers, of which you are a sock of one (probably olfraud) allways need to have some "dangerous" terriible thing to pluck the pockets of the unwashed.  You guys would make the Borgias proud.  Hell you'd OWN the Borgias!


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell.  That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You continue to expose us to why you are so easy to fool. 

No matter. Every generation progress overwhelms those in love with the view in the rear view mirror. The Greedy Generation no less. 

The ship of conservatism has tripped over Italy, is on its side, and your Captain is already ashore. Do what you feels best.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




"The One Percent Solution"
"By Michael Martineck on December 12, 2006"
"Armory Lovins makes his living studying energy use and efficiency. According to the physicist and cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Institute environmental think tank, the modern automobile uses just one percent of its energy to move its occupant hither and yon. The number is shockingly small, and it may point to big changes for future cars."

Probably doesn't count the energy it takes to get the fuel out of the ground, refine it, and transport it into the car.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


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










  I have a feeling that I am far more energy efficient than you ever will be.  i've had an operable solar system for 28 years now...you?  I have a water wheel as well...you?  I have cars that are very old but very efficient and are paid off....you?  We grow most of our own veggies...you?

You see dear sock you talk a big game but in the end you are just full of hot air.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 1, 2013)

How many 'green energy' proponents are willing to look at the real cost of producing all that 'green energy'.  It requires a maximum sized semi flat bed trailer to transport a single blade of the typical wind turbine, and that one blade is ALL that truck can transport.   What energy was required to acquire and process the materials that went into that blade  as well as the manufacture of the blades themselves which are most often mostly fiberglass reinforced with 'gasp' carbon fiber?  How long does the wind turbine have to operate in order to offset the 'ungreen' processes used to build, transport, install, and maintain it?

Each tall wind turbine, including a safety margin around it in case it falls, requires about a half acre of land plus roads leading to it.  A wind turbine to provide all the electricity for a single house costs something like $30k to build and $300 to $900 per year to maintain.  It will be a long time before a homeowner will recoup their investment via lowered electricity costs or the environment will recoup in green energy considering the energy 'pollution' necessary to manufacture and install the turbine.  

For that matter the huge turbines that can generate enough electricity to power 300 homes generally cost something like $3 to $4 million each.  Given the fairly high maintenance on these things, how long will it have to last to recoup the carbon savings.  How long to recoup the cost in electricity production given that these things still cost a bit more to run than the equivalent use of coal?
http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

A coal powered plant that can provide power for 700,000 homes costs something like $2 billion making it three times more cost effective than the 2000+ wind turbines necessary to provide the same amount of power.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cfpp/CFPPs/HowCFPPsWork.htm

Noise pollution is a problem with wind farms as well as them being placed in places that can really create an eyesore.  Several communities in the USA and abroad have reported that their thriving tourist industries declined significantly after wind turbines went in and spoiled pristine views.  And many places have passed ordinances prohibiting them from being located near residential areas due to unknown negative effects of them on people.

The upside is wind is free.  And while it takes a hell of a lot of wind turbines across a large expanse of land to produce as much electricity as one coal fired power plant, wind turbines are at least more efficient and less costly than solar power and take up less room to produce the same amount of energy.

I read somewhere that we would need something like a billion wind turbines to replace coal and coal, I believe, accounts for less than 50% of all electricity production.  I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing that enough wind turbines to replace coal would take up a whole lot of good farm and pasture land.  That's probably why small countries with a coastline and populations approximating a large U.S. city or medium sized state are putting their wind turbines out in the ocean.

And as for the heavily tax payer subsidized ethanol, there is even less reason to push that as a CO2 reducing, green energy component.  See this scientific test on that run by Edmunds:
E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test

And the costs cited in their study don't even include the cost to us tax payers in direct subsidies or the more expanded much higher food costs in both grains and proteins when food crops are diverted to production of ethanol.  And a huge chunk of those subsidies are going to those much maligned oil companies.
See this:
Ethanol Subsidies: Too Much for Too Little | Taxpayers for Common Sense

Seriously folks.  We need to use some common sense and honesty in evaluating this stuff.   "Green" is green only if it actually helps the environment in necessary ways.  When it fails to do that, no amount of propaganda, 'feel good' rhetoric, or noble sounding titles makes it something any of us should be forced to do.


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



You didn't provide a link to your crap, so I took the initiative and did so for. You're welcome... BTW, you weren't trying to pass someone else's work off as your own were you? Your previous posted nonsense and now this, well it seems you either have an aversion to proper citation or... 

The One Percent Solution | The Truth About Cars

Seems he likes to tell us how inefficient regular gas engined cars are.. That's nice but it seems the alternatives for the most part a re far worse.






But hey lets not go on about perspective here, the mans got books and a "negawatt" market to sell...

Yes the Rocky Mountain Institute, a environmental think-tank...And their head guy Amory Lovins, dreamer extraordinaire.. LOL he wants a "negawatt" market... It's a fictional thing he made up to try and cash in on "green" energy.

Negawatt revolution [edit]

Amory Lovins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A "negawatt revolution" would involve the rapid deployment of electricity-saving technologies, such as compact fluorescent lamps.
> A negawatt is a unit in watts of energy saved. It is basically the opposite of a watt. Amory Lovins has advocated a "negawatt revolution", arguing that utility customers dont want kilowatt-hours of electricity; they want energy services such as hot showers, cold beer, lit rooms, and spinning shafts, which can come more cheaply if electricity is used more efficiently.[13]
> According to Lovins, energy efficiency represents a profitable global market and American companies have at their disposal the technical innovations to lead the way. Not only should they "upgrade their plants and office buildings, but they should encourage the formation of negawatt markets".[14] Lovins sees negawatt markets as a win-win solution to many environmental problems. Because it is "now generally cheaper to save fuel than to burn it, global warming, acid rain, and urban smog can be reduced not at a cost but at a profit".[14]
> Lovins explains that many companies are already enjoying the financial and other rewards that come from saving electricity. Yet progress in converting to electricity saving technologies has been slowed by the indifference or outright opposition of some utilities.[13] A second obstacle to efficiency is that many electricity-using devices are purchased by people who wont be paying their running costs and thus have little incentive to consider efficiency. Lovins also believes that many customers "don't know what the best efficiency buys are, where to get them, or how to shop for them".[13]



Yes,yes please buy 50 shares of "negawatts".. Sounds somehow familiar to me.. Oh yeah its like carbon credits... Brilliant another al gore cashing in on misery he sells..


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> How many 'green energy' proponents are willing to look at the real cost of producing all that 'green energy'.  It requires a maximum sized semi flat bed trailer to transport a single blade of the typical wind turbine, and that one blade is ALL that truck can transport.   What energy was required to acquire and process the materials that went into that blade  as well as the manufacture of the blades themselves which are most often mostly fiberglass reinforced with 'gasp' carbon fiber?  How long does the wind turbine have to operate in order to offset the 'ungreen' processes used to build, transport, install, and maintain it?
> 
> Each tall wind turbine, including a safety margin around it in case it falls, requires about a half acre of land plus roads leading to it.  A wind turbine to provide all the electricity for a single house costs something like $30k to build and $300 to $900 per year to maintain.  It will be a long time before a homeowner will recoup their investment via lowered electricity costs or the environment will recoup in green energy considering the energy 'pollution' necessary to manufacture and install the turbine.
> 
> ...







All excellent points that the hysterical left completely and wilfully ignore.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 1, 2013)

Thanks West and I know they'll ignore it.  But if we don't keep putting the truth out there, those who want to know the truth and who want enough information to put all this into proper perspective sure as hell won't get it from the likes of Mamooth, PMZ, and Saigon.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 1, 2013)

Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out.  But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out?  I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market.  And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 1, 2013)

Fox, it rarely ends well for the people who go obsessive about me, as they usually end up self-destructing in a hilarious fashion. You don't want to join that crowd. You've haven't gone into the sanity death spiral yet, so there's still time to turn back.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 1, 2013)

You have to pay attention to somebody to be obsessed, Mamooth.  So there are absolutely no worries about that.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Fox, it rarely ends well for the people who go obsessive about me, as they usually end up self-destructing in a hilarious fashion. You don't want to join that crowd. You've haven't gone into the sanity death spiral yet, so there's still time to turn back.










   Sure thing admiral.  Yooooou're so studly!


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Fox, it rarely ends well for the people who go obsessive about me, as they usually end up self-destructing in a hilarious fashion. You don't want to join that crowd. You've haven't gone into the sanity death spiral yet, so there's still time to turn back.



And there it is... The obligatory mammoth claim of being stalked after he spends days pestering the same person...

Look admiral konrad poopie saigon pmz, which ever one you are, it really doesn't matter, you're essentially the same, a lot of BS and no substance.. Look I'm a nuclear engineer/astrophysics modeler/expert at whatever is needed here today. See I can do it too..

You're a worthless lying internet fake, and the sooner the forum realizes it and deals with you the better it will be. Personally I think accusing someone of stalking in an open forum should be a rule violation, especially considering you are the one begging for attention from that person you accuse.. Wait a tick..

Isn't saigon the one who has posting fox so desperately in this thread? Why yes, yes it was.. So now she's obsessed with you? LOL,is that and admission socko? I think it is. But really we already knew that admiral...

ROFL, remember when I told you you would out yourself socko? I hate being right all the time... it's a curse....LOL


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> You have to pay attention to somebody to be obsessed, Mamooth.  So there are absolutely no worries about that.



Funny thing is he obviously forgets his character again.. Saigon was desperate to get your attention earlier now he comes playing she's obsessed with me attention seeking game..

LOL, he's brilliant..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Amazingly stupid YouTube, yet skook seems to think it makes sense. It really is the best he can do, though, given his limited brainpower.
> 
> If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque black. Even though the concentration of ink molecules is just a tiny trace, it absorbs 100% of visible light. According to skook's theory, that can't happen, since it's just a trace. Given it does happen, it thus proves how skook's theory is retarded, as is any person who spouts such a retarded theory.



Put that same drop of ink into a glass of Pepsi and the amount of increased light absorption will be minimal. In fact -- what CO2 absorbs is largely what water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) already absorbs. So that in the presence of abundant water vapor, there will be little effect from increasing CO2 for longwave IR emissions.. 

That and the CO2 temperature forcing is logarithmic.. Meaning that increasing concentrations have decreasing effect on longwave absorption contributing to surface heating. You have to double the concentration to get the same increase that you already got. So from 400ppb to 800ppb and then to 1600ppb for the next doublings of temp increase. Considering the concentrations already doubled many times BEFORE man discovered fire --- it's NOWHERE near linear anymore...


To perfect your "ink absorption" analogy.. We should use an ink that only absorbs a narrow sliver of the yellow light spectrum added to Bloody Mary...


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out.  But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out?  I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market.  And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.



Because they are pollutants, are expensive, and have to be imported from countries who are not US allies.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out.  But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out?  I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market.  And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.
> ...



There ya go... A MUCH stronger and HONEST environmental assessment.. Without all the phoney "*the earth has a fever*" drama... 

Except that we're doing a fine job of reducing pollution and GH gas emissions WHILE USING these fuels.. So much so that our GH gas emissions are LOWER than they were 10 years ago in this country.. Just by shifting to Nat gas.. Which we've just discovered we have PLENTY of right here in the good ole USA..


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2013)

Flac - 

I have no problem with using natural gas; I just think it is wasted in electricity production. I would prefer to see western countries using natural gas as LPG or CNG in transport. 

A mix of nuclear, tidal, solar and perhaps wind and waste incineration can provide enough electricity.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.
> 
> The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant.  If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.



This is interesting.

So we know that oil companies funded fake 'research' in order to justify not acknolwedging climate change - so your argument here is that they are also funded fake 'research' in order to justify backing climate change.

That's a really logical argument, particularly given the oil companies have been forced into massive research into new fuels at their own expense as a result.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 2, 2013)

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > You have to pay attention to somebody to be obsessed, Mamooth.  So there are absolutely no worries about that.
> ...



Well it's tough work remembering who you are supposed to be from day to day.


----------



## gslack (Jun 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> I have no problem with using natural gas; I just think it is wasted in electricity production. I would prefer to see western countries using natural gas as LPG or CNG in transport.
> 
> A mix of nuclear, tidal, solar and perhaps wind and waste incineration can provide enough elecrtricity.



Tidal a brilliant idea.. Kill lots of sea life.. Wait aren't you supposed to be pro-environment? Solar, 10% efficient? LOL sure.. Wind, kill birds make a big wind farm that will wreck a local ecosystem, brilliant.. Waste incineration? Sure, now explain how you get everybody to NOT throw things in the trash that could produce harmful chemicals, or how even burn enough waste to make it viable? How about the fact it will create even more CO2? If they could have made any of those thing truly safe enough, efficient enough, or actually viable they would have by now.

That's the whole "AGW cultist/lefty idealist" mentality in a nut shell isn't it. Oh don't harm a fish or a tree or put more naturally occurring trace gas in the atmosphere, unless it's got a "green" label on it.. Yes kill sea life if its "renewable" it's all good. Kill birds, mess up an eco-system if it is "sustainable"..

You're the kind of schmuck who supports GMO foods to "feed the world more economically" but go and buy "organic" for yourself because it's healthier. Or buy a hybrid knowing the amount of pollution created to make the batteries nullifies any positives.

With you people it'snot about how it is, it's about how it appears or how you think it absolves you of any responsibility. Like John Travolta having an Air strip and a 707 at his house, flying himself all over the place, but drives a Prius to an awards ceremony to appear "green"..

Freaking pipe dreams, all ideals no substance or realistic base. Go ahead kill fish along a coastline to generate electricity, so long as you can call yourself eco-conscious..Morons.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out.  But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out?  I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market.  And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.



Actually they have already put them on the market - but you oppose their use.

Even on this page you seem to oppose research by oil companies into areas like *algae-based biofuels, for instance. 

I assume you have heard of tidal energy? Osmotic energy? 

Can you explain why you claim to want new technologies in theory - but apparently oppose them in practice?

*Algal fuel:

Algae fuel or Algal biofuel is an alternative to fossil fuel that uses algae as its source of natural deposits. Several companies and government agencies are funding efforts to reduce capital and operating costs and make algae fuel production commercially viable. Harvested algae, like fossil fuel, releases CO2 when burnt but unlike fossil fuel the CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by the growing of algae and other biofuel sources. The energy crisis and the world food crisis have ignited interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels, using land that is not suitable for agriculture. Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they can be grown with minimal impact on fresh water resources, can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled. Algae cost more per unit mass (as of 2010, food grade algae costs ~$5000/tonne), due to high capital and operating costs, yet are claimed to yield between 10 and 100 times more fuel per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops. The US Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map, or about half of the land area of Maine. *This is less than 1&#8260;7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

As a technology this is very much a work in progress, but I think that is worth looking into myself rather than simply sneer at it because it is new.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out.  But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out?  I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market.  And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.
> ...







Yes we oppose their use because they are ridiculously expensive.  The biofuel that our navy must use costs 7 to 8 times as much as regular avgas.  That's stupid.  The corn used to produce ethanol for E85 would be far better used as food.  Not to mention the fact that the fuel costs twice as much as what it wishes to replace.

You love CNG powered vehicles but they get half the mileage of a good gas powered vehicle and one eighth the range of the new turbo diesels.  

We fully support any fuel that is as efficient as what we already have.  Efficient translates to inexpensive as well.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




what exactly do you think you are correct about? I must admit it is a very cool phenomena, one of numerous examples dealing with harmonics, and I again thank you for exposing me to it. but if you think that just because some of the patterns have a passing similarity to QM waveforms (very early version) that there is some deep meaning to be gleaned, I think you are probably mistaken.

I put up two short videos for a reason. in the first one Morgan Freeman sounds like he is expaining the universe, in the second the actual experimenters sound much less expansive with their claims.

anyone looking for short and clear answers to quantum mechanical questions is usually going to be disappointed. especially for 'how', 'how much'  is easier.


----------



## gslack (Jun 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And here we see your usual BS and dance routine... How predictable...

Notice you completely ignore my links and what they say? yes focus on your videos.. Why? Because they aren't my links are they... Of course Ian, of course, you're an expert on all things mathematical when it suits you and when it doesn't you deny the implication...

So which is it now oh master BS mathematics? Are you an expert or not? You are right critiquing the validity of experiments listed on the MIT news page.. yes of course you can do that because you're an internet "expert"... Or are you not an expert now? Which is it fake?

BTW, now care to address the fact you have been shown again, in two separate threads lying and being completely dishonest? No thought not..

Remember you original claim here schmuck? 

*"Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media."*

YOUR WORDS FRAUD...

The first underlined part, you try the fake humility act. Poorly I might add, because as we see here you feel authoritative enough to critique the entire study now... How completely expected..

The next underlined part you claimed my previous post in the other thread was about, and I quote you directly; _"a mechanical wave study in oil" _. Really IAN? You fraudualent little man, completely ignore the point it showed my post was accurate and the experiment I listed was as well..

The fact is my post then, as now was, is and will be correct. And you sir are a lair. You can't even admit when you screw up, how pathetic...

Please play dumb and confound this with BS again, your dancing is funny..


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



why dont you drop the whole 'liar and fraud' thing. I am obviously neither. your original link to this subject did not have enough info to attract my attention and you did not point out any of the highlights. this time you gave an MIT release which piqued my interest and led me to investigate more thoroughly. I then posted up easily accessible information on an interesting subject for others to enjoy. on the other hand, when I tried to talk to you about polarization with respect to the need of matter to be present, I pointed out the paradox and why it was interesting and you chose not to respond in any way.

but enough of that. we have an interesting topic to discuss if you want to. why do you think this experiment is more than an exercise in harmonics?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.
> ...



WE don't know that oil companies funded any "fake research."  You simply label any research not funded by capitalism hating bureaucrats as "fake."


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2013)

Bripat - 

Actually, yes, we DO know that. 

Several oil companies and auto manufacturers funded by a "research insititute" that produced a half-dozen pieces of research that indicated that temperatures were not rising. First one, then another, and then all of the oil companies abandoned it with little secrecy about their reasoning. It was embarassing.

All of the details of this have been posted here before, by Oddball if I remember.

Either way it is a rock-solid, cast-iron fact.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor. 

In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.

The century of the fossil fuel is over. Like most everything conservative we've found that the true cost of fossil fuels is completely unaffordable. The wars to maintain our supply.The recovery from extreme weather. The environmental damages. Plus the fact that we've used up all of the good stuff leaving only expensive to get low quality dregs behind. And burning what's left is the lowest value use of the resource. 

So, step one is continuing the process of rendering conservatives impotent in politics. Fortunately they are helping Americans in that process. 

Then, we build on the rapidly growing base of both private and publicly funded projects that each chip away at the problem. 

We have good leadership today, good science, a recovering private sector with visionary capitalists. We have the majority of voters. 

Let conservatism continue its raucous path to extinction and the recovery from America's own dark ages will continue.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 2, 2013)

The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they?   But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?

I think it was yesterday I posted the project of Conoco Phillips, in cooperation with Tyson Foods, that is investing mega milions, probably billions,  in production of biofuels made from animal fat.  All the oil companies manufacturing ethanol are being heavily subsidized and making huge profits even as they admit ethanol is not energy efficient nor cost effective nor does it significantly lower greenhouse gasses.  Chevron recently unveiled the worlds largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia.  Why would Exxon try to deliberately discredit global warming after making a huge mega million dollar investment in algae-based biofuels?

Admittedly oil companies are taking full advantage of tax payers money directed to green energy projects, but unlike so many of the so-called investments like Solyndra that go belly up after a fairly short time, the oil companies aren't going to do something they don't believe will result in a usable product and profit for them.

It is a pretty safe bet that oil company dollars going to research are not going to any effort to do bogus research or to discredit global warming.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they?   But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?
> 
> I think it was yesterday I posted the project of Conoco Phillips, in cooperation with Tyson Foods, that is investing mega milions, probably billions,  in production of biofuels made from animal fat.  All the oil companies manufacturing ethanol are being heavily subsidized and making huge profits even as they admit ethanol is not energy efficient nor cost effective nor does it significantly lower greenhouse gasses.  Chevron recently unveiled the worlds largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia.  Why would Exxon try to deliberately discredit global warming after making a huge mega million dollar investment in algae-based biofuels?
> 
> ...



What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.
> 
> In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.
> 
> ...



Pretty much off topic self-projection there PMZ.. But since you ran this off into the weeds with no hint of where we go after the "Age of fossil fuels" is over---  where did you get this "control freak" gene you describe???  

I mean the obvious one that makes leftists want to dictate what car we drive, how many sheets of T.P. to use, when to turn on our lights, how to design our toilets, what to eat, when to eat, how much to eat, and .... . imbues them with a sense of ENTITLEMENT to all of our stuff??? 

Funny how the advertisment always secretly hints at the weakness of the sponsor....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they?   But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?
> ...



Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too.  Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive. 

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.
> ...



It's one thing to believe that the government of, by, and for the people can participate in the solution of national problems, it's another to assume that we can bend science to our will. Science is not about pleasing the human race, it's about what is.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 2, 2013)

Matthew said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



But American conservatism is not an economic movement.  Conservatism is a concept demanding liberty and exercise of what we believe are God given unalienable rights that of course include economics as well as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  Conservatives are pretty darn gung ho about  the right to their liberty, their choices, their options, and their opportunities without interference from climate religionists or anybody else who may be operating from a perspective of bogus or flawed science.  Most especially any bogus or flawed science that is deliberately being imposed upon us in order to take away our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities.

Conservatives care about climate, about the environment, about quality of life, about the prosperity and/or lack thereof of humans everywhere every bit as much as any othe people do.  In fact I am pretty darn conservative and you won't find many people as interested or as passionate about environment, climate science, and other Earth sciences as I am.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

Matthew said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance. 

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance. 

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"But American conservatism is not an economic movement."

We part company completely already. It is only about economics. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.


----------



## gslack (Jun 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No I won't drop it, because it's true.. You are a liar and a fraud. One minute you claim the mathematical chops to criticize and diminish work from MIT. And the next you claim you're no expert and didn't claim to be. Obviously you think you are, but so far when tested you are found lacking.

My original post on the issue was indeed correct, and this again confirms it. You assume to know everything about something without even reading it, and instead of admitting your mistake you try this same old tired song and dance..

Again, you're a liar and a fraud. You lied about my previous posts, you lied about the relevancy of the experiment on both that and this discussion, and now when it's shown true again, you blame me for it..

Worthless...Completely lacking of any ethical backbone..


----------



## gslack (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I bolded the part you pulled out of your butt socko...

First there is no "passive" body involved. Everything radiates some amount of energy. Absolute zero is the idealized temperature in which all entropy stops. Well so far we can't get to that temperature. So your "passive" claim is ignorant...

It seems like you were trying to describe equilibrium or black body radiation but doing so like an idiot who knows nothing of either one.. 

Now where in any of that nonsense did you state anything real or true? Not a single sentence was either fundamentally,or generally factual or correct to any degree.

You just wasted everyone's time and my patience...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

Thanks, we needed another internet scientist... Moron..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



What temperature do you think the earth would be without the sun? The fourth power of that, compared to the fourth power of 288K (present av temp) is the degree to which it's not passive. The estimates that I've seen of earth temp w/o sun range down to 15K or so. 

I don't know if your math knowledge is as limited as your science knowledge but take my word for it that is extremely close to passive.

Not that it matters much. My example still holds true. 

I hope that some day you'll explain to us why someone as ill equipped as you are feels entitled to be on an equal footing with some of the most accomplished scientists of our time. 

It's bizarre.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You offer no evidence that "Conservatives care about climate, about the environment, about quality of life, about the prosperity and/or lack thereof of humans everywhere every bit as much as any othe people do." Let me say that my observations from many years in the world of posting conflict with your statement. 

By my reckoning though the climate change issue is less about caring and more about knowledge. The continued denial of settled science. It's just not possible for people with college level science to interpret all of the published data in any way that doesn't make getting off of fossil fuels an imperative over the time that it will take. 

So, the question is why? Why would anyone take the stand that conservatives do in the face of the evidence?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What does THAT have to do with your obvious propensity to want to CONTROL all aspects of peoples lives?? Do you somehow believe that control and removing choices is the essence of "of, by and for the people"?  Do you think that MANDATES and edicts are because I'm too science ignorant to buy the proper lightbulb or not drown myself in a Big Gulp or to protect myself from your EPA screw-ups like MTBE or Ethanol or declaring CO2 a pollutant?

 you're a good dancer.. don't know if you can do anything else..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



First, I have no idea about you personally. 

Second, if I have to pay for the consequences of other people's poor judgement, yes, I think that I should have a say in their behavior. That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens. 

Freedom to me means free from the impact of others, especially irresponsible others, on my life. I choose to live responsibly so the laws that make make me free that way, have no consequences to my life. I choose to live in ways that don't require others to clean up after me.

The contract that I have with my government prevents them from legislating my behavior in specific areas detailed in the Bill of Rights. None of that has changed one iota over my 70 years. 

People who, out of ignorance, choose to contribute to the problem of AGW, and refuse to participate in the solution to those problems, cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives every year for wars maintaining our sources and clean up from extreme weather.  That's a huge imposition on responsible citizens who pay the majority of those bills.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.
> 
> In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.
> 
> ...








How about that "entitlement" gene, you know the one where lazy folks feel they are entitled to the money earned by others?


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they?   But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?
> ...








What conservative "denial" of science?  The only science deniers i see are the AGW proponents who refuse to let papers that are unsupportive of AGW "theory" get published.

They are universally liberal.  So if you are asking what is driving the LIBERAL denial of science I would say money and power.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:
			
		

> And I accused nobody of being anybody's sock.



And a day later ...



> Well it's tough work remembering who you are supposed to be from day to day.



Poor Fox is encountering the same problem that trips up all my other psychostalkers. They keep losing track of exactly which lies they've told, and so they end up contradicting themselves. (That's why I always just stick with the truth. Much easier on the memory.)

So Fox, can you settle on a single position? Am I a sock, or am I not?

By the way, are you officially taking the Manitoban bullshitter's spot in my psychostalkers group? He seems semi-retired, so they've got an opening. I just need to know whether to put you on the mailing list for the activities calendar. We've got a summer mixer coming up, which should be a lot of fun.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You "totally pawned" me? And now I`m supposed to spend all day and "dredge up" all the b.s. you wrote? .."rather than work from my faulty memory"...??
You are shit out of luck there, because 
a.) my memory is not faulty and
b.) Your bullshit is all over the place, in fact there is so much of it that it`s hard to ignore it.
Let me refresh *your faulty memory *with some samples of what you said:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-91.html#post7150587


> The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).
> *here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-*
> Without the gasses all those photons would shoot off through the  atmosphere intop space. But the GHG molecules absorb some and then  radiate some of the ones they absorb back towards the earth. It doesn&#8217;t  matter if they&#8217;re cooler
> SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the _Slayers_ hurt the cause by denying CO2


And now you say that they don`t, after I showed you several times :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-90.html#post7144116


> [FONT=Arial, Geneva]This  is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714  and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your answer was:


> you realize this post infuriates me, right?
> 
> is the Daly quote something that you just found? *I have been saying for  years that the CO2 effect is real*


Not only that but you went ballistic if anybody debunked Spencer`s "Yes Virginia ", the same argument your beloved Hansen makes....objects getting hotter with the back radiation from cooler objects.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-92.html#post7155354


> how odd.....I find that Spencer's arguments are always stronger. not  only that but he keeps trying to attack the problem from different sides  to give detractors yet another opportunity to see the light.
> *you can magnify and direct sunlight*, or output from a point source but  you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any  appreciable extent at ambient temperatures.


Every post that you made so far shows that you are a total physics dimwit
So how the fck. do you "magnify sunlight" ? 
That tells me that *you still don`t have clue* what the difference between *power and energy* is.
If I focus the number of watts that 1 m^2  receives from the sun  on 1 cm^2 it is still the same amount of watts as it was before when it was spread out over 1 m^2


> but  you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any  appreciable extent at ambient temperatures.


No I can`t "magnify" diffused light it unless I use a photon multiplier like we do in state of the art spectrophotometers, but "mamooth" apparently can, just by painting the walls of a room white.
And you used the same idiotic mechanism to defend Spencer and Hansen over and over again.
But you have no idea how to explain it.
As soon as you get cornered by somebody who does know physics, then you got "back radiation" from a cooler object and if you boxed yourself into another corner then you start denying your  "back radiation" and call it something else, like a "radiation imbalance"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-80.html#post7127507


> therefore the object heats up when the solar oven is pointed at the sun,  and the object cools down when pointed at the night time sky. all due  to the imbalance of radiation. what could be more simple? how could you  misunderstand that?


When you blabbered about  photons from a distant red star heating up a white star it was even more ridiculous than that.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7127960


> *You can point the  solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still  see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient.
> Backradiation simply is not happening.*


*Then all over sudden back radiation is happening again:
*


> The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).
> *here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-*
> Without the gasses all those photons would shoot off through the  atmosphere intop space. But the *GHG molecules absorb some and then  radiate some of the ones they absorb back towards the earth. It doesn&#8217;t  matter if they&#8217;re cooler*
> SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the _Slayers_ hurt the cause by denying CO2


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-93.html#post7159225


> H2O molecules absorb most bands of IR radiation from the surface (or  elsewhere) and re-radiate it in a random direction just like CO2.
> do the SLoTers also deny that atmospheric H2O is capable of capturing  and diffusing surface IR, or reflecting it downwards from clouds?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7128506


> there is a significant chance that the cooler object may radiate a  higher energy photon at the warmer object than the warmer object sends  back at the cooler one.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7120214



> a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two  briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will  be  more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are  losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the  cooler outside that *doesnt radiate back as strongly*.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7120532


> you 'back radiation' deniers jump from  being too literal, to too general, and confuse one aspect with another.


Somebody should actually go into the other threads and collect your bullshit the way we did with "numan", "Saigon" and the mamooth bullshitter, but there is enough of it just in this thread alone.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-38.html#post7034925


> Does simplified mean entirely different to you?  The greenhouse effect  as described by climate science is radiation from the atmosphere being  absorbed by the surface of the earth and thereby warming the surface of  the earth more than the sun alone could manage.





> while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable  place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by  the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation *and  396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt  the surface cooling?*
> 
> the other significant point is that solar radiation is shortwave and  highly ordered. the IR radiation both from the surface and the  atmosphere is disordered and incapable of doing work because there is no  appreciable temperature differential.


*You don`t even comprehend Trenberth`s version for dummies*, 
which shows "radiative heat transfer" as 396 from the ground up and 333 watts back radiating  and ask *493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt  the surface cooling?*

Hasn`t it dawned on you that once you get to the top of the atmosphere that the only way (heat) energy can be shed is by radiation...only a complete idiot would add "17 thermal, 80 evaporation *and  396 radiation, for a total of 493."

*Reading the rest of your crap it becomes abundantly clear that you do qualify as a idiot when it comes to physics.



> * you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions. *


In addition to "back radiation on or off" you also got "impeded radiation" and "forbidden radiation"...in "certain directions" and "reactive photons"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-65.html#post7102160


> *reactive photons (force carriers for electromagnetic fields), only  become real if there is a particle of matter able to accept it. *
> 
> interference patterns along a vector from one star to another only exist  if you measure them with, you guessed it, a detector made of matter


You surpassed all the other bullshitters with that one. Electromagnetic waves cancel out if they are 180 degrees out of phase no matter if you stand in that spot with a detector or if that spot is vacant of any matter.
And that spot where they are 180 degrees out of phase does not move unless the source that emitted the light moved.

It should have dawned on you that you know nothing about physics and can`t even understand what your own "wikipedia physics lessons" ...seeing that the only people that agree with you are total dimwits:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-74.html#post7117247


> Very well said, Ian.
> 
> You are obviously someone who knows something about physics and who has  some respect for truth -- unlike the Denialist chatterbots which are  programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. Why in the world are  you consorting with such mindless devices?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2013)

polarbear said:


> No I can`t "magnify" diffused light it unless I use a photon multiplier like we do in state of the art spectrophotometers, but "mamooth" apparently can, just by painting the walls of a room white.



Wow. You're _still_ claiming a white room isn't brighter than a black room with the same illumination source.

You don't do logic well, thus you usually fail hard at problem setup. You do numbers okay, but since the setup is wrong, the numbers end up being nonsense. "Garbage in, garbage out" basically describes all of your numerical calculations.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.
> ...



I think that irresponsible people all have an entitlement gene. Some are poor. Some are wealthy. Some are ignorant. Some are educated. Some are lazy. Some work hard on helping themselves to the work of others. 

But, what they have in common is that they are criminals and we pay lots of money to law enforcement to increase the odds that they pay the proscribed consequences for their crime. 

The ones that I worry about least are the poor as they cost us the least. One criminal CEO costs us more than thousands of poor. Plus, people don't choose poverty if they have a choice.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before.  One criminal CEO costs us millions.  The BILLIONS we are spending on entitlements are killing this country very quickly.  I agree that CEO's for the most part are greatly overpaid.  Just like I think that firefighters are greatly overpaid, city managers, or how about those stage hands at Carnegie Hall who are paid 400,000 per year.  I think they're pretty grossly overpaid too.

This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants".


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

westwall said:


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



"There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before."

They are called unemployed. The reason that they are unemployed is that their jobs were filled with cheap foreign labor recruited here or jobs sent there by executives in exchange for monumental bonuses. I guess that they felt entitled. And you said that entitled CEO's don't cost us much. 

It's a good thing that we borrowed the money to make up for all of the consumerism that went away with the jobs because now we are leading the civilized world in recovery from Bush's Great Resession and the deficit is dropping like a rock. 

"This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants"."

The data shows that the whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are "wealthy".


----------



## gslack (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



LOL, there is no such thing as "passive" in regards to entropy dumbass. Jesus man.. Everything is effected. Absolute zero is an idealized temperature where entropy stops. IDEALIZED, meaning it is a hypothetical, hypothetical as in not real or at least we haven't been able to prove it's existence yet.

You have some wacky concept of entropy or black-body radiation that not only is not true, but complete make-believe.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Black-body radiation is the type of electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, or emitted by a black body (an opaque and non-reflective body) held at constant, uniform temperature. The radiation has a specific spectrum and intensity that depends only on the temperature of the body.[1][2][3][4]
> A perfectly insulated enclosure that is in thermal equilibrium internally contains black-body radiation and will emit it through a hole made in its wall, provided the hole is small enough to have negligible effect upon the equilibrium.
> A black-body at room temperature appears black, as most of the energy it radiates is infra-red and cannot be perceived by the human eye. At higher temperatures, black bodies glow with increasing intensity and colors that range from dull red to blindingly brilliant blue-white as the temperature increases.
> Although planets and stars are neither in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings nor perfect black bodies, black-body radiation is used as a first approximation for the energy they emit.[5] Black holes are near-perfect black bodies, and it is believed that they emit black-body radiation (called Hawking radiation), with a temperature that depends on the mass of the hole.[6]



Or is it your concept of thermal equilibrium that is nonsense?

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



> In physics, the phrase thermal equilibrium is used sometimes in the common parlance of the ordinary language of physical discourse, and sometimes as a specialized technical term in thermodynamics.
> As common parlance, the phrase refers to steady states of temperature, which may be spatial or temporal. The meaning varies from occasion to occasion, as with all ordinary language usages.
> Thermal equilibrium as a technical term in thermodynamics can also be used in two senses. One sense is that of thermal equilibrium within a system for itself. The other sense is that of a relation between the respective physical states of two bodies. Thermal equilibrium in a system for itself means that the temperature within the system is spatially and temporally uniform. Thermal equilibrium as a relation between the physical states of two bodies means that there is actual or implied thermal connection between them, through a path that is permeable only to heat, and that no energy is transferred through that path. This technical sense is concerned with the theory of the definition of temperature.



So you are discussing equilibrium? Fine then I assume you know the difference between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium then?



> There is an important distinction between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium. According to Münster (1970), in states of thermodynamic equilibrium, the state variables of a system do not change at a measurable rate. Moreover, "The proviso 'at a measurable rate' implies that we can consider an equilibrium only with respect to specified processes and defined experimental conditions." Also, a state of thermodynamic equilibrium can be described by fewer macroscopic variables than any other state of a given body of matter. A single isolated body can start in a state which is not one of thermodynamic equilibrium, and can change till thermodynamic equilibrium is reached. Thermal equilibrium is a relation between two bodies or closed systems, in which transfers are allowed only of energy and take place through a partition permeable to heat, and in which the transfers have proceeded till the states of the bodies cease to change.[15]
> An explicit distinction between 'thermal equilibrium' and 'thermodynamic equilibrium' is made by C.J. Adkins. He allows that two systems might be allowed to exchange heat but be constrained from exchanging work; they will naturally exchange heat till they have equal temperatures, and reach thermal equilibrium, but in general will not be in thermodynamic equilibrium. They can reach thermodynamic equilibrium when they are allowed also to exchange work.[16]
> Another explicit distinction between 'thermal equilibrium' and 'thermodynamic equilibrium' is made by B. C. Eu. He considers two systems in thermal contact, one a thermometer, the other a system in which several irreversible processes are occurring. He considers the case in which, over the time scale of interest, it happens that both the thermometer reading and the irreversible processes are steady. Then there is thermal equilibrium without thermodynamic equilibrium. Eu proposes consequently that the zeroth law of thermodynamics can be considered to apply even when thermodynamic equilibrium is not present; also he proposes that if changes are occurring so fast that a steady temperature cannot be defined, then "it is no longer possible to describe the process by means of a thermodynamic formalism. In other words, thermodynamics has no meaning for such a process."[17]



Now as you can see there is more to this than pulling random numbers off a AGW blog and shouting...

I did some checking and found where you got your numbers from... It's part of Boltzmann's work and you are incorrectly trying to get it across. LOL, no idea what you're actually talking about are you? 

That's why all the vague circle talk. ROFL,it's okay socko we didn't expect anything more from you.. 

BOTLZMANN numbnuts...

Stefan?Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body irradiance or emissive power), , is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:



Idiot..LOL, it gets better...



> As a result, the Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (15 °C), which is higher than the 255 K effective temperature, and even higher than the 279 K temperature that a black body would have.



Does that look familiar? It should it's what you just tried to say but unlike you it was accurately used.. Here's the first line of what you just tried to cut and paste incorrectly as your own..



> Temperature of the Earth [edit]
> Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth TE by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, *under the black-body approximation.* The amount of power, ES, emitted by the Sun is given by:



Yes approximation, meaning its a best guess using what we currently believe based on current knowledge...

Next time you want to cite somebody else's work cite them accurately, and if you aren't at least try and use it correctly socko...

Damn you internet fake scientists get dumber and dumber every day..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

gslack said:


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



My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks. 

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs. 

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance. 

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Ohhhhh  you mean the illegal aliens really DO have a negative effect on our economy.  Good to see you come around.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


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











It is my understanding that those who know nothing only speak in generalities because they don't understand the complex inter-relations of the various chemical and physical operations that occur in this amazingly complex world.

That way when they fuck up let's say thousands of water wells in CA in a misbegotten attempt to clean the air, they can throw their hands up in the air and say "well our goal was good but the details were so complex no one could understand them"....which is patently ridiculous because we SCIENTISTS told them MTBE was bad. 

They ignored us and did more environmental damage in 10 years than all the oil companies have in the last 40.

*GOOD JOB MORONS!*


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Come around to what? That business recruiting cheap foreign labor here to replace American workers is bad for the economy? Who would disagree?


----------



## gslack (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And if BS and circle talk was going for 50 cents a pound you would be doing better than big oil...

So what? That wasn't in question schmuck what was in question was your application of the general knowledge. How does that correlate to AGW theory? What are you trying to actually say this time? Anything?

Are you saying that increased GH gas emissions increase reflectivity? Funny that would deny your previous claim as well as AGW theory in general due to the supposed ability of short wave EM radiation passing through GH gases relatively unhindered. So if it increases reflectivity now as you claim it cannot be transparent to short wave EM as per the theory now can it...

See dummy, no matter how much BS you try and cover it in, it's still meaningless in your incapable hands. You don't even understand your previous numbers or their significance do you? LOL, the fact is you pulled bits of boltzmann and read some drivel from some obscure blog, and tried to wing it.

here's a link to help you once again...

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude you really are just blindly winging it aren't you.... ROFL..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Did you agree or not?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 2, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Did you agree or not?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Conservatives care about climate, about the environment, about quality of life, about the prosperity and/or lack thereof of humans everywhere every bit as much as any othe people do.  In fact I am pretty darn conservative and you won't find many people as interested or as passionate about environment, climate science, and other Earth sciences as I am.



They do -which is why see conservtive parties around the world backing climate change science.

In the US they apparently do not, because they can not see the science for politics. 



> But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?



Seriously?

Firstly, for the same reason tobacco companies denied the link to cancer, and secondly because research into replacing oil is incredibly and largely coming out of their pockets. If you think they are making millions out of - produce the figures.

You won't, because you know you are wrong.


btw - all accusations concerning socks will now be reported to the mods.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 2, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, I love these people with their "it's just a trace" idiocy. One gram is a very small amount, so just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cynide. Cannot possibly hurt you, right?



Like the trace amounts of LSD their mother took when she was pregnant.  And the trace amount of lead in the paint on the rail of the crib they cut their teeth on.  Amazing how trace amount can cause so much brain damage.


----------



## gslack (Jun 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Yes we agree you're a posturing buffon, and a sock.. A bad one...

Mamooth? Saigon? come get little brother he's too ignorant to be left alone..


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



hahahahahahahahaha, here we go again. do you want me to respond to each and every point again? not only is your memory faulty but you cannot even get it right when you are trying to quote me. at least two of the quotes are not mine, so I expect you to go back and edit your post to indicate that they were a mistake on your part. an apology for misquoting me would be nice but I wont hold my breath because I dont think your conduct is determined by a code of honour.



> You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient. Backradiation simply is not happening.



definitely not mine.



> Does simplified mean entirely different to you? The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and thereby warming the surface of the earth more than the sun alone could manage.



also definitely not mine.

this one is an odd duck-



> you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions.



it is likely that I did say it, but it is taken out of context. I was not the one who was saying that there is "this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions", I was complaining that the person who _did state it_ was unwilling to explain or defend their statement.


I hope everyone can see why I dislike engaging with polarbear. he distorts, misremembers, or just makes up what he thinks I said. then puts up these strawmen in his posts, his longggggg and ramblinggggggg posts. I will address a few this time but I reserve the right to ignore polarbear anytime I choose.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2013)

polarbear said:


> > while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



let's put up the diagram






you find it offensive that I just add up what I saw on the diagram? OK, lets just count the IR radiation. 396 up from the surface, 161 down from the sun. it doesnt add up. the surface should be cooling. I dont know offhand what a 15C surface should be radiating, if it is 400w then the diagram is misleading, if it is 500w then the diagram is not. it does not matter to my point though. you guys say there _is no backradiation!!_ without energy coming back from the atmosphere there is no way to balance the budget. but of course there is backradiation and the system is in equilibrium to a very fine degree.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2013)

polarbear said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-92.html#post7155354
> Every post that you made so far shows that you are a total physics dimwit
> So how the fck. do you "magnify sunlight" ?
> That tells me that *you still don`t have clue* what the difference between *power and energy* is.
> ...




here we have another interesting idea that polarbear wishes to distort. he has a problem with the word 'magnify' rather than, perhaps, 'focus'. the sun sends us highly ordered (all going in the same direction) shortwave radiation that is capable of doing work. ***important point***. capable of doing work. once heated by solar radiation, the surface gives off disordered (most directions) longwave radiation that is much less capable of doing work. once heated by the surface, the atmosphere gives off totally disordered even longer longwave radiation that is even less capable of doing work.

it is my contention that a small change in solar input is more capable of causing change in the earth's climate than the same amount of change in the atmosphere or surface because the ability to do work is much less. all sources of energy are not equal. a battery can do a lot of things including heating a container of water. the heated container of water? not so much even though it now has the energy. I even personally invited polarbear to join the post I started to discuss the very same idea.

if you are driving through fog at night the water droplets disperse the ordered light from your headlights and the area close to you is more illuminated but the desired effect of being able to see farther away is compromised. CO2 in the air disperses 15 band IR and warms the near atmosphere but compromises the desired effect of shedding IR directly out into space.

WRT the one star heating the other star scenario-  surface temps are dependent on two factors. 1.the energy source 2.the ability of the surface to shed energy. changing either one will affect the equilibrium temp. the ability to shed energy is calculated by k(Th^4- Tc^4). the area of intersection between the two stars will disperse much less energy because Tstar is much hotter than Tspace. if you impair the ability to shed enegy that will increase the temp just as surely as increasing the source of the energy. it really is just a simple physics concept that anyone with even a high school education should be able to understand.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



whatever.

I suppose you think that studying snail shells will 'unlock' new secrets of the golden ratio, or perhaps analyzing the arrangement of flower petals will bring new insights into number theory. personally I just think Mother nature likes to use mathematical themes in her work, even if they are often less than precise. the walkers are like that. not very precise and it takes a lot of work to make them simulate quantum like actions. but they are very cool to watch.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And here we see you change your position on it again...

So Ian which is it? Do you think the MIT experiment is a valid one or nonsense? You seem to be floundering on it. Can't even show a backbone when it comes to your own opinion. Pathetic...

Thanks Ian, it's been a real hoot watching you dance..ROFL


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 3, 2013)

Well again my interest here is not to 'show up' other members.  my interest is the truth of whatever climate change might be occuring and to protect my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities from those who would falsify, skew, misrepresent, omit, or manufacture scientific data in ways that give governments 'justification' to take those from me.  And I am ever more conscious of the possibility that such 'justification' is designed to increase the prestige, influence, and personal fortunes of those who will then hold all the power and/or, like Al Gore, will become multi-millionaires by exploiting it.

In the process of research by those who have nothing to lose by the position they take, here is another scientific voice suggesting the possibility of naturally occurring global cooling.  And he also suggests that if AGW is warming the climate, it might help offset some of the worst consequences of the next 'little ice age" that will almost certainly occur.

His theory of 'ice drift' is one that we don't see much within the parameters of the debate.



> In my book Ice Drift, Ocean Circulation And Climate Change, I look not just at older data that otherwise would never have seen the light of day but also new data that I believe is persuasive that ice drifting can be as predictive as it is archival. That is, to understand the future, at least in terms of climate, one must understand the past. Any computer model designed to predict future climate change such as greenhouse gas-induced global warming must also reproduce the reconstructed past changes of ice drift in order to be considered reliable. Ice rafting is not just a passive recorder of past surface-ocean circulation, but also actively influences and changes present ocean circulation as well.
> 
> At present we do not yet know if the circulation changes occur over one or more decades relevant to humans. This is simply because the low, and in some cases, very low sedimentation rates of the polar oceans do not permit time resolution at these short scales. But recent progress in the analysis of Arctic Ocean sediments has shown that it is possible to find areas with high resolution. This, and the prospect of new equipment in the form of a polar icebreaker able to be on station 200 days per year, hold the promise that the mystery of the driving forces of climate change may be eventually solved.
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2013)

polarbear said:


> You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient. Backradiation simply is not happening.



PolarBear doesn't seem to understand the simple concept that diffuse radiation can't be focused by the oven. Only near-point sources can be focused. That's why a solar oven heats up if aimed at a near-point source like the sun. Backradiation is diffuse, so it doesn't get focused, so it only enters the oven in the same diffuse non-concentrated state. That tiny energy input is balanced by the thermal radiation out of the oven, so there's no temperature increase.

Using the oven as a refrigerator is interesting. You have to insulate the oven from conduction, and all the backradiation except from the narrow window. And you need a cold sky with lower backradiation amounts The parabolic shape focuses IR from the larger surface area of the oven and beams it out the window, while only an insignificant amount of diffuse atmospheric backradiation comes back in, so temperature drops. It almost looks like free energy, but it's really sun-driven at its root, with the temp difference between the object and cold atmosphere being the driving force for the work done.

And now, a thermo joke. The 3 laws of thermodynamics.

1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You're not allowed to stop playing.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Most people understand why the Faithful Believe. They've been promised a place in Heaven and, with no proof either way, they go with the preferable future. 

Why do conservatives believe then in what is certainly, according to prevailing science, wrong?

They've been promised the heaven of lower costs now and outside of their lifespan, nothing else matters?

The same argument that keeps people smoking. Pleasure now, consequences later. 

Responsible people have to put up with paying the consequences of smokers and science deniers. 

Wrong certainly, but what saves us is democracy. We can render impotent in government those who prefer irresponsibility. 

That will certainly not change their minds but will change their impact on us. 

Parents sometimes call that "time out".


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient. Backradiation simply is not happening.
> ...



Both scientists and deniers love to parade across the stage casts of thousands of colorful characters who dance and sing esoterica and entertain the audience with the illusions of relevence. It's fun. Maybe even bragging a little. 

But, it's only entertainment. 

The real story is empty space, a hot sun, a cold, distant planet, and radiation heat transfer basics. High school physics. Simple equations. Steady state planetary temperature depends only on size (assuming spherical shape), and reflectivity (emissivity sometimes stands in for reflectivity). 

The real story is impossible to even question much less deny. 

The play can be written innumerable ways. The fictional ways inseperable from the non-fiction ways to those with imagination instead of science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far.. 

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects. 

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science. 

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface. 

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that... 

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer. 

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space.  ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare... 

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wow man..  Nuff said there. we can just pack up USMB at this point and replace it all with your Leftist mantra.. 



> That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens.


Hope your pets understand the concept of a jury or science... 

There is the ESSENCE of condescencing, tyrannical want-to-beism that is my political opponent who will NEVER understand choice and liberty and who would never hesitate to use science as a weapon to meet out the justice that they envision they are entitled to... 

Not to mention your complete ignorance of the Construction of the Bill of Rights. There is a black hole of knowledge right there.

Good job Dude or Dudette.. You made my day... I finally got the evidence I needed without even waterboarding..

Mark this thread right at the PMZ quote.. That's all you need to know about about the leftist opposition... 

PS.. You no where NEAR a Liberal.. I'M a liberal.. You're a party animal leftist...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



As is typical, I have no idea what you are thinking. So, I will search for some clarity through a couple of simple questions. 

Do you think that part of our contract with government is protection from others (foreign or domestic) who would like their freedom at our expense?

I assume that you consider the military and law enforcement legitimate duties of government, right?

We pay them to, by force if necessary, protect our freedom from those who would by force take it away. By invasion, tyranny, slavery, murder, theft, reckless disregard for life, kidnapping, terrorism, etc. 

I need to know if we are on the same page still at this point.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



"The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics."

Radiant heat trransfer is not part of thermodynamics???


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Not in terms of laws of THERMAL energy transfer. It's a definition for the fraction of heat energy that is ejected from a blackbody *under ElectroMagnetic rules of propagation*.. Of course -- it's gonna get mentioned and accounted for --- but does not obey the rules of thermal energy propagation.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



My Thermo professors are going to be sorry to hear that. They considered it equal in importance to conduction and convection in accounting for the dynamics of heat transfer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Point is ---- by your words, we are not and never will be in the SAME BOOK..  Never mind the same page.. I told you CLEARLY how offensive I find your political point of view to be. When children, pets and citizens are lumped into your same prescription for the justification of government power. 

And how badly you mangle the Intent and Meaning of the Bill of Rights (for example). 

Answer to your contorted questioning.. You as a citizen are welcome to try and sue me for using the wrong lightbulbs.. But you have no right to commandeer the power of the Federal govt to prevent me from buying them thru force of law until you can consistently win law suits confirming your direct harm.. Or even a class action law suit or two...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Naww..  They're quite happy to let the Fields and Waves professor handle all the details of that energy once it's left the surface.. Doesn't need to be analyzed. Just accounted for in the overall energy budget...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 3, 2013)

westwall said:


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



And the damage done in California via flawed science is miniscule to what the current Administration and global governments intend to do to us if they can gain the control over all of us that they want.  And if it in fact turns out that they used flawed or intentionally bogus science to do it, the long range bad results from that are simply too immense to even contemplate.

You'll notice that the siamese triplets and a few other tweedle dums and tweedle dees are not in any way interested in policy in this dicussion.  While I don't begrudge them flaunting the science they know or that some pretend to know, I think we are wise not to fo allow the focus to be diverted from the policies that could change the rest of our ives.  And not in a good way.







(I stole that from SgtOllieSFC, but it is so appropriate.)


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



There are many, many laws on the books that prevent you from appropriating what's mine to your use. One of those things are the earths resources. You can't, for instance, dispose of toxic resources into the nations water or air. Not even on your land because they will contaminate the resources of others. When you choose to waste electricity thereby throwing away the fuel from our resources to generate it, and dumping the waste heat and products into our atmosphere we certainly can prohibit it. Neither criminal nor civil lawsuite is necessary. 

I'm sorry that you have so little respect for our system of government, our Constitution and our country. But that's your bad not ours. 

Your freedom cannot come at my or anyone else's expense. That's tyranny.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And the damage done in California via flawed science is miniscule to what the current Administration and global governments intend to do to us if they can gain the control over all of us that they want.



Total control! <cue ominous music>



> You'll notice that the siamese triplets



... talk about science, instead of constantly going off on kook political rants. That's because the science isn't political, until right wing fringe cranks try to make it so.



> and a few other tweedle dums and tweedle dees are not in any way interested in policy in this dicussion.



Due to the cult brainwashing you've received, you fail at policy as well as science. Instead of beginning with the facts, like we do, you begin with your political cult's whackaloon conclusions about how the socialists are out to get you, and then work back from there. Given you start with crazy, your conclusions end up crazy.

But please, keep explaining. Tell everyone more about this total control over your life that the vast global conspiracy is plotting. Be specific about what this control will consist of. I mean, total control, sounds pretty chilling, so you must have some really good evidence.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



How do you "account for it" without understanding it? 

If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And the damage done in California via flawed science is miniscule to what the current Administration and global governments intend to do to us if they can gain the control over all of us that they want.
> ...



The boogieman is a high ranking Republican.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



You are certainly welcome to any opinion that you'd like, and I appreciate that you let us know what you wish was true. That way the informed electorate can accurately position you and yours on the scale from cost to benefit. 

The future will be different than the past. That's a given. We either act in ways consistent with what we can predict about that future or the reality of it will push us aside. Remember how tough and stuff dinosauers were? Gone, every one, because they didn't adapt when the environment changed. 

Right now billions of private and public dollars are flowing to sustainable energy. Virtually nothing towards fossil fuels except natural gas as a temporary step in our withdrawal. 

Adaption or extinction is the choice. Science has told us where continued fossil fuel addiction leads. I think that the informed electorate is wise enough to choose adaptation. 

What do you think?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In my thermo class, it was easy.. That fraction of energy that disappeared into EM radiation was calculated from the ASSUMPTION of a black body radiator (Boltzman equation) or by telling us what was ejected or absorbed. NEVER was there a discussion of the EM once it left the surface. Nothing on how it propagated, very little even on how much EM energy got absorbed into material as heat.. 

NOW -- then there was Thermodynamics Properties of Materials (that I didn't take) and some advanced Chemistry courses (which I DID take) that went into exact detail about EM absorption and emission properties and how to model radiative losses and gains.. This stuff doesn't appear in basic Thermo because there needs to be chemical or materials prereqs to getting it across comprehensively... 



> If you think that a colder body can warm a hotter body without the consumption of intervening energy, like refrigeration, you obviously never took Thermodynamics



No one said anything about intervening energy. A laser diode can be cooler than the surface it impinges on and contribute to thermal energy in that warmer surface. Even the IR energy from a cloud of gas that's COOLER than the surface that the IR impinges on can contribute energy to that hot surface. Got a problem with that?

*Any EM radiation from ANYTHING can contribute energy to the material it impinges on..* 

PHOTONS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE OF WHAT THEY ARE DIRECTED AT or the temperature of the medium they are traveling through (other than speed changes and lensing due to thermal distortion of the medium)... THAT'S THE POINT.... 

Otherwise -- Captain Kirk would have to measure the Hull temperature of the Klingon vessel before firing... 

And some of the confusion about the GreenHouse.

 The effect is due to BLACK BODY radiation (surface of earth) of IR being converted to heat in an otherwise cooler gas. (that's the EM part) The 2nd part of that is --- that incremental rise in temperature of the tropo acts to reduce the thermal gradient -- thus reducing heat loss from the lower atmosphere and hence the surface. (that's the Thermo part)

*GHGs DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO HEAT ENERGY *---- They merely impede thermal conduction cooling thru the atmosphere by retaining heat that previously WAS surface generated InfraRed ((and should have,,, barring the interference of man-made gas guzzling SUVs, simply gone out into the cosmos)). The energy source is the big bank of Energy that is the Earth.


----------



## numan (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are many, many laws on the books that prevent you from appropriating what's mine to your use. One of those things are the earths resources. You can't, for instance, dispose of toxic resources into the nations water or air. Not even on your land because they will contaminate the resources of others.


How quaintly, endearingly naive of you! I'll bet you're really cute.

I certainly don't want to spoil your illusions by telling you that those with money and power can do pretty much what they want without worrying about the Constitution or the laws.

*The birds fly through the webs that catch the little flies.*
---Old Roman Proverb



> I'm sorry that you have so little respect for our system of government, our Constitution and our country. But that's your bad not ours.


If they want my respect, they'd bloody well have to earn it first!



> Your freedom cannot come at my or anyone else's expense. That's tyranny.


Welcome to the world as we know it.
.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

numan said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There are many, many laws on the books that prevent you from appropriating what's mine to your use. One of those things are the earths resources. You can't, for instance, dispose of toxic resources into the nations water or air. Not even on your land because they will contaminate the resources of others.
> ...



I was lucky to be born in, and have chosen to continue to live in, a country that has no tolerance for tyranny.

Easy choice as I've been in countries that aren't as specific as ours is about that.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



How much heat do you calculate that the earth adds to the sun?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Now you're getting facetious.. And I don't have enough free time to play guru to your rope-a-dope. You might go ask those idiot moron cousins of yours that want to harness the EM energy from our Moon to power their homes at night with photovoltaics.. Its got to do with our Boltzman radiation that leaves the atmosphere and an exercise in geometry.. You can even do it.. ((in a week or so))

If the light arrives there and is absorbed --- it contributes to heating.. Got it???? Good...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



When will you notify the science world that you've repealed the Second Law of Thermodynamics?


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



The issue isn't if GH gases can react to long wave IR, and shed some of that heat back out. The problem is whether or not that IR radiated from the GH Gases can warm the already warmer surface, its source. The second laws states no, but the warmers seem to think it can anyway without violating the 2nd law, or with bending it somehow depending on who you ask.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... Any chance of you making any sense on this subject?

You have inaccurately cited Boltzmann and pretended it was your own work,  you have shown you do not understand the difference between thermodynamic, and thermal interactions, you have inaccurately tried to use various other concepts all of which you show to have little if any actual knowledge on, and when it's outed you ramble vague general statements that do not address anything...

LOL, socko you're really not very good at this..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Don't forget that you are in political time out. Don't call us, we'll call you when we need you.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I suspect this is way above your pay grade, but here is why "the warmers" are correct.

The Amazing Case of ?Back Radiation? ? Part Three | The Science of Doom


----------



## PMZ (Jun 3, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Where did I "cite Boltzmann"?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Haven't repealed the thermal direction of transfer part of the 2nd law. NET energy transfers will be from Hot to Cold. But that's a THERMAL gradient. Photons don't obey thermal gradients. You on the other hand might find me a Thermo textbook that says """"when RADIATIVE (that's key) energy flows from a cold body to a hot body, the warmer body MUST REJECT the radiation from the colder body or be cited for violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics""" 

Happy hunting son... 

In the meantime, you better inform your AGW pals that there is no such as "down dwelling regenerated IR" in the TrenBerth analysis. Because last time I checked --- there it was --- 333W/m2. IR from the cool sky being redirected to the warmer surface of earth contributing to dreaded global warming. Care to explain that to me??


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Remember that independent of RE-RADIATED IR to the surface, these gases have warmed themselves from the up-going long wave IR.. This alone is enough to reduce the thermal gradient thru the Tropo. But also, there is Thermodynamic convection going on causing warm air at the surface to rise and colder air to sink creating a TRUE thermal path for heat to conduct directly. 

What I'm saying is that RADIATED IR CAN AND DOES flow independent of the temp diff. So there is a "back-radiation" going on.. 

But the NET ENERGY EXCHANGE will be from warmer to colder. Which is LARGELY the direct thermal path due to convection/conduction and the more plentiful IR generated by the warmer Black Body Earth.. No Thermo law violated or harmed. 

Realize also because of the complexity of convection in the Tropo, the air aloft is not ALWAYS colder than the surface. Our ability to peg the numbers in the TrenBerth diagram is HIGHLY suspect. Particularly when Trenberth has all of the re-radiated IR reaching the surface and none reflected. In fact, someone needs to explain to me where EXACTLY is the direct THERMAL exchange due to convection/conduction in that diagram...


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





radiation between two bodies is a composite between radiation in and radiation out. the cooler body _still_ radiates. you can compute the radiation from the warm body { kTh^4 } and the amount from the cooler body { kTc^4 } but you cannot just examine one side or the other of the equation because both are happening at the same time. the warmer body always radiates more, and at a slightly higher avg energy wavelength therefore the second law is always in effect.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




why do you think I have changed my opinion? I was hoping that _you_ would have an opinion on an interesting topic that you brought up. apparently I was wrong. 

do you want to know why I think you are a dweller on the wrong side of the bell curve? you never have any of your own opinions, you never synthesize a new idea from other ideas, you never hop to related subjects. in other words you are just a bore.

feel free to jump back into your usual spew of _ad homs_, but really, I would rather hear why you think walkers are realistically linked to QM. perhaps you have more info that you could link to that shows more experiments. I didnt see any actual data on the their 'double slit' walker experiment. got any? can you deflect the walker with a gentle puff of air? what were the initial angles for the two walkers to capture each other in a 'quantum ring'? have you seen any of those other videos of amazing patterns using harmonics in a liquid? hahaha, who am I kidding. you only found the French experiment by a random google search, and you didnt even know what it was about until I posted the videos.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I think it's hysterical that you publish THAT PARTICULAR blog.. Because the guy behind it COMPLETELY agrees with my assessment of back-radiation from colder to warmer objects. But as a "warmer" egghead, he's having a really hard time selling all this juvenile thermo modeling of the atmosphere that his team is pushing.. 

So I'm supposed to be humbled by a guy who agrees with every word I've said about this topic?? 

You're a hoot junior.... 

Thanks for validating everything I've said... Just to recap -- Every post I've made in this thread is IN DEFENSE of the basic physics of the GreenHouse Theory.. Did you get that part? 

We have yet to start revealing my feelings about the 20 acres of horseshit that is CAGW dogma.. You will learn I NEVER sacrifice science to be one of those mouth-breathing, fundie bible thumping opponents that you imagine I am.. And what about it IF I thump a bible or mouth-breathe? Is that still relevent?


----------



## polarbear (Jun 4, 2013)

When people use terms like "magnifying light", like IanC does, then you know for sure, that they  never took  1 single physics lesson  or are too stupid to comprehend  the lesson that covered  optics.
Here we have both, the mamooth idiot and IanC saying that you can magnify the "highly ordered sunlight" but  not diffuse light.
...and then they do just that, the mamooth idiot  does it with a light bulb (=diffuse light)  in a room with white walls (which would diffuse  light that was collimated)
and IanC does it with the CO2 back radiation....so does the IPCC with Roy Spencer snake oil "physics" that wind up with more  h*c/ &#955;   on  a surface
than it would have got without CO2 back radiation from the  &#963; * T^4  source  feeding into the entire system.

B.t.w IanC. People who did take physics call the "highly ordered sunlight" not "highly ordered", they call it collimated light.

Then, first of all  "magnifying"  in optics* is done* with diffuse light  and is expressed as the magnifying factor, which is the ratio of   of an object`s apparent size
and it`s true size when viewed through a *collimator*, which can be a lens or a  parabolic mirror.
But in no way is light "magnified" as IanC would have it with "highly ordered sunlight"

Then, in no way are there more photons/time (=watts)  in a room with white walls than  an X-watt light bulb can supply as photons/time as the mamooth idiot
who also makes "ink molecules" would have it.
Such a room only appears to be brighter to the human eye than a room with off-white walls.
You could in fact make some locations in a room receive more  photons per m^2 (=brighter) if  you  reflect  light  from a different  m^2 surface (B)
and direct it to that spot (A). ...but nothing was gained. The only thing that did happen was that a portion of the light that would  have propagated (as diffuse light)  from the m^2 reflecting surface(B)  into different directions had been re-directed onto a spot (A) and all you got was a smaller spread to  fewer m^2 
Reducing the number of square meters for the same amount of &#963; * T^4 (energy)  still leaves you with the same amount of energy in the whole system and not one iota more.
Not even a mirror anywhere in this room can increase what you got as &#963; * T^4  from  the source to begin with.
In fact it would not even matter if you painted the walls or the light bulb with black soot...
The room only appears "darker" to the human eye but would be just as bright as before,... if you looked  at it in the infrared spectrum .
It is astonishing just how stupid people that claim they know something about physics can be.
*I can make a room with white walls just as dark to the human eye with a 100 watt UV light source as a room with black walls with a 100 watt light source that emits light in the spectral range which  is visual to the human eye.*

Good thing that mentally impotent morons like these are restricted to write internet forum crap and aren`t out there pretending to be engineers, else we would not just pay greenhouse gas taxes, we would start paying with our lives being near a nuclear power plant that was designed by such mamooth idiots.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

BTW PMZ:

Did you catch the sloppy science aspect of that guy's conclusions about measuring the absorption of Downward Re-Radiation? Or was that beyond YOUR paygrade?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

polarbear said:


> When people use terms like "magnifying light", like IanC does, then you know for sure, that they  never took  1 single physics lesson  or are too stupid to comprehend  the lesson that covered  optics.
> Here we have both, the mamooth idiot and IanC saying that you can magnify the "highly ordered sunlight" but  not diffuse light.
> ...and then they do just that, the mamooth idiot  does it with a light bulb (=diffuse light)  in a room with white walls (which would diffuse  light that was collimated)
> and IanC does it with the CO2 back radiation....so does the IPCC with Roy Spencer snake oil "physics" that wind up with more  h*c/ &#955;   on  a surface
> ...








As the tundra-bound Crusty Crab that you are -- I'd expect you to rant more and think less about the obvious.. Nobody is CREATING ENERGY by painting a wall. ((Although our Obama selected science advisor comes close when he suggests that we all paint our roofs white to save energy -- QED))

I just came back from a client deep into large industrial LED lighting. They had mocked-up a couple supermarket aisles to take photometer measurements of various lighting situations. He was getting dissapointing readings in this grand effort and decided to change the floor from grey concrete to nice light colored tile. Not so amazingly, you could begin to read the content labels on the cereal boxes.. 

So --- with black walls, DUHHHH --- photons are absorbed and not available for diffuse re-reflection to all other points in the room. Energy has been REDISTRIBUTED by positioning of absorbers. Or reflectors, or mirrors or what have you. You might even say the camera sites on the photometer had been MAGNIFIED just as if you put an intensifier on it. 

So let's drop that gnarly tongue-lashing and move on to black body radiation and back radiation. 



> and IanC does it with the CO2 back radiation....so does the IPCC with Roy Spencer snake oil "physics" that wind up with more  h*c/ &#955;   on  a surface
> than it would have got without CO2 back radiation from the  &#963; * T^4  source  feeding into the entire system.



You've just made a circular argument. Back radiation doesn't exist (in your mind) so the ONLY energy source is the Black Body stuff coming from the surface. Sorry Charlie, it's for real. IR is Re-radiated (in all directions) from the warmed gases in the lower tropo and even THO they might be cooler than the surface, they can't put the brakes on and refuse to be absorbed by the earth's surface. Net energy exchange is still skyward. But you can't stop radiative energy from impinging on a warmer object. 

In a relative sense, the temp diff between surface and lower tropo is not that great. In fact, on a given day, the lower tropo CAN BE WARMER than the surface. That's how complicated it is and how RIDICULOUS biblical pronouncements like the TrenBerth diagram are... 

Now I have my doubts about the numbers and even the definitions in the TrenBerth diagram and I sense it's horribly wrong and frail. Primarily because it presumes to detect a MINUTE DIFF in energy exchange when it is a kindergarten construct that doesn't know whether it's night or day, summer or winter, Fiji or Siberia, water or concrete, snowing or clear. All those  GUESSES averaged over time and the entire globe could never POSSIBLY detect a 2w/m2 contribution from CO2.

NEVER EVER EVER...

 So it had to be either fudging, lucky guess or willful manipulation of the data. I chose the latter for sure. 

I am so certain about this that when and if I retire -- if this whole AGW carp hasn't putrified, I'm going back to the Ivy Halls to redo the Trenberth cartoon.. I swear it...


----------



## polarbear (Jun 4, 2013)

Here is another example just how utterly retarded these morons who think they can lecture us in physisc really are





numan said:


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








He is looking at the Bohr diagram which depicts how much more energy it  takes to raise electrons that are closer to a nucleus at the n=1 shell  to a higher orbital than for those are are more distant at the n=4 shell  from the nucleus...which require less energy to go into a higher energy  orbital the larger the distance or the shell is from the nucleus.
According to him Bohr said :
"*The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"

*As if!!!What Bohr said was thatouter shell electrons require less energy to do their quantum leap  than inner shell electrons.
This moron has electrons going *gradually* with *less and less energy * to a  *" next energy level" *as it was when  nobody ever even heard about quantum physics and quantum leaps.
By saying that he also figured that during this process electrons from shell #1 wind up in the next higher shell number, *because only then *would such an electron require less energy .
And then crown his stupidity with the ultimate stupidity:
*"It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"*

Like fuck "must it absorb" lower frequencies.
An electron in that shell will absorb at the exact same wavelength as it  did before it did a quantum leap and then emits this energy quantum as a  photon you moron.


> *"or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"*


They  do...all you have to do is heat a substance to the plasma state, like  that big bright thing in the sky that keeps you from freezing you idiot.

But when I said to IanC with his retarded red star to white star "back  radiation", that a plasma can`t absorb photons of that particular lower  wavelength when the corresponding "ground state" electrons are missing  after the substance was ionized ...IanC, the mamooth ink molecule idiot  and you, the "quantum physisc expert" insisted that it can...
Yeah right...
Bohr, Einstein and all the other physicists would roll over in their  graves hearing that,...because the only way that would work if the  remaining inner shell electrons could absorb longer wavelength light  after the outer shell electrons that ionization had removed.
The only way that could happen if you can stuff electrons from a lower shell number to a higher shell number.
How exactly is that supposed to happen ?
*It could not possibly get any funnier than that*, *including the choice of your avatar*


> Oh, my lord! Imagine anyone claiming a knowledge of physics saying that!  What a howler!! You've got it exactly ass-backwards!!


----------



## polarbear (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > When people use terms like "magnifying light", like IanC does, then you know for sure, that they  never took  1 single physics lesson  or are too stupid to comprehend  the lesson that covered  optics.
> ...



And yet another moron to the 3.rd power chimes in.
You haven`t got the slightest clue what I did say about back radiation.
And are the same order of magnitude idiot as the mamooth idiot:


> They had mocked-up a couple supermarket aisles to take *photometer  measurements* of various lighting situations. He was getting  dissapointing readings in this grand effort and decided to change the  floor from grey concrete to nice light colored tile. Not so amazingly,  you could begin to read the content labels on the cereal boxes..



Read again what I said:
Such a room only appears to be brighter *to the human eye* than a room with off-white walls.

The room only appears "darker" to the human eye but would be just as bright as before,... if you looked  at it in the infrared spectrum .
It is astonishing just how stupid people that claim they know something about physics can be.
*I can make a room with white walls just as dark to the human eye with  a 100 watt UV light source as a room with black walls with a 100 watt  light source that emits light in the spectral range which  is visual to  the human eye.*

So what kind of "photometer" did you use?
I`m pretty sure it was for the (human eye) visual range and not for snake eye visual range.
Unbelievable just how stupid people of your stripe can be. You can`t comprehend anything beyond what your eyes can see, no matter if that`s infrared or UV light...or photons in general.
So tell me if you could read these labels in your supermarket with white tiles if I would light it up with 10 times the # of watts with UV light instead of what you had with your " industrial LED lighting."
That`s almost as funny as the "numan quantum physics" version.
Photons "disappeared" just as soon as you or your Walmart photometer can`t see them any more.
*I suggest you start rewriting every physics law concerning light absorption and  emission , especially all those that cover black body radiation *


> So --- with black walls, DUHHHH --- photons are absorbed and not available for diffuse re-reflection


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Here we have both, the mamooth idiot and IanC saying that you can magnify the "highly ordered sunlight" but  not diffuse light.



This is very basic optics/antenna theory, and you fail totally at it.

A parabolic reflector, like a solar oven, can only focus parallel electromagnetic rays. In practice, parallel rays are those coming from a distant point source, like the solar oven pointed at the sun, or like a satellite dish pointed at a satellite.

Diffuse radiation, not being parallel, won't get focused. The solar oven doesn't focus and concentrate hazy light from clouds, or backradiation that is coming in from all over the atmosphere in all directions. Same with a lot of lenses. A magnifying glass can burn things by focusing the sun's rays, but try it on a hazy day, and it doesn't focus anything.



> Then, in no way are there more photons/time (=watts)  in a room with white walls than  an X-watt light bulb can supply as photons/time as the mamooth idiot
> who also makes "ink molecules" would have it. Such a room only appears to be brighter to the human eye than a room with off-white walls.



The light meters disagree with you strongly. Reality says you're so full of crap that your eyes are turning brown.

Of course there are more photons flying through the air. That's why the light meter reads more. And it doesn't violate conservation of energy. In the example I gave before, white walls that reflect 80% mean 5 times the light intensity in the room. And since only 20% of that energy gets absorbed with each bounce, the energy flow is exactly balanced.

In contrast, PolarBear's retard physics wildly violates conservation of energy. In his peculiar version of reality, a light bulb would put out 100 watts, the white walls would absorb 20 watts, and the other 80 watts would just magically vanish into some mystery dimension.

As far as his Bohr atom stuff goes, I don't think anyone knows or cares what PolarBear is babbling about. He stinks at clear communication, something required of engineers. He rambles out a bunch of vague handwaving and insults, but never comes close to making a point.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"Haven't repealed the thermal direction of transfer part of the 2nd law. NET energy transfers will be from Hot to Cold. But that's a THERMAL gradient."

It's an ENERGY gradient. Remember entropy?

When I started posting many years ago I had a couple of goals. One was to learn as much as possible, another was to dig into the aspect of American culture that I thought was putting our two centuries of progress at risk. Media motivated extremism. At the time I never expected our national energy policy to be a very important aspect of that. 

As my exploration of our present culture proceeded, I found, to my surprise, that our energy policy was perhaps the most telling example of our growing political dysfunction. And, being a retired engineer, it was a field that I had above average expertise in. 

I also learned that media motivated extremists became that way because they were cultivated by gradual exposure to an interlocking foundation of easy to swallow lies built gradually into monumental lies. The old frog in the pot theory. 

In energy terms, the monumental issue today stemed from a casual thought that Rush expressed decades ago that it was blatant egoism that puny mankind could impact the world even if they tried. That was an easy to buy lie then, that his minions have chosen never to back off of. 

It has been interesting to observe that what is unarguable in the big picture, has been dragged into a swamp of detail by people choosing teams of scientists to root for, on issues that they personally are educationally ilequipped to understand. Exactly the same I suppose of spectators telling LaBron James how to play basketball. 

So, here we are. Facing the largest project ever undertaken by humanity, the conversion to sustainable energy. Spending billions of dollars and hundreds, soon to be thousands, of lives, each year on the consequences of not moving faster, arguing about whether or not to move faster, with the only winners being the media political evangelist entertainers. 

My chosen role is to post provacably, hoping to stir up thinking to some new more profound level that will knock people off their well established and unchangeable thrones and into new thought processes that will be productive. 

Bottom line is that you are correct of course about the 2ond law being satisfied by net heat transfer, which comes from the high energy body radiating more to the lower energy body than vice versa. Perhaps there are one or two others out there who learned that also from the debate. 

And perhaps someone else who learned from it, that learning, not winning, is the product of debate.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2013)

polarbear said:


> The room only appears "darker" to the human eye but would be just as bright as before,... if you looked  at it in the infrared spectrum.



This is one of your dumber claims, and that's saying something.

According to your idiot theory, 100% of the energy absorbed by the wall is re-emitted as IR and beamed directionally back into the room. 

Of course, by your new groundbreaking perfect emission theory, the emitted IR should then hit the walls again, along with the newly generated visible light. Meaning twice the energy, and twice the IR perfectly emitted again. And then three times, and four times, and so on, until the walls glow red hot and the room catches on fire. All from that one light bulb. That's the PolarBear theory.

Non-retards, of course, know the walls will simply conduct away most of the energy, and very little will be re-emitted as IR. And that it's simply not relevant to the issue. It doesn't matter what spectrum you choose. Visible, UV, IR, it doesn't matter. If the walls reflect that spectrum, then the amount of light in the air of that spectrum will be multiplied. It has to, to satisfy conservation of energy.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 4, 2013)

No wonder so many fifth grade school kids start looking smarter than supposedly educated adults, like the "numan"s, "IanC"s, mamooth idiots and now this shopping center interior  decorator/"light expert".
Even kids in a kindergarten know why a white wall looks white, why a red wall looks red why a green wall looks green and why a blue wall looks blue...and a few grades later they hear about "RGB" and how color TV`s work using red green and blue dots to make up all the rest of the light human eyes can see.
But here we got an entire group of idiots that figure that there must be more photons per m^2 if they can read a label better and if they can`t then there are less photons.
According to them photons disappear when you shine a red light on a red text and have trouble reading it...or if you place a blue object in front of a blue wall and have to look twice before you can make it out.
The latest moron that joined in has a whole spectrum of photons "disappearing" with grey concrete....doing away with every almost equation that are the foundation of every AGW computer model that changes a portion of the incoming sunlight to infrared which water vapor and CO2 can absorb.
And their "proof" is that you can read labels better in a white room than in a room with a different wall color.
Amazing...and all the while the rest of us are wasting our time calculating how much extra 15 µm IR a +0.8 C "anomaly" can produce and 380 ppm CO2 can radiate back, if the albedo # these models use are accurate etc etc.
Meanwhile it`s all so simple when you use flucklaterminology, "mamooth ink molecule water chemistry", "numan physics" and IanC wordsmith cop outs.
According to the latest "expert" that just chimed in photons  only exist if you can see them  and the ones you can`t simply don`t exist, which you can prove with a Walmart "photometer" and white tiles
@ the fucked in the head Siamese cat:
By the way...You keep saying I`m stalking you...
so why the fuck are you pasting your cat shit in here every time seconds after you spotted me posting something?
Are you trying to "stalk" me or something?..fuck you are a psychopath and a retarded one to boot !


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2013)

polarbear said:


> But here we got an entire group of idiots that figure that there must be more photons per m^2 if they can read a label better and if they can`t then there are less photons.



That would be because it's true. Non-retards understand that having more light makes it easier to read. It's funny watching you go into these idiot contortions, trying to deny something that everyone else learned way before kindergarten. You could just say "oops, I was wrong", but you're emotionally incapable of that, so ever deeper into the stupid hole you now dig.



> According to them photons disappear when you shine a red light on a red text and have trouble reading it...or if you place a blue object in front of a blue wall and have to look twice before you can make it out.



Lose the red herrings. Spectrum has zilch to do with anything we're discussing here. It doesn't matter what wavelength you use. If the walls reflect whatever wavelength you're using, then the light level of that wavelength in the room will increase.

(Notice how even your loyal lickspittles don't want to jump up on this stupid wagon with you? That should give you a clue about how stupid you look.)

And by the way, sniveling about how mean I am won't get me to stop tearing you to pieces. That just encourages me.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > But here we got an entire group of idiots that figure that there must be more photons per m^2 if they can read a label better and if they can`t then there are less photons.
> ...



Unfortunately, the Crusty Crab caught ME and you being inexact.. And of course, used that opportunity to pummel us instead of engaging in anything truely useful.. 

The problem is our sloppy accounting for photons. In your example, if 20% of photons are absorbed by a white wall, we neglect to account for the wavelength conversion that occurs when the energy is RE-Emitted by white wall as IR longwave photons. 

The deal is -- a black wall reduces EM emissions to HEAT faster than a white wall. And as such removes VISIBLE photons (and indeed the sum total of all photon energy) faster from the area. And for all practical purposes, changes the distribution of VISIBLE photons in the area. 

So Mr. Krabbe -- we all know this. There is no advantage to trying to trip us on not being entirely rigorous. I agree - i was somewhat sloppy, but not incapable of doing it completely correct.

Mammoth is happy to simply have more visible light, which is true, but what that has to do with back-radiated IR is beyond me.. 

Now can we get to why you want to deny that the atmosphere is exchanging photon energy with the surface even IF it's usually cooler? *If the BLACK WALL is emitting long wave energy to ALL objects in the room --- are some of them IMMUNE from being heated because they are warmer than the wall?*


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian you just accused the guy who you claim makes most of what he says up, of being unimaginative, lacking creativity, and unoriginal.. LOL, I ask again Ian, which is it this time? Am I too stupid to be creative or am I offering interesting things to talk about?

The article I cited explains the significance of the respective experiments. You want to know why I think they are relevant? Well I think they are relevant because MIT thinks they are relevant, and you obviously do not understand the concept of duality. Your weak attempt to treat photons as particles and ignore their wave-like properties, shows how little you understand this beyond an equation.

So Ian your latest bit of nonsense is that they aren't completely accurate to Quantum Mechanics. Really? And you come to this conclusion by ignoring my article from MIT and posting a video from a tv show? Why not argue what I posted rather than what you decide you can defend? It's your video Ian, not mine..

Yeah, Ian you are that transparent. The article from MIT I posted busted you, so you go and grab a video whose validity you feel you can challenge, and then argue it's merits.. What about my article you are trying to argue against? Well you can't argue against that because it explains itself right away.

Thats why I think so little of you Ian.  You have enough small bits of knowledge to see your mistake, but rather than admit it, you try and dismiss it and keep on talking.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Agreed on all points, (especially the Trenberth issues) but with one added distinction.

There is a loss of it's useful energy at each transfer and the work being done. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but that does not mean it can be re-used indefinitely in the same system. The problem IMHO, is that the GH theory requires that we assume the "backradiation" or Down-welling long wave IR, to be usable to create additional heat from the surface. Despite the fact that in all other findings and experiments there is no evidence of this possibility, in this one case they claim it is so despite no hard evidence that it does happen.

They assume that the energy must go somewhere, be used somehow, because it cannot be created nor destroyed. The fact the energy exists is clear, the concept it can create change in a system from whence it came is highly suspect IMHO. 

What happens to electricity in an electrical device? Well after it's used to do it's work,that energy is transferred/transformed into heat, which warms the device,leading to the thermal and themodynamic mechanisms to do their respective jobs. That device cannot use that heat to do more work, because it's usefulness to that system is done. Just as the surface cannot use the DWLIR or backradiation to do more warming.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Good for you.. I'll drink to that. In fact, just between you and me, I give "rep points" based on whether I learn anything from another poster. NOT on whether someone wins or whines or wimps out.

And like you -- one of my interests is in the misinformation and mischaracterization of what's been called "alternative or sustainable energy"..  There's a whole lot of eco-fraud being committed by the folks who are trying to sell it.. Hope you're not one of those.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

gslack said:


> Agreed on all points, (especially the Trenberth issues) but with one added distinction.
> 
> There is a loss of it's useful energy at each transfer and the work being done. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but that does not mean it can be re-used indefinitely in the same system. The problem IMHO, is that the GH theory requires that we assume the "backradiation" or Down-welling long wave IR, to be usable to create additional heat from the surface. Despite the fact that in all other findings and experiments there is no evidence of this possibility, in this one case they claim it is so despite no hard evidence that it does happen.
> 
> ...



Seems to me there SHOULD be some hard evidence of this DWN LWave IR.. PMZ just linked to this site where a study confirmed the Black Body UP IR from a cotton field in CA 

The Amazing Case of ?Back Radiation? ? Part Three | The Science of Doom

and then Dr of Doom just waves his hands and says "if the DWN LRIR was being reflected from the surface, it would boost the UP measurement considerably and we don't see it being reflected".. Well -- that's not science, because he's ASSUMING that the DWN IR exists, while attempting to prove it exists. And surprisingly, I looked at the ORIGINAL study and there was hand-waving about their up-looking meters getting sprayed with pesticides, but no measurements. 

Shouldn't be too hard. You got to look AT NIGHT to isolate the DWN IR re-radiated by the tropo and not the solar irradiance. I'd be appalled if this was not done. But the OTHER PROBLEM is that Black Body theoretical calculations ONLY APPLY to bodies in thermal equilibrium.. Categorically, the earth is NOT in equilibrium during most of day (if ever). So if youre looking for a couple degree signature by ASSUMING the value of BB radiation, it's not accurate enough. 

Don't fret too much that the energy goes back to the source it came from. That's the way radiative thermal bounces around. If it's emitted from GHGases in the tropo (it is) and if it reaches the surface (some of it does), then some of it WILL BE ABSORBED if it matches the absorption spectra of the BBody. And it contributes to heating. The question is --- is it anywhere near the estimate in the TrenBerth cartoon. Part of the problem with the cartoon is that the values are for a world-wide daily POWER budget, not an ENERGY budget and when everything eventually goes to heat as you observed, the earth is a resevoir of heat energy. Storage implies ENERGY (with a W-Hr, not a W/m2 label) and that creates a problem in balancing the Energy budget by simply measuring instantaneous flows of Power. 

You've got me interested enough to go look for hard measurements. If someone can save time -- it would be appreciated..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

I believe there is back-radiation. I DOUBT it is the 333W/m2 and almost as much as the black body radiation going out. If TrenBerth is LITERAL about 396W/m2 going out radiation wise, that MAY BE the correct Black Body number, but there is NO WAY it overwhelms the convection/conduction numbers that appear to be only 1/3 or so of the Radiated heat. Not intuitive at all. MOST all practical bodies have conduction/convection overwhelming the radiated IR as long as there is a viable thermal conductive path. Am I wrong? 

Are you believing that when a Cold Front comes thru that the quick lowering of surface temp due to convection/conduction is STILL insignificant to the RADIATED component thru IR? I don't believe it.

BTW IANC::  You posted in another thread about the numbers not even adding (I think)

THe balance in the cartoon goes like --->> ((396 - 333) + 80 + 17) is almost equal to (161) except for the miraculously fortunate 1W/m2 heating.. *Yeah right -- it's that good?* No. It's that mangled...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Mammoth is happy to simply have more visible light, which is true, but what that has to do with back-radiated IR is beyond me..



The issue all arose from a claim of the sort that, because the energy flux going back and forth inside the atmospheric system added up to more than 100%, backradiation was "creating energy" and was therefore impossible.

The white room was an example to illustrate the incorrectness of such a claim. For conservation of energy, energy flux internal to the system doesn't matter, only the energy in and out of the system does.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed on all points, (especially the Trenberth issues) but with one added distinction.
> ...



I don't think backradiation, at least the type being pushed by AGW theory is able to effect even more heat to it's warmer source. Energy used to make heat once (at the surface) and then used to warm the GH gas, and then somehow has enough useful energy left to effect warming its source It seems not only suspect within the 2nd law but also seems to ignore conservation of energy.

An insulator does not warm a source of heat, it merely slows heat loss. Somehow the warmers seems to assume that insulated heat sources can warm beyond the levels of their energy output so long as that insulation is sufficient. The atmosphere in particular, being a gas, with convection is a poor insulator, and as temperature increases the insulating capabilities of gases weaken as the level of convection increases. Meaning of course, that as temperatures in the atmosphere increase, their ability to slow heat loss decreases, and convection increases. The more GH gases (especially susceptible to IR or heat) added the faster the heat can be dissipated through natural convection.

The logic would lend itself to more of a cooling effect than a warming. But that doesn't seem to fit in with observed data any more than warming does. The only certainty here is that we in fact cannot be certain for either case. 

We have correlation of GH gases and after a rather long delayed response a rise in in temperature using various forensic research methods. We have roughly 150 years of varying degrees of reliability, showing an overall slow increase in temperature. We also have shorter term measurements using satellites and surface stations that are at some points showing warming and some points showing neither warming or cooling. But we don't have any quantified evidence that GH gases actually are able to the job that AGW theory attributes them. 

Wouldn't logic dictate that GH gases act on the whole, more like that of a heat dissipation system than that of an IR recycling system? If the heated atmosphere does as heated gases do and rises above and away from its heated source, as convection would allow, then as it rises it spends some of that energy attained from the source to do this task, and as it rises what left would indeed follow the 2nd law and flow out to the upper cooler atmosphere and eventually out into space.

AND as we add more GH gases to the atmosphere,those gases allow for faster heat dissipation leading to a net cooling effect. The cooling effect would be limited as temperature decreases. As temperatures decrease the effective insulating properties in gases increases. As that happens the insulating properties of gases will slow the remaining heat loss, and over time lead to net warming.

The point being that it is all interconnected. No one thing will be the tipping point in either direction. The planets fail-safe for lack of a better term. The more GH gases in the atmosphere, the more quickly heat is dissipated away from the surface, the warmer the surface becomes the warmer the atmosphere will become. As the atmosphere warms the insulating properties in gases lose their capabilities due to natural convection and that allows greater amounts of heat to escape. The more heat escapes the surface cools, then the atmosphere cools, making the gases insulating properties more effective, the gases then insulate the planet better allowing for the process to begin again.

The one single, main source in the entire system is the sun. As the sun or its energy input to us (however it may change) goes so will go the temperature of this planet. Adding or removing GH gases the way we do and on the timescale we could mange would at worst case scenario increase the speed in which the climate changes, but that will still be limited by the level of energy from the sun. GH gases are not a driver of climate, they are an effect  of warming and cooling which feeds back into the system according to the natural radiative, insulative and convective properties of this planets system. Adding more GH gases alone will not drive climate without something else happening with the energy coming in from it's source. The natural processes when taken as a whole prohibit this. The sun dictates climate on this planet.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Now look, I`m not in the habit of splitting hairs like a lawyer but in an exact science like physics there is no room for ambiguity.
Especially when we are talking about temperature increases of just a fraction of 1 degree over several decades and discuss the last 15 years where there was no T-increase at all, despite ppm CO2 going up,...in fact the trend was reversed more often than it was at a steady state or has increased.
I highlighted in red where you are either dead wrong or  phrased it so that it came out dead wrong for anyone who made their (professional) living using physics.


> (and indeed {removes}the sum total of all photon energy) faster from the area.


That is fundamentally wrong!...unless you want to switch the subject from the radiative transfer inside that room to heat conduction from the walls to the outside. Then I`ll counter like Roy Spencer etc would with a "heat insulation", essentially denying you your heat conduction to the outside argument  and confine your thoughts to the inside of that room.
Have you forgotten that *the sum of the total energy quanta * that the photons carried in the visual range is still the same (total energy ) quanta-sum when the shorter wavelenght ( &#955;-1 ) that a black body (or wall) converted to "heat energy" as is carried by the now more numerous &#955;-2 longer wavelength IR photons *that are now emitted after the black body **(or wall)  **&#955;-2 >  **&#955;-1 to photon wavelength  swap ?*

*There is no such process that can make energy disappear...or "magnify" it* (like IanC would have it). You can only convert it to another form of energy. *There is no question concerning that most fundamental principle  in physics.*
But there are many questions how much more incoming sunlight can be emitted from a less than perfect black body earth, using a crudely estimated albedo and "calculating" how much 15 µm IR is emitted and redirected down by CO2 instead of up.
Heinz Hug from the Max Planck Institute measured and calculated that  to be :


> [FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the *relative increment of greenhouse effect *. This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]
> 
> 
> ...


IanC has a lot of trouble understanding the difference between "heat" as in tempertaure and "heat energy" and goes ballistic every time I quote Heinz or anybody else from the Max Planck Institute (that racked up the most Nobel Prizes in physics)  so I thought I humor him and re-did Heinz`s calculations using "effective temperature" instead of watts or watt seconds/m^2 heat energy:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...the-atmosphere-is-what-we-28.html#post7305734


> I guess it all boils down to the simple fact that the CO2 15 µm  absorption band absorbs more incoming 15µm solar IR than the earth can  produce at a comfortable temperature....which the CO2 is supposed to  absorb and "back radiate".At the distance we are from the sun  the CO2 in the atmosphere shields  us from about 20 times more IR watts per m^2 @ 15 µm than what a 20  to  30 C warm earth could possibly produce as IR energy at that wave band  with the rest of the solar radiation that went through down to the  surface .
> 
> The peak IR at +20 C is nowhere near the 15 µm CO2 absorption band but  is at 9.88 µm and gets shorter the warmer...in other words even farther  away from the absorption band. If you integrate from 14 to 16 µm,  straddling the 15 µm peak all you get is a total band radiance: 12.3786  W/m2/sr....of which only 6.2 W/m2/sr is in the center of CO2 absorption  spectral line.
> 
> ...


After that IanC went even more ballistic and there was a barrage of cat shit crap posts from the Siamese cat in a white walled kitty litter box where you got more visible photons.
IanC then made the claim that he never denied back radiation and he challenged me to dig up his crap where he did say that there was no such thing, then changed his song and dance around this subject and claimed he always said there was, but had no idea how much.
I obliged him anyway and it was a hoot to stick his crap..back radiation exists, then no there is no such thing, then there it was and existed again but then he called it "radiation impedance" .
I did that because it was funny, but I`m a little bit too busy with something else right now, that my 4 year old has been waiting for* long enough:*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3te8XH1QNo&feature=youtu.be"]DIY E Trike made from old junk - YouTube[/ame]

Like I already said. This forum is full of idiots that make my 4 year old Great-grandson look like a genius. He already knows how to set my multimeter and dial it into the right Voltage, Current or Ohm Ranges when I tried to cheat him with 12 Volts instead of giving him 24 VDc for his test drive.




.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

Unfreakingbelievable.... 

But guess what Polarbear? I disagree. Do i want to do this or write a GUI for motor control tonight? 

What I said that you objected to... 


> The deal is -- a black wall reduces EM emissions to HEAT faster than a white wall. And as such removes VISIBLE photons (and indeed the sum total of all photon energy) faster from the area. And for all practical purposes, changes the distribution of VISIBLE photons in the area.



The key phrase is "sum total of all photon energy".. Photons are not heat energy. They are indicative of heat energy, but are EM energy. Therefore if the room walls are better EM absorbers, then total amount of photon energy will be exchanged for increased heat in the walls. Although the number of photons may increase to longer waves, the amount of EM energy will be reduced quicker (to heat) in a dark colored room. 

Therefore, WHATEVER the thermal conduction properties of the wall might be --- it will have MORE HEAT ENERGY to conduct to the exterior, thus less total photon energy.. *And a faster dissipation of the total photon energy in the room.* 

Or do you want to argue for a Standard *White* Body definition? Or do you accept that black walls WILL indeed be better at converting photons to heat flux. 

Uncle --- you can win if you want.. I'm not intent on beating this beyond the grave.. Or we could argue the definition of a Wall or a Room and what lies beyond.. Not interested in your perfectly insulated theoretical walls that you are selling here..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

Got an idea.. Go out into your igloo and smear fire soot on one wall.. Get back to me when you can see reindeer thru one of the walls. Tell us which wall it was and what direction the reindeer was facing.. 

LOL LOL LOL


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2013)

A photon is the quanta of EM radiation. No matter what wavelength of EM radiation we still cannot divide it further than that which we can understand. Also, simply calling EM radiation photons denies the inherent wave-like properties inherent in all light (EM energy). It's a wave and a particle to the best of our understanding and encompasses the properties of both.

P.S. Radiated heat is the point here. You cannot heat something up and have no radiant heat coming from it. Entropy cannot be stopped. The conversation here in terms of heat would mean radiated heat and not necessarily the temperature of an object radiating that heat. Saying photons are not heat energy isn't accurate, because radiant heat is EM radiation, and a photon is the quanta of EM radiation.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



to my knowledge, I never claimed that you made up what you say. I said you were a toady or a lapdog of various other posters like wirebender, SSDD or polarbear. a sychophant who starts spouting nonsense if he goes off the script that others provide. I really wish you guys would simply quote any of my comments that you are responding to rather than relying on your faulty memory and poor comprehension skills to replicate what you thought I said.

again, I would rather discuss this interesting topic. I have an hour+ video of Couder describing the various set-ups and experiments if anyone wants to ask for it. as well there are papers on _soft bodies_ that show quantum weirdness without the need for constant energy input like the walkers. 

btw, Bush in his short statements sounds like a huckster, his longer treatises are better.


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian you spent post after post trying to insult me and anything I have brought to the discussion. You know wish to pretend that didn't happen? Nonsense, you did so even in the last few posts.

We have quoted you, I even did so in the post your responded to. It's right there see it? Your words... Your dishonesty here is typical of what we have seen from you to date.

Lastly, I have no interest in discourse on a video with you. You cannot even debate my posts honestly, or address me with anything but disdain. You have insulted me, insulted every experiment I have brought into the discussion, even attacking my intelligence and understanding of those things, and have made it very clear on numerous occasions how little you think of my abilities in any scientific discussion. So spare me the BS now..  

One minute you're an expert, the next your deny the implication you made. You're incapable of honest discourse on this, and your attempted feign decency now that you are shown false and lacking again is transparent..


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...





of course I am insulting you, you are worthy of scorn. ordinarily I avoid making fun of retards but you have been so obnoxious to me over the years that I feel no compuction to act civilly towards you.

while I must admit I would like to discuss the _walkers_ and other associated oddities, I cannot deny that I would enjoy whatever inane comment that you could come up with. your thought processes are a train wreck when it comes to making logical connections.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





not even an acknowledgement? I didnt expect an apology for carelessly misquoting me but i didnt think you would just ignore it.

from polarbear's bio-



> About polarbear
> Biography
> retired engineer/ex war criminal
> Location
> Canada



what kind of a sick fuck would be proud to claim being an ex war criminal? of course maybe he actually is.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-92.html#post7155354
> ...




I also dont remember your answer to my comment about IR radiation going from the earth to the sun. I said the only possibilities were that it was reflected, absorbed or just passed through. in any of those three cases it would appear to an independent observer as increased radiation or temperature from the sun. unless in your personal universe conservation of energy is not manditory. the same situation occurs with star-to-star radiation. where does the radiation go if it does not affect the two stars?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 5, 2013)

It seems to me what is missing here is the realization that the only thing that matters is energy in and energy out from the perspective of the TOA. Top of the atmosphere. Is there anybody who still questions that increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere has the result of less energy out?


----------



## numan (Jun 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> from polarbear's bio-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe he was a Canadian Running Dog of American Nazoid military adventures overseas. 

Or, perhaps, it is just an example of what many Canadians consider to be humour. This passive-aggressive streak in Canadian humour cannot be understood by those not to the manner born -- unless, perhaps, they have listened to thousands and thousands of excruciating hours of the Vinyl Café.

(By the way, you can certainly see the essential differences between Americans and Canadians by comparing The Prairie Home Companion with The Vinyl Café!!)
.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It seems to me what is missing here is the realization that the only thing that matters is energy in and energy out from the perspective of the TOA. Top of the atmosphere. Is there anybody who still questions that increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere has the result of less energy out?



You've seen me defend the basic physics of GreenHouse here, so literally I don't oppose your generalization. HOWEVER, when you look at the numbers and complexity of the problem, I highly doubt the MAGNITUDE of the effect of additional CO2 to the atmosphere --- which is what this scuffle is all about..

 In addition all the BAD THINGS that are prophesized by the Catastrophic Warmers don't happen because of just additional GHGases from cow farts (charged against man's contribution of course). It depends on some very sketchy assumptions about feedback mechanisms that are poorly measured and understood and modeled even worse...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2013)

numan said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > from polarbear's bio-
> ...



Before you idiots yuck this up even worse.. You might consider that it's lyrical license and MAYBE the Canadian holds a grudge about serving in a conflict such as Vietnam. Or may be extremely PROUD of serving in Vietnam and mocking the folks that welcomed him home CALLING him a "war criminal".. We don't know --- do we?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Before you idiots yuck this up even worse.. You might consider that it's lyrical license and MAYBE the Canadian holds a grudge about serving in a conflict such as Vietnam. Or may be extremely PROUD of serving in Vietnam and mocking the folks that welcomed him home CALLING him a "war criminal".. We don't know --- do we?



That's what I was thinking.  A certain sort, and they know who they are, called me all sorts of things including baby killer and war criminal when I got home.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me what is missing here is the realization that the only thing that matters is energy in and energy out from the perspective of the TOA. Top of the atmosphere. Is there anybody who still questions that increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere has the result of less energy out?
> ...



Consider: Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels

My view is that, ultimately, all that matters, is how are going to continue to obtain the energy that we need, and what will it cost us, given what we know now.

To me it's unarguable that, as we consume the remaining fossil fuels given us, co2 concentration will continue to rise, and energy out the TOA will continue to fall. There is the possibility that something that we don't know about will rescue us from ourselves, but that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely that it will be even worse than we predict as the co2 sequestered in the arctic tundra adds to ours, things will be worse that just AGW predictions. 

As AGW proceeds, two civilization facts will be problamatic and expensive. The location of our cities as sea level rises, and the location of our food sources as rain patterns change. 

Over the next 100 years or so we will run out of the current mix of fossil fuels anyway and have no real alternative to sustainable sources. 

So the question is, how do we allocate resources over that time?

Some will go into saving our cities and maintaining our food supplies. 

Some will go into trying to stretch our fossil fuel supplies as long as possible. For one thing to maintain production of all of the material that we only know how to make from fossil feedstocks now.

Some will go into re-energizing the world sustainably. 

Huge numbers. 

There is nothing but good that can come from a very aggressive start on that extremely difficult time period. Today most of the energy that we produce is wasted. Let's start there at the very least.


----------



## numan (Jun 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Except that Canada did not participate in the invasion of Vietnam and in the attendant war crimes committed by Americans there. Canadians of that generation, unlike so many Americans like these






 were too intelligent to be bamboozled by the propaganda of war profiteers intent upon squeezing obscene profits from looting the American treasury, and from the deaths of 60,000 Americans and 3,000,000 Vietnamese.

There were, of course, a few individual yahoos, too stupid to know anything, who individually joined the American military.

In my opinion, anyone who is "proud" of  being forced by the draft to fight in Vietnam must be insane.
.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2013)

numan said:


> In my opinion, anyone who is "proud" of  being forced by the draft to fight in Vietnam must be insane.
> .



Lucky for us all that your opinion is worth exactly squat.


----------



## numan (Jun 5, 2013)

'

I am glad that you feel lucky.

It must be some compensation, considering the rest of your situation in life.

.


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And here we see you flip-flop again... A minute ago you wanted to discuss your video and I got you thinking now you are back to your previous demeanor..

ROFL, Ian you must be late taking your meds again.. Bipolar much?


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2013)

numan said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



What a worthless POS you are numan...

My father was in Africa, landed at Normandy, was in Germany, Italy and France During WWII.I have 3 older brothers and 3 cousins who served in various roles in vietnam, as well as 2 nephews who served in the gulf and afghanistan.

They followed orders and did what was asked of them. One of my cousins ended up dying slowly from Agent Orange not 5 years after coming home from Vietnam.

You sir do not have the honor to dare speak against any veteran of any war or service. If you were any kind of man, you would apologize..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> I am glad that you feel lucky.
> 
> ...



What?  Not being a bitter, pissy, whiny, toady ike you.  I'll take it over being your sort any day.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Having spent WAAAY too much in this Environment forum already -- can we delay jumping the fix until we've explored the problem? You're an engineer (you say) so lets' go to basics. 

1) Have you seen the CO2 forcing function that describes temp rise versus concentration? Are you aware that it is logarithmic and already very much saturated? It's a simple little thing. Says that for any past rise in W/m2 due to CO2 -- you have to approx DOUBLE that amount of CO2 to add the SAME W/m2 the next time. Where do you think we are on the curve? 







[/IMG]

2) Are you aware that at times when dinos roamed Pasadena, that CO2 were 10 times higher than today? Life flourished, doom didn't happen and the plants were thrilled.

3) The contribution of CO2 to the models is actually tiny compared to the hysteria of the hockey stick or other modeling projections.. It's the fairytale of the feedbacks that make this an issue at all. So ------------ Do you believe that we live on such a LEMON of planet that a temperature forcing of 2 or 3 degF will set off a literal fuel air bomb and destroy the planet? How much faith does it take to believe that? Could we possibly work a trade with the Romulans for a fixer-upper in their galaxy??

4) Please don't tell me we're not conserving enough.. And please don't tell me you believe that ANY of the items on the list of alternate energy is REALLY an alternative to 24/7/365.25 power generation.. I can't bust another rib laughing at yet another dupe....


----------



## PMZ (Jun 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I hear ya. Put it off to the next generation. Let them clean up our mess. You got more imporatant things to spend money on. Putting gas in your pick up truck for instance.

Aren't you glad the previous generations didn't think like you?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm for cleaning REAL MESSES --- not imaginary maybe ones.. Like the national deficit, social security, and foreign policy. I'm for using that Trillion dollars in remedial carbon abatement for saving lives here and in the 3rd world. Instead of wasting it on windmills and defunct sucker bets on solar companies.. 

OR even better --- cleaning up REAL pollution --- not a molecule which in no concrete terms is a pollutant anywhere but in the minds of the left and the halls of the EPA.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I don't know. This looks like a real mess to me.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/solomon09pnas.pdf

Who knows. Perhaps some superhero is out there to save us.  There are undoubtably babies being born today who will see the end of civilization on earth. You need to explain to them why gas for your pickup today was more important than their future.


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In one post you managed exaggerate and understate the issue... Amazing, your BS has no bounds..

No babies born today will see the end of civilization due to CO2 emissions panicky pants. And it's not only about gas for a pickup. It's about supplying energy and fuel to the entire world as reliably and efficiently as possible not just wealthy people with extra free space to set up solar panels or wind farms,the extra water or rivers to use hydroelectric, the ability to use nuclear power or the agricultural power to use ethanol.  It's so everyone can have a lighted living room, have transportation, and care for themselves..


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Your link goes to a white screen but I can guess it is for some activist group that bears more resemblance to a loony religion than any scientific group.  What's truly sad is you think that warmth is going to end the world when he have LOADS of actual data that says otherwise.  On the other hand you whistle along ignoring these big rocks flying by our planet that really CAN (and nearly have on at least one occasion) end life on this planet.  We are the first creatures on this planet that have the ability to prevent a catastrophic hit on this planet and you fools would rather waste time and money on a non issue all with the goal of imposing a one world government.

What a complete ass.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

Well, the ostriches are lined up this morning, butts in the air, heads in the ground, as big oil requires of them. Notice that when confronted with the bare facts they abandon their pretend science act and revert to the call of the ignorant throughout history. Name calling.

They are simply irrelevant. Responsible people are tackling the problem as well as helping those already struck by the bow wave of AGW caused extreme weather. We'll get through as Americans always have. By hard work, responsible behavior, innovation, and enlightened politics. They will continue to bitch and moan and drag the country down and claim entitlement to better treatment.

Which comes first, ignorance or irresponsibility? I think that they go hand in hand to nowhere.

Extinction is a demanding teacher for both those who adapt and those who don't. Watch and learn from those who presume entitlement over truth.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Well, the ostriches are lined up this morning, butts in the air, heads in the ground, as big oil requires of them. Notice that when confronted with the bare facts they abandon their pretend science act and revert to the call of the ignorant throughout history. Name calling.
> 
> They are simply irrelevant. Responsible people are tackling the problem as well as helping those already struck by the bow wave of AGW caused extreme weather. We'll get through as Americans always have. By hard work, responsible behavior, innovation, and enlightened politics. They will continue to bitch and moan and drag the country down and claim entitlement to better treatment.
> 
> ...








The ostrich is you.  Please show us solid evidence for heat being a killer.  Not some computer model fiction, but real observed data.  I can show plenty that when it has been warm the planet prospered.  I can also show plenty that when it is cold the planet suffers.  

I can also show plenty that when a big rock hits us it is really bad for us.  My head may be in the sand but your is pressed so firmly up the ass of the collectivists you can't see daylight.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Well, the ostriches are lined up this morning, butts in the air, heads in the ground, as big oil requires of them. Notice that when confronted with the bare facts they abandon their pretend science act and revert to the call of the ignorant throughout history. Name calling.
> 
> They are simply irrelevant. Responsible people are tackling the problem as well as helping those already struck by the bow wave of AGW caused extreme weather. We'll get through as Americans always have. By hard work, responsible behavior, innovation, and enlightened politics. They will continue to bitch and moan and drag the country down and claim entitlement to better treatment.
> 
> ...



You seem to want to ignore and avoid any concrete explanations of the weakness for CO2 forced global warming. And INSTEAD --- have put the agenda WAAAAY ahead of the science. And with your truly weak-ass assertion that every storm and weather condition MUST BE because of CO2 and that 1 degF rise in Annual Mean Surface temperature that you've seen in your lifetime.. 

How sad is that? That a guy who says he's an engineer by trade doesn't question HOW a 1 degF rise CAUSED Tropical Storm Sandy and ALL of the damage in it's wake. 

And then you begin by imagining all of us skeptics are ignorant and dupes of big oil.. 

We're making much more sense than you are right now when you dodge the definition of the problem...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach. 

When Americans gave conservatism a chance to perform, President Bush prioritized doing nothing, and we watched as the unpaid bills piled up. 

Now that we've wasted a decade and all of that capital on holy wars, Wall Street shell games, and get richer quick wealth redistribution tax cuts, their advice on the biggest project in human history is, let the kids worry about it. Kick that can. 

Why? Because the only way to know for sure that we should have done something is to wait until it's too late to do anything. This passes for thinking among those who get their opinions from their radios and TVs. 

Fortunately, we're a democracy. Fortunately, they're a minority, getting more so. Fortunately, we care about the future and they don't. Fortunately, we have a future and they don't.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach.
> 
> When Americans gave conservatism a chance to perform, President Bush prioritized doing nothing, and we watched as the unpaid bills piled up.
> 
> ...



Hey -- if you've got nothing to add to Global Warming -- Take all that political opinion and misguided prognostication to the Politics forum..  Not even interested in doing those lefty wet dreams here..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach.
> ...



The reason that you got moved to the irrelevant column is that science is way ahead of you. While you were waiting for never to arrive certainty, people who take responsibility to act, have. Mental masturbation left you on the sidelines. The extinction of conservatism has begun, it will take time, so while you are just waiting your turn you can think about why the world passed you by. We've already used up the time for extreme caution. We're on the fixing clock already while you are still in meditating mode. 

Perhaps you can start a thread on things that are going too fast for you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wooo -- you just went off into the weeds.. And your channel just got changed.. I can get that crap from "The Nation" or the "Salon" anytime I never want it.. More likely, "Socialist Worker" or "Progressives with Disabilities"

There's no value here.


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2013)

I think CO2 aids the planet to more efficiently shed heat to the upper atmosphere and into space. There is as much evidence for it as there is for AGW theory, AND the evidence fits my assertion more readily, because it doesn't require the 2nd law witchcraft you warmers seem to support.

GH gases become excited from interaction with Long wave IR, that excited state causes those gases to follow convection and rise, and at the same time the cooler gases fall where they are heated and rise creating a cycle. No discrepancy with the 2nd law because the energy is going from hot to cold, and natural convection causes the hotter air to rise above the colder air which in turn sinks.

Makes sense, fits the evidence, and is fundamentally sound with the laws of physics.


----------



## numan (Jun 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach.
> ...


But PMZ's comments ARE connected to the Global Heating question -- unfortunately, just not explicitly enought to penetrate your aversion conditioning.

I think the main reason you climate Denialists refuse to look at the evidence for anthropogenic heating is that you understand that massive new government and social programs would be necessary to deal with it. Naturally, all this woud be anathema to the enemies of Big Government and economic oversight.

I am definitely no friend of Big Government, nor Big Business either, but unlike you Denialists I know which century I am living in. What cannot be avoided must be endured.

The 21st century is a race between social and environmental collapse and Massive, Global Concerted Action, adequate to deal with the potential disasters which lie just ahead.

The totalitarian  heel of catastrophe management is about to descend and crush your delusions and desires into the dirt. Don't you just hate it when the dictatorship of Big Government forces you to survive?
.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> I think CO2 aids the planet to more efficiently shed heat to the upper atmosphere and into space. There is as much evidence for it as there is for AGW theory, AND the evidence fits my assertion more readily, because it doesn't require the 2nd law witchcraft you warmers seem to support.
> 
> GH gases become excited from interaction with Long wave IR, that excited state causes those gases to follow convection and rise, and at the same time the cooler gases fall where they are heated and rise creating a cycle. No discrepancy with the 2nd law because the energy is going from hot to cold, and natural convection causes the hotter air to rise above the colder air which in turn sinks.
> 
> Makes sense, fits the evidence, and is fundamentally sound with the laws of physics.



Perfect.. Love the democracy of science as opposed to the dogma of politics. You propose what appears to be a highly germane observation and what should happen is that the WARMERS should be debating you as to WHY that isn't the case. Instead, there's a deflection of dialogue towards political epithets and OUR integrity and sincerity is mocked by PMZ and the Numan. 

Makes perfect sense. The heat absorption of the GHgases contributes to a lowering of the thermal resistance at high Tropo altitudes and it would violate thermo principles if it DIDN'T contribute to heat conduction towards the cooler body.. Wouldn't it?

However, let me play the other side. The Trenberth diagram has the VAST MAJORITY of surface cooling due to Radiation and NOT strictly thermal conduction and convection. So I wager that a principled warmer would point to that and say that ANY conduction/convection is considerably LESS of an effect than down radiation from the CO2. 

At which point -- you should counter and ask to see any SIMILIAR system where thermal conduction is less dominant when the thermal resistance of that layer is reduced. 

Afterall -- we're looking for tiny miniscule imbalances in a realm of HUGE NUMBERS and the fact that Trenberth found an imbalance of exactly 0.9W/m2 out of all of that estimation and guessing is truely laughable...


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I think CO2 aids the planet to more efficiently shed heat to the upper atmosphere and into space. There is as much evidence for it as there is for AGW theory, AND the evidence fits my assertion more readily, because it doesn't require the 2nd law witchcraft you warmers seem to support.
> ...



Agreed. In fact the very nature of gases in a relatively unhindered state (like our atmosphere) are terrible insulators due to convection. We know for a fact the if we remove or limit convection as a factor those same gases are a very good insulator. 

That being the case, and knowing that convection is a major driving force in our weather,it would stand to reason that it would become more of a driving force if the very gases involved had a higher content of more "excitable"  GH gases. 

IMHO, GH gases will contribute to a more varied weather pattern in the short term, and long term a quicker transfer from warming to cooling and back again when their climactic points are reached respectively.

We currently see much more weather variance right now. And given the warmers already claim more extreme weather changes, it would fit the bill perfectly.

But then for many of them, it's not about logic or reason, it's about their political standing and "faith".


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

Some people study sciences because they are relentlessly and insatiably curious. Some as the basis for solving mankind's problems and advancing our lives. 

Clearly there are those that love the fact that every science revelation leads to another question and the goal of action can always be delayed by one more search for one more elusive bit of trivia. 

Fun perhaps to those who are pure scientists, or pure politicians, but frustrating to those who are trained to solve problems, engineers. 

We are really driven by economics, the efficient use of resources. While scientists focus on counting the number of angels that can be fit on the head of a pin, we are at work.

We engineered the uses of fossil fuels to mankind's betterment, and we'll engineer the next chapter too. 

When there were only a relatively few people on the planet, and our energy needs were modest the attention of doers was on supply. Now that we are about as numerous as the planet can support, and energy is our most pervasive demand, we know that what and how we waste, is, very often, the limiting factor to our use. 

So, as the sources of our current energy demand slide down the availability curve, and the disposal of their waste becomes more costly to civilization, the economics of the future require forward thinkers, not those with fond memories of coal fired trains. 

As costly as action may be, it is less costly than doing nothing. Which is magnificently unaffordable. 

Time for gentle but relentless pressure on the scientists of the world to move their attention to solutions. Some will never look up from their particle colliders and will benefit the 10th generation beyond us. But, first we have to provide for the next generation and the next. 

That requires action. Engineers and scientists and business people and politicians and consumers and builders of things all together. Fortunately, the people who made America great.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

Yeah --- Don't ya hate it when Sheldon and Leonard make fun of poor Wolowitz?? Even with his space credentials and a prestigious Engineering degree from MIT??


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Some people study sciences because they are relentlessly and insatiably curious. Some as the basis for solving mankind's problems and advancing our lives.
> 
> Clearly there are those that love the fact that every science revelation leads to another question and the goal of action can always be delayed by one more search for one more elusive bit of trivia.
> 
> ...



You keep saying "we" and given your previous claim of being a scientist I assume you include yourself specifically as one of the scientists. That being said, why don't "YOU" actually use the claimed scientific background and training/education, and actually make a clear and concise case rather than the vague generalities and subtle nuances implying you may know something? 

You cited Boltzmann inaccurately, or rather didn't cite it but used it and implied it was your own. When questioned on this you resort to a vague diatribe claiming we are unable to understand the intricacies.

Dude, seriously, make a clear statement already. If you're any kind of scientist you could do that..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Some people study sciences because they are relentlessly and insatiably curious. Some as the basis for solving mankind's problems and advancing our lives.
> ...



Why would you think that I, or anyone else here, would care in the least what you think? You haven't contributed anything. When, and if, you ever get over that hurdle, perhaps some attention will be afforded you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

We gonna engineer this. And we're gonna engineer that.. 

I been working hard as an engineer AND scientist.. Have I been slacking off and missing some secret formula for changing the energy landscape? Don't think so.. It's mostly all hype and very little dependable engineering.. If your idea of engineering is to stick me with a GWatt wind field that takes Tues and Thurs off ---- you're not gonna make a sale. 

Why am I even being drawn away from the topic? It's a clear diversion from a discussion you don't want to have. I've invested PLENTY in informing myself of the details of AGW.. You should do the same BEFORE you go off jousting at windmills.

 Eh Don Quixote????


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

The answer is, there isn't one. There never will be one. There are solutions. Many. Varied. Relentless progress. Nobody is waiting for some magic solution. We know that we have to go with what we know. 

Solar and wind and hydro are sustainable and waste free but not adequate. 

Oil will be the first fossil fuel that the world will run out of. And the one with the most uses other than to make carbon dioxide. And it's the one that we waste the most of. Who's in favor of creating AGW by burning oil for no benefit? We do. Tankers and tankers of it. 

How happy would you be if you ordered a 2 lb item and it arrived in 400 lbs of packaging material. Which you paid for the shipping of. Look at the packaging material in a typical mall parking lot. 

How much oil do you burn heating your brakes up? You'd be surprised. 

What is the impact of the new CAFE standards that President Obama put into effect in 2011? Are they the answer? No. Are they an answer? Certainly. Do they need new technology? Prius meets them today. 

We have to leave behind the stupidity that there is magic just around the corner. That doing nothing is, in any way, affordable. That we have time to waste. That we are entitled to what we have, and if we close our eyes tightly and click our heels together, that today will last forever. 

Remember what our westward pioneers went through for a sustainable life? Do we really expect someone to hand us one? 

My vote is to spread the inevitable cost out over many decades. Of course the alternative is to do nothing and make the change in a catastrophic way that will have a profound affect on all of our lives. (Except for the 1%). 

We can be very stupid about this and pay the price. Or we can be smart. We can be smart individually, and independently, or we can wait for government to have to tell us what we have to do. 

Doing nothing is not an option.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

Besides being totally irrelevent to the topic, your last 4 or 5 posts are about annoying as adding commercial to CSPAN.. But I hear retired engineers make great motivational speakers. It's a great part time gig and doesn't require a lot of calculus..

BTW: THe government THINKS it's smart enough to pick winners and losers. It's obviously not as Obama has deftly illustrated.. I dont wait for government for ANY reason. But your only hope for pushing "Hope and Change" as a warm fuzzy object, is to keep reading the NYTimes and thinking you understand all the solutions  --- even when you don't have a CLUE as to the problem. AND HOPING that leftist rabble selling "sustainable" solutions beats the real realities of keeping the lights on.  OR -- hijacking the power of govt to make it so...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

Hey dude.. You need a list of cars with regenerative braking??


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Why respond to my posts then? LOL, you seem to like contradicting yourself. Kind of like when you speak in broad and general terms, and then claim we don't understand it..

You got any more misunderstood or or inaccurately portrayed calculations, equations, or variables you can pretend are your own again?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Besides being totally irrelevent to the topic, your last 4 or 5 posts are about annoying as adding commercial to CSPAN.. But I hear retired engineers make great motivational speakers. It's a great part time gig and doesn't require a lot of calculus..
> 
> BTW: THe government THINKS it's smart enough to pick winners and losers. It's obviously not as Obama has deftly illustrated.. I dont wait for government for ANY reason. But your only hope for pushing "Hope and Change" as a warm fuzzy object, is to keep reading the NYTimes and thinking you understand all the solutions  --- even when you don't have a CLUE as toT the problem. AND HOPING that leftist rabble selling "sustainable" solutions beats the real realities of keeping the lights on.  OR -- hijacking the power of govt to make it so...



This babble from the one who thought that the problem was the certain and precise quantification of AGW. 

It would appear that in the choice between "solution" and "obstacle" you chose the latter. That's up to you. My opinion is that what's left of the denyers won't be much of one. 

The only real debate left is what progress we, collectively, will volutarily take on vs what we will choose to require the government to require of us. 40 years ago I would have bet more on voluntary but today I'm pretty sure that we're not that responsible any more. Too many of us have been told that we are entitled to whatever we want to be true.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey dude.. You need a list of cars with regenerative braking??



I that it's more important for you to have the much longer list of cars without it.


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2013)

How many of these obvious fake scientists are we going to have to put up with?

Seriously don't you guys have anything else but the "I'm a scientist, really"?

Come on man, Ian's a mathematics expert or not depending on his mood, mamooth's a "nuke", Saigon's a journalist living in Finland but with a US IP, numan's a fake physicist, and now here you are a scientist who can't make a sensible argument and uses Boltzmann and implies it's his own work..

Damn man seems like everybody from your side on here is some kind of "expert" on this, but clearly cannot show it in conversation. Don't any of you have a normal job? Do any of you even have jobs? LOL, well I take the 2nd choice in that. You guys are obviously internet scientists and you seem to be the worst of the lot.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

It's fascinating that those most opposed to government regulation are most apt to need it to act responsibly.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Besides being totally irrelevent to the topic, your last 4 or 5 posts are about annoying as adding commercial to CSPAN.. But I hear retired engineers make great motivational speakers. It's a great part time gig and doesn't require a lot of calculus..
> ...



I'm over in a battery thread lobbying for a switch from batteries and supersized grid on steroids that we can't afford ---- to a much more elegant solution of hydrogen manufactured from renewables powering easily refueled fuel cells.. Whatcha doing to be responsible? Beside supplying annoying commentary on "collective responsibility" and "those youngins sure is spoiled"???


----------



## PMZ (Jun 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I have a good friend who spent his entire career engineering for fuel cells. He claims that the technology is entirely too fussy to ever be prime time.

Also, who told you that a hydrogen manufacturing and distribution system would be less expensive than electrical distribution?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Take the gum out and try to follow along.. 

First of all -- I wouldn't characterize an electrical power generation that got us to moon and back 5 times in the EARLY 70s as fussy.. Fuel cells running on NAT GAS are now a commodity item. And MANY of the automakers are creating alliances with fuel cell companies and ditching their chargeable EV plans. I can amply back up that statement. Its a fairly recent trend (2 years) that hasn't managed to attract much press attention, but the Koreans are UNIFORMLY betting the farm that this solves nearly ALL of the consumer objections to battery cars. Range, charging time, overall environmental cleanness, waste stream management, cost of home charging infrastructure, ect ect. 

I'm betting the farm on them as well because from an engineering p.o.v it's the only hope for large realistic use of renewables like wind and solar. The downside to these has always been unreliable levels of output and the need for buffering. 

If you build plants in Nevada with massive close circuit solar and/or wind to MAKE hydrogen, than the FUEL BECOMES THE STORAGE MEDIUM and you can afford to "average production over day and night, wind and no wind. 

Here's the part where you really need to concentrate OK PMZ?

Why would a hydrogen manufacturing structure be less expensive than nearly DOUBLING the size of existing power grid and generation you ask.. Well it SHOULD be obvious, but the answer is Private Enterprise will build those "off-line" plants in a few locations and PAY for the investment with the product they sell. 

Doubling the generation capacity and transmission of electricity to every podunk god-forsaken corner of the continent is a FOOLS ERRAND. And involves massive inflow of revenues from taxpayers, ratepayers and govt. Not to mention the enviro impact of all those new generators and transmission lines. Or the infinite pile of compliance, licensing, and regulatory burdens attached to adding such massive capacity.

It's really a no-brainer. Surprised if the engineer in you (whatever % it is) doesn't recognize the OVERWHELMING DESIGN and COST advantages of a hydrogen transportation sector.



> Hyundai to introduce world's first production fuel-cell electric vehicle - San Jose Mercury News
> 
> Posted:   09/25/2012 0153 PM PDT
> September 25, 2012 8:29 PM GMTUpdated:   09/25/2012 01:29:31 PM PDT
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 7, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I, personally, would like to wipe the slate clean on our auto culture. We can't afford our traditional expectations. 

IMO, ultimately plug in hybrid will become the standard. With choice of bigger batteries or recharging IC/generator. Electric infrastructure much in place and safe. Many different sources. There's much capacity available at night. 

I'm also hoping for the success of the wheel motor. A standard from a few global manufacturers for all cars. 1,2, 3, or 4 per car depending on size. 

We need to move from the car as a sex symbol and get real.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Sex symbol?  That fits for a supercar, but for the rest of them they are the modern old work horse.  And, thanks to the automobile, people actually travel more than 5 miles from their home so actually know that the guys in the next country are pretty much like them.

Wars are generated by hatred and myth.  Travel has removed the myth, and the hatred is coming along.  The only ones who exhibit hatred on a grand scale are the terrorists, enviro wacko's, and the luddites like you.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What is the impact of the new CAFE standards that President Obama put into effect in 2011? Are they the answer? No. Are they an answer? Certainly. Do they need new technology? Prius meets them today.



The primary impact?  To cause even more deaths, injuries, and needless suffering than the old CAFE standards caused due to failing structural integrity in cars built to save gas rather than to save their occupants in collisions.

The old belief in peak oil is getting weaker and weaker as more and more reserves are being found...many in places where oil simply shouldn't be.  The idea that hydrocarbons are manufactured deep in the earth and moved towards the surface rather than being the result of organic decay is gaining more respect in spite of attempts to keep the peak oil hysteria (and monetary advantage that comes with it) alive.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Here's the part where you really need to concentrate OK PMZ?
> 
> Why would a hydrogen manufacturing structure be less expensive than nearly DOUBLING the size of existing power grid and generation you ask.. Well it SHOULD be obvious, but the answer is Private Enterprise will build those "off-line" plants in a few locations and PAY for the investment with the product they sell.



Collectivists never fail to misunderstand, and miss the boat on that point.  New technology only goes outside the lab and into general use when there is a genuine profit incentive and private money makes it happen.  Government, as you pointed out has an absolutely miserable record of picking winners and losers over the long term.  The market decides who wins and who loses and till collectivists understand that, their long and dismal track record of abject failure will continue.  

They should take a lesson from China..the market is the sure bet, not the highly questionable wisdom of dried up old musty bureucrats.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Sex symbol?  That fits for a supercar, but for the rest of them they are the modern old work horse.  And, thanks to the automobile, people actually travel more than 5 miles from their home so actually know that the guys in the next country are pretty much like them.



These people like to imagine us living on top of each other in great towers in centrally located areas.  Personally, that sounds like prison to me.  I like not having a neighbor in any direction for a quarter of a mile and would increase that distance to a mile if I could afford it.  When I go outside I want to see the sky and personally, enjoy setting up my telescope and looking at the stars at night sans overwhelming light pollution.

Never mind the fact that the living arrangements the anti car crowd's dream would require would make literal slaves out of every one of us.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sex symbol?  That fits for a supercar, but for the rest of them they are the modern old work horse.  And, thanks to the automobile, people actually travel more than 5 miles from their home so actually know that the guys in the next country are pretty much like them.
> ...



I imagine that your neighbors are of the same mind as you are. That you are too close to them. 

However, the world population passed the size that would allow what you want, 100 years ago.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The old belief in peak oil is getting weaker and weaker as more and more reserves are being found...many in places where oil simply shouldn't be.  The idea that hydrocarbons are manufactured deep in the earth and moved towards the surface rather than being the result of organic decay is gaining more respect in spite of attempts to keep the peak oil hysteria (and monetary advantage that comes with it) alive.



It's funny, the sheer number of conspiracy theories that some denialists embrace. Even if they're as crazy as the abiotic oil theory. So what if nobody has found any of that abiotic oil which is supposedly present in near-infinite quantities? A lack of evidence is no impediment to the true believer.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 8, 2013)

While it is true that policy that works for a village is not always  practical for the city. . . .

What works for a single city is not always practical for the whole state. . . .

What works in one state is not always practical in others. . . .

What works for one small, cohesive, compact country is not always practical for a much larger, more diverse, more spread out, much more heavily populated country. . . 

And because it is true that people in all of recorded history, and no doubt prior to that, have gotten some things right and have gotten some things wrong, there is no reason to believe that humans of our time are not getting some things right and some things wrong. . .

There is ever reason to be cautious about what we do and not know re the environment, climate change, and what affects it.

And if we learn nothing at all in our lifetime,  no matter what it is, when we don't know what we are doing, doing nothing is almost ALWAYS better than doing something badly that cannot then be undone.   And when it is something that impacts the freedom, livelihood, choices, and opportunities of billions of people, doing nothing is far far better than making something permanently worse.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



The entire world population could fit into Texas and New Mexico with a population density less than that of San Francisco.  We have plenty of room.  We just need more freedom for natural human ingenuity to develop resources to accommodate the needs that humankind will have.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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




With all the saguaro cactus you can eat, grown right on your own private 1600 square feet of Chihuahuan desert cactus farm.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level.   But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious.  And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space.   I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water.  Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible.    But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all.  Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health.  Government rarely gets it done.  But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between  .07 to .5  hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person.  I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You do realize that people are starving in the world today don't you?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Like in Darfur on .2 acres of land?  Or in the Texas/New Mexico desert living on 1.2 acres and eating cactus?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What is the impact of the new CAFE standards that President Obama put into effect in 2011? Are they the answer? No. Are they an answer? Certainly. Do they need new technology? Prius meets them today.
> ...



Even if abiotic oil cannot be found or exploited, there are 400 QUADRILLION cubicft of Nat Gas trapped under the Arctic in the frozen form. If the earth is warming significantly and the feedback theories are correct --- we could save the planet by taking them out before they leech and powering fuel cells with them. The cleanest way to use Nat Gas with LESS GHGas power than the Methane would cause naturally leeching.

We owe it to our children to Drill Baby Drill before the big fuel air bomb ignites.. 


        400,000,000,000,000,000 cubicfeet baby.... and it's not very deep... Not to mention what's in the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You do understand that neither I nor anybody else is suggesting we move everybody to Texas and New Mexico?  That was an illustration to establish perspective only?  You do understand that don't you?

Without making much change at all, however, if we established free market conditions throughout the world so that people would be free to utilize the resources they control and make the most of them, the people of the world could feed themselves quite effectively.  Even getting rid of some of the more stupid policy like devoting 90 million acres of prime American farmland for corn for ethanol instead of food products to feed the hungry would help a great deal.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 9, 2013)

Fofyre -

Can you explain why you would use gas for electricity production and not for transport, given that cheap, clean and efficient technologies are available for electricity, but not for transport?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Of course. We were just being metophiric with the whole idea of 1000-1600 sg sq ft of cactus farm.   It would take way more than 1600 sq ft.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Ah, but much better to have people living on the cactus farm where nothing much of value grows to free up productive farmland to provide food for the people, yes?   Only a tiny percentage of people now have to produce their food where they live when the good farmland is utilized for maximum food production.

That is why I rail so much against the really stupid concepts designed to deal with global warming, even if global warming is happening and is reversible.  Ethanol won't reverse it but lessens food supplies and drives up costs.  To me that is foolish and counterproductive.  It would be practical only if there were not sufficient petroleum supplies to fuel our machines.  But we are nowhere near out of the much more effcient petroleum yet and, by the time we do have to transition to something different, I know human ingenuity will have figured something out far more efficient with fewer negative consequences than ethanol to replace it.

We already have government dictating what kind of automobiles we are going to be forced to make and what kind of automobiles it will be legal to drive.  We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make.  If we don't wake up soon, we are at risk of losing the free market system and the consequences will be far more devastating to our quality of life than what is likely cyclical changes in the climate.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Mostly because of their own doing either from being led by idiots or not being to sharp.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What's really at risk is your ability to live irresponsibly, and require of us to clean up after you.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 9, 2013)

Matthew said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The opinion that people choose starvation could only be expressed by someone who's never been hungry.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I trust myself to be responsible a hell of lot more than I trust government to be reponsible.  But as usual, the point I was making flew right over your head.  But that's your job isn't it?  To keep diverting from the point?  To derail the subject.  To make sure no constructive discussion happens?  Isn't that what you have been assigned to do here?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm talking about whole nations(I.e Hati, Congo, Central African republic, Chad, Sudan, etc) that don't seem to work to end that hunger. People like you give the man a fish and they don't care to learn.

Why not put a sheet of paper with instructions and seed into the next box of food?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make.*


What are you refering to exactly? *What specifies "what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make."?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I don't


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Matthew said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Have you ever actually tried to grow a substantial personal supply of food?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes,

Large gardens and I use to live on a farm(my family were fully capable of it).  So you're saying that these people shouldn't be expected to build a national food supply. Why the fuck haven't they?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make.*
> ...



Have you been living under a rock the last few years?

House Sub-committee Flushes Repeal of Low-Water Toilet Mandate
Congress Kills Light Bulb Ban - Sort Of - Forbes


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'm just ask you to be specific so I know what your vague and sweeping generalities are refering to.

So there is no lightbulb ban?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Vague and sweeping generalities?  Giving specific examples is vague and generalized?

If you had bothered to read the links I provided you, you would see that there is indeed a ban on manufacture of 100 watt incandescent bulbs.  The implementation has been temporarily delayed but it is still out there to be implemented.  And if you have followed the debates and commentary during all that legislation, if there is little resistance to the loss of that liberty/choice/option, we can expect much more of that kind of legislation in the future if the leftwingers gain control.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Just the existence of the lightbulb ban legislation -- stalled or not (i believe not) had FORCED stores and the supply chain to ASSUME a ban.. Haven't been to Lighting Aisle at Home Depot recently Itfitzme??? 

That change is NOT because those are better products and the public WANT them or NEED them.. It's because of over-hyped enviro "beliefs" driving public policy with the POWER to PUT them on the shelves..

Just to try to unlock your chains here -- if you've never heard the argument -- An incandescent light bulb is 100% efficient anytime you have the heat running in your building. Science fact -- that would be 4 to 7 months a year.. But you NEVER HEARD that in the Congress or the DOE or the EPA or the press frenzy over this issue -- didya?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Matthew said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



And what was the region like?  Weather, climate, water supply, soil conditions?  What other resources were available?  Fertilizer, insectisides, equipment?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I did read the links. *They make statements but provide no specific detail naming the law or regulation. *That requires serarching for any hint of a regulation or law that might ban toilets and lightbulbs.

I actually have other responsibilities beyond spending all my time following every congressional meeting, debate and internet comment about flush toilets and lightbulbs, then posting endlesz vague only to get all upset when someone asks for specific details.

Yes, the vague and sweeping generalities you posted BEFORE asked for details of what laws ban toilets and lightbulbs. *

What are you, like ten?


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



When free people and free markets solve issues, would there be any regulations, or would the free market find it's own solutions?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



FYI, Eskimos were feeding themselves in the harshest environment imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, desert dwellers were feeding themselves in some of the most desolate and inhospitable terrain imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind..

FYI, cliff dwellers were feeding themselves in terrain not well suited for any kind of serious farming  long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, prairie dwellers near no surface water of any kind were feeding themselves long before there were social programs or organized charity or the federal government paid much attention to them at all.

FYI, jungle dwellers were feeding themselves in wildly fluctuating conditions between drought and flood long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

In fact, it seems that many people managed pretty well without authoritarian government assuming responsibility for their 'welfare'.  And it seems that more and more authoritarian government decreases the people's ability to manage their own welfare as effectively.

As for those bills, us 'ten year olds' who do have time to read newspapers or watch evening newscasts or keep up with what government is doing to us were well aware of the legislation cited.  If I had thought the actual bill numbers of the legislation was pertinent to the point I was making--you know, that point that went sailing right over your head--I would have listed them.

But, you are apparently too busy to educate yourself and therefore are no doubt too busy to read the actual legislation, so I won't bother.

Do have a good day.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It is a favorite ploy of the left to equate resistance to UNNECESSARY regulation with no regulation at all.  There is a huge difference between those two things.

In order to function as a nation, as states, as local communities, we do need sufficient regulation to secure our unalienable rights which means we would be prevented by law from doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other.   But apart from that, the best government then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose to live them.

A free market within such a system will provide opportunity for prosperity for far more people than any government will or can do.  And the more prosperous people are, the more leisure and incentive they have to demand that the Earth they live on is properly cared for and that good stewardship is employed.

The poorer the people, the less they give a damn about anything other than their most basic needs for survival.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




Yes, now there is a goal to aspire to, the standard of living afforded by growing cropsmin the desert, the frozen wasteland of the arctic region, the desert of Texas and New Mexico, or the side of a cliff.

Funny how society has relied on centuries of free markets to improventhe standard of living beyond that.

You don't bother because you have no clue what the actual legislation is. *I mistakenly assumed that you actually knew what you were talking about.**Rather, when asked for the actual details so others can understand yout reasoning clearly, you just feign being terribly upset you are about the very idea that someone might have expect it of you.

And to think I actually thought you had a good point regarding the shear area of habitable land compared to the world population. *Still, without actually getting into the specific and real details, it remains nothing but a sweeping generality.

It was your concept.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Hmmm.  Hey guys.  Given that it is hard to believe different people could interpret things as our friend here has interpreted them, and given that he is using much of the exact same debate style as some of our other (cough) friends are consistently using, is it possible that the Siamese triplets have morphed into quadruplets?


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well that's a pretty good answer and I know that government can sure get ridiculous with regulations.  Still,  we had government regulations in place  for example when the BP disaster happened and also when the Exxon Valdez had its big spill.  What would a system   of government that you prefer have done to stop these types of environmental disasters?


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2013)

You guys seem to have gotten into the general idea behind the "green" or "sustainable" movement.

Okay but be warned those "warmers" will not like what they find when they go there. The fact is, the real truth behind the IPCC and the pushing of the AGW theory, is about limiting growth and stifling the potential development of the entire world. To ensure the lifestyle of a a relative few people survives...

They state this all too often in there little clubs, organizations and think tanks...

"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism. 
I don't think it is possible under capitalism" 
- Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First! 

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the 
industrialized civilizations collapse? 
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich, 
Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same 
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. 
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
- Professor Maurice King

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place 
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and 
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, 
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness 
millions of acres of presently settled land."
- David Foreman, 
co-founder of Earth First! 

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on 
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it."
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet."
- Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the 
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
doing too well economically and burning too much oil."
&#8211; Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it&#8217;s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world." 
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First! 

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class - involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
- Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



In-group/out-group thinking.

Sweeping generalization;



Foxfyre said:


> .. when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health."



Specific details;

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Ahhh yeah.. That great Energy Star program who's product is a label.. Yu do realize that Energy Star tax breaks is a large reason why GE and other appliance end up paying no taxes. You LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE???  To each his own.. 

And it's not like these low-tech EXISTING PRODUCTS couldn't compete in the market on the basis of energy efficiency WITHOUT the label is there? 

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Hmmm.  Hey guys.  Given that it is hard to believe different people could interpret things as our friend here has interpreted them, and given that he is using much of the exact same debate style as some of our other (cough) friends are consistently using, is it possible that the Siamese triplets have morphed into quadruplets?



Only cowardly liars fling accusations of "sock!" at everyone who tears apart their stupid arguments.

Fox has devolved into such a cowardly liar. Cowardly for using that tactic over and over, and liar for denying it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf
> ...



Uh...They do


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Then why do you point to "energy star" to make a point about the need to have GOVT do these things? As far as I can tell -- all the label does (that isn't done in the free market) is to make a company eligible for tax dodges doled out like candy...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 9, 2013)

I always buy 2 or 3 identical pair at time.. Works til the socks get old or you tire of them....

IMHO -- we are currently sock-free. But that hasn't been true in the past. It's just that they've all attended the 12 years of govt training camp and eat of the same political dumpsters..


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



It was the government ignoring/waiving their own NECESSARY regulations that resulted in the BP spill.  It was human carelessness and negligence that caused the Exxon Valdez spill and no manner of government regulation short of banning the transport of petroleum would have prevented it.  Both should bring such overwhelming consequences down upon the negligence--and heads should have rolled in government as well in the BP case--to generate a great deal of care in not having such accidents.

But as tragic and heart breaking as the consequences of those two accidents were, it does not justify punishing millions, even billions of people, and consigning them to crushing poverty or hardship, by removing all risk and freedom from the process..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 9, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Massey Mine disaster -- not too many years ago.. Inspectors shut it done MULTIPLE times. Always allowed it to resume. 12 people (?) killed. Those inspectors are culpable.. Probably been promoted and raised several times. The govt has a confused mission. THey are not there solely to police or assure safety. Their other mission is to PROMOTE that industry. Make it BIGGER. Like the USDA running ads for milk on TV -- It's ALL conflict of mission... 

But many folks who don't get this anti big govt thingy aren't understanding that there's always a huge conflict of interest and govt/corporate collusion goin on...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I always buy 2 or 3 identical pair at time.. Works til the socks get old or you tire of them....
> 
> IMHO -- we are currently sock-free. But that hasn't been true in the past. It's just that they've all attended the 12 years of govt training camp and eat of the same political dumpsters..



Yeah.  After doing some sleuthing I think you are right.  But geez, brain washing is a scary thing isn't it?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What do you think you are talking about. You indicated that UL doesn't. *As I worked as a manufacturing engineer, and bothered to actually google "Energy Star" and "UL", I corrected you. *What is that.. hmm...let me think.... oh, I know... you are wrong, talking out your assets.

Why did you bring up UL? *Oh, defending the inspecific sweeping generalization postings that *vaugely specific about flush toilets and lightbulbs.

Seeing as the poster bad no clue what the regulations and law are, I posted details that actually might fit

I never said the gov't needs to do anything. *I'm just trying to figure out what people think they are talking about.

It is all about the details.  Intelligence isn't in being able to use abstract words, it's about the details.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2013)

I don't think we are sock-free. I think the current brigade of clones has found away around the usual methods of detection. A proxy that isn't yet blacklisted most likely. 

IMHO, the similarities are too much when you realize just how many so-called different personas using the same MO and tactics we are seeing here now.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> I don't think we are sock-free. I think the current brigade of clones has found away around the usual methods of detection. A proxy that isn't yet blacklisted most likely.
> 
> IMHO, the similarities are too much when you realize just how many so-called different personas using the same MO and tactics we are seeing here now.



That's the way it looks to me too, but without proof, I think we have to give benefit of the doubt.  I don't want to be accused of being anybody's sock and have already sorta pushed that envelope too much for my own tastes.  So without proof, we could be really unfair and unkind with that kind of accusation.

But for sure there's nothing wrong with noting that they must have been separated at birth and all work from the same assigned talking points.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 9, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Good question.  One that actually promotes the free market instead of ologoploies would be a good start.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Here's what you're wrestling with. There is only one truth. So, people who tell the truth, all have the same story. When a group of people tell different stories they are probably mostly made up. 

However there is still one bit of confusion. Sometimes a group of people tell the same story, but it's provably wrong. Then they are probably retelling from a common source who's telling them the same lies. 

I call those people Dittoheads.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2013)

ItFitzme:

My sentence;;



> *Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?
> *



Is not an observation that UL doesn't do Energy Efficiency certs. Never indicated that UL doesn't. I design electronic products for people.. I take their designs to UL for them.. 

My phrase is literally a question.. As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace. The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert.. 

How it all came began with what I THOUGHT was you making those links to SUPPORT Govt programs that you loved and needed. Calm down.. Let's try something else..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> However, the world population passed the size that would allow what you want, 100 years ago.



You are deluded.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> It's funny, the sheer number of conspiracy theories that some denialists embrace. Even if they're as crazy as the abiotic oil theory. So what if nobody has found any of that abiotic oil which is supposedly present in near-infinite quantities? A lack of evidence is no impediment to the true believer.



Russians have been drilling it for decades.  I am afraid that you are the victim of the peak oil myth.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

Clearly he is willing to accept what Rush and Rupert tell him to think, without question. Given that he has to accept what they say as right, he is equally obligated to believe that everything contrary is wrong. 

The perfect dittohead. 

I suppose every culture has to put up with a certain percentage of equally cognitively limited lemmings. 

Democracy is what keeps them powerless over the long term. To stay relevant in a democracy ideas have to demonstrate results. Not just failure. 

We gave conservatism a fair chance to perform. It failed us spectacularly. Only a fool would not abandon ideas with that track record.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2013)

OK -- Now I deeply regret ever even CONSIDERING giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives here on an Environment board.. You DO fit the mold perfectly...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2013)

This might be the 1st science/enviro thread thrown into the Flame Zone since that wacky sock with the vulgar mouth was here..


----------



## Coyote (Jun 10, 2013)

*Several off topic/derailing posts have been removed from this thread - if your post is not here, that means you need to take that particular discussion to another area like the Flame Zone rather than derail this thread.

Thanks *


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> ItFitzme:
> 
> My sentence;;
> 
> ...



Then you know what "self certification" is and that under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product. So when you say



> *Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?
> *



as a question, my answer is



> *They do?
> *



is literally an answer. *In fact, I put a question mark after it because I really was a bit confounded as to why you even asked.

So I apologize if I didn't catch your meaning. *But, I can only go on what you specifically write.

Perhaps you should calm down a bit and present your points more clearly as you do with;



> *As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace.
> *



Calming down also helps in being clear on the context of someone's presentation of just specific facts, details, like



> http://www.energystar.gov/ia/product...L_4-11_EPA.pdf
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...-110hr6enr.pdf



because you take the time to read the previous posts that give it context. That way you don't go using the second person pronoun as in;



> *You* LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE??? To each his own..



based on;



> *How it all came began with what I THOUGHT
> *



I would think, as an engineer, you would recognize the importance of being specific about the details.

I do understand, as an enginner, you have spent alot of time focused on things. So let me give you a hint.*

When you say things like;



> *Calm down..*



it actually just pisses people off. Not me... but it's pretty common knowledge that it's a common reaction. It's so common that a comedian had her audience in stitches over it. (It especially pisses off women. Never say it to a women.)

And when you move the focus to the person, away from the object, by using the second person pronoun "you", followed by a statement that describes them, what you will get back is a defensive response. *The cause isn't that they were not calm. The cause is what preceeded, YOU using the word "YOU".

But, back to your point that



> The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..



You don't suppose that the idea is that the gov't discovered they were burning a s$&t load of energy with all these electrical and electronic devices that are always powered up, do you? I know some folks, quite conservative, that started unplugging all their appliances when not in use.*

They buy energy efficient appliances. Do you suppose, lacking some sort of certification, a sanctioned sticker like "Intel Inside", or "Energy Star" that some companies would cheat like they have with "Organic" and "Lite"?

Surely, as a designer, you understand that power is expensive and it adds up. *All those idle computers sitting on gov't workers desks must have been costing the tax payer a lot of money.

Surely cheeting isn't exclusive to just govt legislators. *Businesses cheat, private individuals cheat. *Why have safety regs? *Why have FCC regs? FDA regs? *Why not just let the market work all those out?

Or do you think the process was;

1) GE wanted tax benifits.
2) GE said, "we have a plan".
3) GE went to Fed regulators and said, *"If you give us a tax break, we'll design energy efficient devices."
4) Legislators thought, "Yeah, if we do this, it'll fool the public into thinking were working on their behalf and we will also get awesome contributioms from GE."
?

I'm just askin'. *I'm not implying I think it's one or the other. *

Problem is, the economy runs on money. *It's correlated with everything. *It buys political advertisements. *It funds campaigns. *Companies use it to buy supplies, labor, and equipment. *Everyone uses it to buy food. *It functions as an incentive. *It functions as a disincentive. *It is in all aspects of public, private and commercial life so it doesn't work as an indicator of any specific motivation.

For every change in $, there are costs and benefits. *For every alternative program, there are multiple costs qnd benefits. *It is foolish to look at just the benefit of one alternetive and then reach a conclusion. *It is all about the details and it is about all the details.

I was asking the previous poster to be specific. *S/he seemed to known what s/he was talking about. *Lacking that, I had to make my best guess as to what the exact details were, so I posted them.*

Is it a requirement? Or is it an incentive? *Is the government forcing the manufacturers to only manufacture CFLs? *Is it even really for the private market or is it actually motivated by the govt wanting its facilities to have and use them? *Is there a large public benefit to the gov saving energy dollars? *Is it motivated by the concept of the tragedy of the commons?

After all, if in the market place, selfish interests and pursuits benefit the many, why should it be any different in the competition betwee government, commercial, and consumer interests? *Just a thought.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ItFitzme:
> ...



The bolded part above...

*under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product.*

Not entirely accurate.. Anything operating at frequencies higher than 9khz requires FCC verification testing. Meaning you test it if you want but they have to confirm it somehow and you get a certificate of compliance which you must keep on file. And the product must have the phrase "This product complies with FCC requirements for a Class B device..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

As you can tell, I'm big on independent thinkers who can support what they believe. Parrots need not apply. I've never met an independent thinker who denied the simple science of greenhouse gasses. So, I figure that wishing that some other science might trump greenhouse gas science is, to me, inexplicable, except as a cult thing. Sort of like people who might wish that the law of gravitational attraction would be repealed so that they wouldn't fall on their face so often. Keep wishing, but, the real world will leave you behind.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

BTW, my motives here are simple. Teach and learn. I have never met anyone in my life that I couldn't do both with, if their minds were open. On the other hand, I've never met a closed minded individual with anything worth learning from.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> The bolded part above...
> 
> *under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product.*
> 
> Not entirely accurate.. Anything operating at frequencies higher than 9khz requires FCC verification testing. Meaning you test it if you want but they have to confirm it somehow and you get a certificate of compliance which you must keep on file. And the product must have the phrase "This product complies with FCC requirements for a Class B device..



Yeah, but that is really self-certification in the sense that the FCC doesn't review the results or issue the certificates. You probably know that many big companies do the measuring in house.. Same with RoHS lead - free certification. Even if you don't have a clue what you're doing -- you can self-certify..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ItFitzme:
> ...



I think that it's important to keep in mind that there is no such organization as "business". Business is a very large number of independent organizations all operating under the same principle of, make more money regardless of the cost to others. 

However, there is only one federal government that exists in our democracy at the pleasure of a majority of us. When businesses, operating to maximize their individual profit, do something that is contrary to the interests of we, the people, we impose our wishes on them through our government. 

It's a useful, but oversimplification, that, in a democracy, each of us is happy slightly over half of the time. On the average. 

But, under tyranny, the only alternative to democracy, the minority ruling class, is happy all of the time, the ruled never get their way.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > ItFitzme:
> ...



As to the misunderstanding. It's a very weird practice to toss random links on the table to support the OTHER SIDE of the argument. I went with the odds.. 

And to be brief (for once).. 

1) Yes I doubt the Govt ability and motives to move energy policy with silly programs like Energy Star. As witnessed by the $Mill ad campaigns to get people to pull 1W chargers out of the wall when in another room, they are spending $BILLs on Electric vehicles which could EASILY add 50% or more to grid demand. Or in the complete lack of science in persecuting incandescent bulbs which are 100% energy efficient whenever the HVAC system is heating a room. That's 4 to 7 months a year, that doesn't EVER show up their calculations.. 

2) No company should EVER recieve tax breaks for crap which is an EXISTING commodity item on the market.. My heart aches at allowing the Feds to blow money on even TRUE R&D, but I'd rather see it go there.

3) I DO believe in that GE scenario and you should too given that Obama's "hi-tech jobs liason is currently their CEO.. Or did you forget that? Not to mention the mileage they get from happy baby elephant commercials dancing in the forest. Green as a tree frog they WERE. THEY know that gig is up..

4) Yu seem to be a huge cheerleader for NEGAWATT generation.. That's the "Let's make energy RARE and EXPENSIVE" crowd by conserving ourselves into the dark. Rather than my buds in the market who want energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.. Do I suspect some dark baggage motivates that? You bet I do.. ((After sitting in SFO airport frantically waving my hands to keep the lights on while I read, I hate you guys))\


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> The bolded part above...
> 
> *under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product.*
> 
> Not entirely accurate.. Anything operating at frequencies higher than 9khz requires FCC verification testing. Meaning you test it if you want but they have to confirm it somehow and you get a certificate of compliance which you must keep on file. And the product must have the phrase "This product complies with FCC requirements for a Class B device..


Okay, your the expert.

*"self test/cert" v "UL test/cert*" v what? *EPA test/cert? *FCC test/cert? *"Tested by", "certified by", "carries the Certificate of"....

I get it, energy certification could be part of UL,CE whatever specs.

UL, FCC, EnergyStar, Intel Inside, they are signals to the consumed is as much as a message from the manufacturer, and other things. *

Wouldn't it be more fun to talk about the marketing guy that wanted to change "this device *may not* cause harmful interference ..." because the way he read it, it meant "*it may not, it may, it probably will... *"... *It took me a while to wrap my head around it.

My original point was, toilets, lightbulbs...



> http://www.energystar.gov/ia/product...L_4-11_EPA.pdf
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...-110hr6enr.pdf



The real questions for meare;  is EnergyStar is required... *Will it be? Does the economic benefit outweigh the economic cost?

I'm still waiting for someone to produce this toilet law.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 10, 2013)

Low flush toilets

Low-flush toilet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6enr.pdf

http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/epa.pdf

Wiki has pros and cons. In this case, it appears to be required.  I'm not surprised as we do experience droughts, often severe. Water is a precious resource.

It is a tragedy of the commons problem.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

Someone has to act responsibly towards our limited resources. Conservatives believe that it should be others. Responsible people believe that it should be everyone.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Someone has to act responsibly towards our limited resources. Conservatives believe that it should be others. Responsible people believe that it should be everyone.



How valuable did you really think that post was??


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"Yes I doubt the Govt ability and motives to move energy policy with silly programs like Energy Star"

You would think that when making a comment like this that's completely contrary to common sense, you'd offer some evidence. Maybe you could offer the most compelling of the evidence that the media gave you when they told you to think this way.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

[MENTION][/MENTION]





flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Someone has to act responsibly towards our limited resources. Conservatives believe that it should be others. Responsible people believe that it should be everyone.
> ...



Like most of my posts, it was only valuable to the open minded.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Low flush toilets
> 
> Low-flush toilet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Glad you're so diligient. That's admirable. But it's not a tragedy of the commons. It's a Travesty of reason.  Its a suspendtion of common sense and analysis.. When people have to have plungers sitting in their bathroom and have to flush 2 or 5 times instead of once --- it's an overreach of Biblical proportions for the sake of religious fervor from the eco-left..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Low flush toilets
> 
> Low-flush toilet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



What would motivate a toilet manufacturer to figure out how to flush better with 1.28 gal than 3.5 gallons? The answer is, nothing. Yet they did. What would motivate car manufacturers to reduce the complete wasting of half of the fuel cars consume? Yet they did. 

Was it the marketplace? Or was it government responsible to all of the people, now and future, or was it conservatives?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 10, 2013)

Why would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.

Put another way, why do the denialists doubt the ability of the free market to come up with solutions? With every gas mileage increase mandate, the same crowd says it's impossible to increase mileage like that. And yet every time, those increased mileage standards are met.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Someone has to act responsibly towards our limited resources. Conservatives believe that it should be others. Responsible people believe that it should be everyone.
> ...


What's your thoughts on traffic regs?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Low Flush Toilets
> ...



Well, actually it is a *"tragedy of the commons"* problem.

But then, we've already established that you go "with the odds" just to start an argument.

The forum suffers from a tragedy of the commons as well.

As for me, nothing admirable about it. It's fact checking cuz I don't talk s$&t like some folk.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Why would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.
> 
> Put another way, why do the denialists doubt the ability of the free market to come up with solutions? With every gas mileage increase mandate, the same crowd says it's impossible to increase mileage like that. And yet every time, those increased mileage standards are met.



Drunk drivers.


----------



## numan (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.
> ...


An intrusive, militarized police state, and massive amounts of propaganda and brainwashing can easily solve the problem of drunk drivers.
.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Low flush toilets
> ...



Seat belts, airbags.

The mfgs of vans use to spray asfault inside the van walls, floor, ceiling.  The desgner, telling the story, laughed at how they just didn't care about the weight and fuel milage.

I recently had someone warn me about local street that is a "speed trap", as they said.  When I drove down the street, I realized that to them, getting a speeding ticket while going by an elementary school above the clearly posted speed limit made it a "speed trap".  

Funny how people that don't speed, don't complain or even notice.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Why would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.
> 
> Put another way, why do the denialists doubt the ability of the free market to come up with solutions? With every gas mileage increase mandate, the same crowd says it's impossible to increase mileage like that. And yet every time, those increased mileage standards are met.



I don't know anybody who doubts that engineers are able to come up with solutions. Before they do though there has to be a reason for them to. That doesn't come from the marketplace. Only features that advantage one competitor over the others come from market forces. Advantages for everyone have to be demanded by government. 

That's how capitalism works.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Laws only impact those irresponsible enough to break them.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 10, 2013)

numan said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Huge progress has been made on the problem of drunk drivers. You'll never know if among the lives that have been saved are you and yours.


----------



## gslack (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > The bolded part above...
> ...



The FCC faq's on it..

Federal Communications Commission FAQ

That is the official policy. As to any companies or manufacturers "cooking the books" or falsifying anything it's on them, but the penalties would be severe for a willful act..  

From the faq's



> Why do I have to do to comply?
> The FCC requires that any product that is covered by FCC regulations undergo "equipment authorization procedure". It is illegal to import, sell, or lease covered equipment that has not undergone the required equipment authorization procedure. Additionally, operators must cease to use equipment that causes interference upon notification by the FCC. The FCC does have the ability to levy fines, impose seizures, and even jail offenders. The FCC frequently targets end-users with fines to bring pressure to bear on retailers.
> Has there been enforcement?
> Yes. There are cases of fines, forfeiture, and other actions for non-compliant equipment, labeling, or other violations. You can read FCC releases from its enforcement bureau at EB - Equipment Marketing Violations.



Of course it doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen, but I feel it would be in the company or manufacturers best interest to comply for their own sake. A person who gets a brain tumor or ailment a doctor feels caused by a device, and then finds that device does not comply with FCC regulations or anything, and they are suddenly not only breaking the law but potentially putting consumers in undue risk. And we know how a bad rap can be for a manufacturer. And then there is the fact by being not in compliance with FCC regulations they are then 100% liable for any prospective lawsuits by consumers, advocacy groups, civil suit firms and so on..

It would be a terrible business decision no matter the potential gains.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.
> ...




Wholly CrapPile.. You are obviously not an engineer OR a Capitalist.. "That reason doesn't come from the marketplace" >>>>> REALLY?? Am I suppose to pitch my idea to some slimy Congressman for HIS APPROVAL??? THe Capital for my idea is not WON in the Private sector? Son -- you've never been in the same world as innovation.. 

Nawww -=- NOBODY would develop green shit without the govt FORCING THEM TO.. 

Moron....


----------



## SSDD (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Wholly CrapPile.. You are obviously not an engineer OR a Capitalist.. "That reason doesn't come from the marketplace" >>>>> REALLY?? Am I suppose to pitch my idea to some slimy Congressman for HIS APPROVAL??? THe Capital for my idea is not WON in the Private sector.. Son -- you've never been in the same world as innovation..
> 
> Nawww -=- NOBODY would develop green shit without the govt FORCING THEM TO..
> 
> Moron....



That guy really doesn't have a clue as to what capitalism or the market place is does he?  I can't think of many products that the government has funded that were worth the time it took to design and manufacture them.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Your mind has been so bent by your media addiction, that you've gone from, probably, useless to progress, to counter to it. I wonder if you've ever heard the phrase government of, by, and for, the people? I wonder if you've ever left your hometown, and experienced other places? I wonder when the last time a new, independent thought creeped into your brain, probably by accident?

Government has saved my life twice. Once by insisting that seat belts be in all cars, the other by putting in place all of the workings of a rapid response health care system that restored my heart to beating when my immune system failed me. 

Are you so brain dead as to fall for, make more money regardless of the cost to others, is the only thing that drives progress?

Did you even go to fifth grade?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wholly CrapPile.. You are obviously not an engineer OR a Capitalist.. "That reason doesn't come from the marketplace" >>>>> REALLY?? Am I suppose to pitch my idea to some slimy Congressman for HIS APPROVAL??? THe Capital for my idea is not WON in the Private sector.. Son -- you've never been in the same world as innovation..
> ...



The fact that you think that the government is, or should be, in the "design and manufacture(ing)" business disqualifies you from further thinking.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> 4) *Yu seem to be a huge cheerleader for NEGAWATT generation..* That's the "Let's make energy RARE and EXPENSIVE" crowd by conserving ourselves into the dark. *Rather than my buds* in the market who want energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.. *Do I suspect some dark baggage motivates that? You bet I do..* ((After sitting in SFO airport frantically waving my hands to keep the lights on while I read, I hate you guys))\



This is what is called "ingroup/outgroup thinking", "transferance" and "projection".**I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other. *

The transferance part is where you transfer your feelings of some previous nemisis onto another. *i.e. "Yu seem to be a huge cheerleader for NEGAWATT generation."

The projection is where you project your own attributes onto another as in, "Do I suspect some dark baggage motivates that?

"Rather than my buds" is the*ingroup/outgroup thinking.

There is no opporunity here for an actual intelligent conversation of pros and cons.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Nasa.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

Probably the most profound harbinger of progress is specialization. In the cave days, everybody had to know, and do, everything. Progress began when we broke that model, and further specialization has been the mark of progress since then. 

Until the force of media conservatism started its relentless drive towards reversing progress. How and why? By telling those addicted to it that they have the right and ability to know everything. This taught by media moguls who, in fact, know next to nothing about anything. 

There are numerous examples.

One is economics. The talking heads tell the educationally disadvantaged that they instinctively know, with no effort on their part, macroeconomics. And therefore they can claim that demand side economics is bogus, and supply side is all that needs to be known. Therefore giving tax breaks to the wealthy, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, like our massive national debt, are to be ignored. Those tax cuts will pay for themselves, thank you very much Presidents Reagan and Bush. 

Another is sustainable energy. Taught by big oil. The fairies are making more oil as we speak. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere used to behave badly, but now is benign. Your manhood is proportional to the size of your truck X the excess HP under your hood.

The list is endless. The proof, as they used to say, is in the pudding. The practice of what they preach has cost America generations of progress.

Yet they continue. Any law that requires typing on more than 5 pages is bogus. The solution to gun deaths of prodigious proportions is, of course, more guns. The man on the street knows more about Constitutional law than those who've spent their lives studying it. Poverty is caused by people who choose it. The government has an employment knob which they dial up and down on whim. Our future requires Christianity to defeat Islam. Freedom of religion comes from the government supporting Christianity. 

And the bobble heads bow to their media controllers and, on command, try to throw the most successful country ever under the bus, in the service of the wealthy. 

Ignorance is, and always will be, the consequence of limited education. Getting educated takes time and work. We each can only know what we make that investment in, and have to rely on others for the rest. The orchestration of that is a necessary function of organizations. Business, government, education, the press, etc. 

Business organizations optimize only locally, their business, and the only measure they use is profit. 

Government organizes the big picture, and does it in a democracy, in ways that please the majority. 

Both operate within their specialty. Both are required. Business requires good government, and government requires good business, and both have demonstrably declined under conservative thinking. 

And we, the people have become more educated about that.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



Good thought. Wish that I had thought it. One of the highest return government programs ever was Kennedy's race to the moon. A masterful stroke of politics. The technology that was developed for that program allowed American businesses a great leap forward for a whole generation.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's not manufacturing. *I'm thinking more investment, paricularly high risk/high capital investment. *

International highway system, funding basic research, Hubble telescope, transcontinental railroad, US postal service, The Great Pyramids, that sort of thing. *


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The proof, as they used to say, is in the pudding.*



I still say that.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I have the impression that legitimate business leaders understand and support the partnership between government and business that has made America great. Of course their necessary alligiance to, make more money regardless of the cost to others, still requires them to whine about regulations that impact them, but good leaders understand that regulations typically impact both them and their competitors, so are not a competitive disadvantage. 

Our problem really comes from substandard business owners who think that they are entitled to business success at our expense.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ...
> Until the force of media conservatism started its relentless drive towards reversing progress....
> 
> .... Your manhood is proportional to the size of your truck X the excess HP under your hood.
> ...



Well, a big thrust of it was the marketing of WWII. *Remember "Uncle Sam Need You"?

In the '60 there was a bit of a backlash*

Then as the consumer economy took hold, marketing got good at selling people what they would buy. *What is really awesome is how simple and effective advertising is in attaching a basic feeling to a completely unrelated object. *You can't get them to believe that s$@t smells good, but you get them to feel like their last visit to McDonalds was a happy fun event.

With the invention of newsertainment, the new media started telling people what they wanted to hear.

The majority of people don't want to hear they are wrong. *They want to hear they are right. And they sure don't want "complicated". Not being sure is uncomfortable. *Actual thinking is grueling and time consuming. *Math actually causes many people real pain.

** So the news media has sorted itself into a spectrum, from NPR to Fox, each pandering to their audiences, each telling their audience what they already know is true. *It's "common sense". *It's "intuitive".


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



They are part of creating those regulations, at least the big companies are. *Congressional commitees try to make as many as they can part of the process. Given the restriction of either accounting for one big company or a thousand small ones, I'm sure they pick the big one.

Engineering and manufacturing standardization has always been a semi-cooperative struggle. *Everyone whines about things in the beginning, especially as it is being written. *The whining gets lost in the annals of time. *Eventually, no one gives a second thought to nuts and screws all fitting together.

**Some most recent standards are for communications, like JPEG image compression. *The big market players, like Sony, are on the panel that designs the spec.*

*They do it so that the market is more efficient, they reduce costs, increase quality, increase availabiliy of components, increase adaptability, and in the end, increase sales. *Increased sales is increased consumer satisfaction. *Their market power and resources get them on the panel. *Being on the panel gets them more of what they want. And they known that they see far more sales when a Toshiba DVD player fits a Sony TV then if consumers had to buy matching components.

Standardization then opens up opportunities for small businesses like small manufacturing facilities that can design and produce their own applications without having to design every part. *

The internet protocols was a joint effort between Congress and private industry. *And small manufacturing saw huge gains in ease of procurement.

The Federal Reserve is the result of gov't and the private banks. *(The money supply, by the way, is a common good. Monetary problems are a tragedy of the commons. The paradox of thrift is a tragedy of commons.)

Genentek is a spinoff of university research. Genentek is a huge supporter of the statistics department at UC East Bay. UC East Bay is part of the California University System.

The ACA was a joint effort between insurance, healthcare providers and the gov't.

Apparently we will see private industry spinoffs in the space program. Obviously, the space station is a laboratory for basic research experiments for universities and private industry. The logistic support is being taken up by private partners. Nasa is now moving focus away from Earth orbit to L2, Lagrange Point 2, a gravitational neutral spot beyond the moons orbit.

Fishing companies support fishing regulations. *

Low flush toilets piss off owners with shitty pipes. *New building owners love them. I live in a place with a regular toilet and it still clogs. Then again, I'm like Curly from City Slickers, I crap bigger than anyone else.

I'm sure we could get a substantial thread out of just detailing the symbiotic relationships between*gov't, commerce, universities, and consumers.

It's all in the "and", not in the "or". *It's ying AND yang. *The Chinese philosophers figured this out before Christ was even born.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Now if we can just solve driving under the influence of stupidity.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



In 1920, America finally completed its long road to full democracy. The Constitution finally recognized that all citizens had the right and duty to participate in government of, by, and for the people. The duty included the obligation to be an informed electorate. 

Ever since then media advertising to misinform the electorate in order to get we the people to support things against our collective interests has been gaining influence. Today it is still gaining on the natural advantages of democracy as an egalitarian decision making methodology that is the basis, along with our Constitution, of our freedom. 

Advertising signaled the end of free commercial markets and could be the end of democracy as well. The ultimate free market. It certainly requires the continued advancement of critical thinking skills to maintain freedom. 

So, our freedom is the stakes in a race between education, to insure that the electorate is objectively informed, and skilled in critical thinking, vs advertising to create the opposite. 

It will be an interesting race with the highest stakes imaginable.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > 4) *Yu seem to be a huge cheerleader for NEGAWATT generation..* That's the "Let's make energy RARE and EXPENSIVE" crowd by conserving ourselves into the dark. *Rather than my buds* in the market who want energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.. *Do I suspect some dark baggage motivates that? You bet I do..* ((After sitting in SFO airport frantically waving my hands to keep the lights on while I read, I hate you guys))\
> ...



Gee Doc -- I feel much better now.. I'll never again take comments about "removing their electric appliances from the wall when not in use" to devine that you are a NegaWatter. 
Not that it was you, but some "Conservative" friends..   

Somehow -- this group of posters has fallen down the rabbit hole with off topic off forum ragingly embarrassing commentary..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And Medicare killed my Dad twice.. Once on paper -- a feat that it took a Congressman and 2 months of my life to fix. And then for real when they wouldn't authorize anesthesia for a procedure. That makes us approximately squared off i reckon.. 

Govt doesn't drive progress except in pure R&D.. The rest rapidly morphs into corporate welfare and crony patronage. Guess you like it that way so you can BITCH on Thurs about those greedy, tax-dodging corporations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

Speaking of stupidity.. Are you 2 jackwagons ever gonna get around to critiquing the false promises of the list of Green Alternate Energy choices you are FORCING on America? 

Not a one of them is a literal "alternative". They are supplements at best.. Backed by redundant costs of keeping RELIABLE generators behind them and very restricted in the ability to be sited... 

THERE is your govt innovation.. Solyndra had an idea.. A sucky idea --- but the govt needed photo ops and press releases. They are NOT QUALIFIED to be the sole judge of winners and losers. Perverting the market such that a competitor with BETTER ideas has to fight against their OWN GOVT playiing favorites.. Have fun kids..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> > The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> > *
> > This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:
> > *
> > ...



I never know if I should be morbidly amused or just cry.

You'd think that no one ever thought of "feedback". *I wonder, does be mean "negative feedback"'or "positive feedback"?

Like this is a new idea that the IPCC never considered.*

*The guy must think himself the Einstien of climate science.

















Yeppers, there's complex "feedback" in there somewhere.


Which could it be, "positive" or "negative".  Maybe it's both and one is stronger.

Someone farted... I can't prove who did it.  But it sure is warmer and stinky.

Get it?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> *...you are FORCING on America? *



There you go with your psychotic, paranoid delusional, transferance crap again.

No one here works for the gov't. *I for one, am just some dude with a computer at home.

I think you've got me confused with your daddy. *

Why don't you give him a call and resolve your shit with him. If it's some boss you had in your early career or your daddy is death, get therapy. *If you wait a year or so, maybe Obamacare will pick it up for you.

And currently, I don't feel much of a need to whine endlessly about shit, you got that covered just fine.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> And Medicare killed my Dad twice.. Once on paper -- a feat that it took a Congressman and 2 months of my life to fix. And then for real when they wouldn't authorize anesthesia for a procedure. That makes us approximately squared off i reckon..*
> 
> Govt doesn't drive progress except in pure R&D.. The rest rapidly morphs into corporate welfare and crony patronage. Guess you like it that way so you can BITCH on Thurs about those greedy, tax-dodging corporations.



That's the stupidest crock-o I've ever heard. *You dad died because that interfering gov't didn't interfere/help? *Wow.

Your dad died because you and he were to stupid and lazy to save the money to save his sorry as when he needed it.

Then, after all the years of bitching about the evil gov't and taxes, the evil liberal socialist Medicare blacklisted him because they got tired of listening to it.

It's your fault your dad is dead, you friggin' moron. *Tighten that shit up and deal with it.

My mom died of cancer *My father died of heart failure. *My wife was in a head on collision before there were airbags. *My back is f'ed up from sciatica.

This ain't the therapy forum.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> ...



Every statement in that OP quote is DIRECT AGW theory.. You got a problem with that? Do you know who authored it? He knows more about climate than any of us.. And I'm certain he's aware of all the "theories" on feedbacks. YOU --- just apparently didn't read to the punchline.. 

*While you're at it --- Give me your OWN interpretation of that middle graph..* 

I prefer to look at the ice ages THIS way... 






where I've circled the areas and magnified the obvious places where TEMPERATURE LEADS the CO2... Either the data is crap or we take that literally or warmers need another explanation.. Critical thinkers would discount ANYTHING in that time period as being typical or normal considering the globe resembled a snow cone and NY City was under a mile of ice.. MEANINGLESS to explain today's climate anyway and huge waste of time.. 


No fair going back to your partisian website for a clue. I'd like YOUR interpretation of the middle graph...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I never know if I should be morbidly amused or just cry.
> ...



Well golly gosh, you can draw circles on *graph. *Now how about you go download the GIS Hadcrut, Volsok, and Mua Loa data, add in tree ring lroxy data, finde sunspot data, amd whatever elsy you cam think off then do a multivariate linear regression on it.

I'll be waiting to see the report with the p-values.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well golly gosh, you can draw circles on *graph. *Now how about you go download the GIS Hadcrut, Volsok, and Mua Loa data, add in tree ring lroxy data, finde sunspot data, amd whatever elsy you cam think off then do a multivariate linear regression on it.



Here is the Vostok ice core.  all 450 thousand years of it.  As you can see, CO2 has been following temperature around for a long, long time.  With the exception of one or two anomolous instances, it is obvious that increased CO2 is a product of increased temperature, not a cause.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And Medicare killed my Dad twice.. Once on paper -- a feat that it took a Congressman and 2 months of my life to fix. And then for real when they wouldn't authorize anesthesia for a procedure. That makes us approximately squared off i reckon..*
> ...



Nice human touch there... I didn't start the diversion about Medicare. Wasn't even talking to you.. 

BTW: Medicare rules PROHIBITED ME or HIM from paying for the anesthesia portion of the procedure. If you're gonna get your gonads microwaved by the govt, you only get LOCAL anesthesia. No amount of SAVINGS or Recourse could fix that problem. Literally sentenced him to death for lack of CHOICE or FLEXIBILITY.....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



THose actors on Big Bang Theory do an excellent job of pretending that they understand world class engineering and physics. So I'm dubious.. 

You wanna toss stuff up and have a conversation? Or get smarky and walk away from your own stuff.    Your choice..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I never know if I should be morbidly amused or just cry.
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I did.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

Where? What the hell does sunspot data have to do with it? 

What exactly IS the black plot in the middle graph?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Then you should have a) run for office ahead of time and had the rules corrected before he needed it or b) paid for the whole procedure.

But stop whining about it now cuz you can't do nuthin' bout it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Where? What the hell does sunspot data have to do with it?
> 
> What exactly IS the black plot in the middle graph?



Where's the report on a multivariate analysis of suspected climate driving variables?  When you've completed it, then we'll take a look and see how you did.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Where? What the hell does sunspot data have to do with it?
> ...



So the first time in 15 pages that you've posted anything on topic, you tossed some shit up you deemed important. But you won't answer simple questions about it?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Where? What the hell does sunspot data have to do with it?*
> 
> What exactly IS the black plot in the middle graph?





flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What is the OP?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

It is wildly entertaining watching the Dittoheads reporting all of big oil's obfuscation of the simple fact of greenhouse gasses. You would think that in these times flat earth societies would be dead and gone but apparently the tyranny of ignorance has no expiration date. 

It matters not. Responsible people are taking on the challange and making progress while those that believe themselves entitled to their own truth will continue to bay at the moon as they always have. That baying will have exactly the same affect on the moon as their squawking will have on sustainable energy. Or, in fact, on America's future politics. 

While we will be paying for our unforgivable error of empowering them for a decade for many generations, at least we can claim learning from our mistakes.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It is wildly entertaining watching the Dittoheads reporting all of big oil's obfuscation of the simple fact of greenhouse gasses. You would think that in these times flat earth societies would be dead and gone but apparently the tyranny of ignorance has no expiration date.*
> 
> It matters not. Responsible people are taking on the challange and making progress while those that believe themselves entitled to their own truth will continue to bay at the moon as they always have. That baying will have exactly the same affect on the moon as their squawking will have on sustainable energy. Or, in fact, on America's future politics.*
> 
> While we will be paying for our unforgivable error of empowering them for a decade for many generations, at least we can claim learning from our mistakes.



Well, I learned, in grade school, the complete meaning of "critique". *There is a difference between critical thinking and fault-finding. One requires effort. *The other one is just bitching about shit.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

Here's the simple fact that those who feel entitled to, and would prefer, an alternate universe must run from. When a photon of light strikes a carbon dioxide molecule it is subject to certain very well known probabilities. There are odds that it will pass through unimpeded, that it will be absorbed, or that it will be reflected from wence it came. It can be shown theoretically and empiracly what those odds are for any wavelength of light. 

Everything else is irrelavant. 

They might as well switch now from the denial of AGW science to something else like denying gravity or time. 

They've become the laughing stock of not only the country but the world.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It is wildly entertaining watching the Dittoheads reporting all of big oil's obfuscation of the simple fact of greenhouse gasses. You would think that in these times flat earth societies would be dead and gone but apparently the tyranny of ignorance has no expiration date.*
> ...



Critical thinking is so hard though. It requires education and that requires time and effort. It can't be done from the Lazy Boy. Way too much work!


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Hmm...*

You're not saying that some people expect easy ideas, easy education and easy money?*

Do you think they mean, "If Keyenes, the Federal *Reserve and liberal Congressman hadn't interfered with the easy and "free" market then we'd all be rich."?


You mean they think that "free market" literally means "free", as in "I wouldn't have to work so hard?"

Like watching some advertisement on TV, they apply the feeling associated with "free", as in "costs nothing" and apply it to "free market" and "freedom"? *Then they work from there as in "It is should be free but for ..."?

God made it all for me to have for free?  Literally, the Garden of Eden?  Free apples?  Oh, I have to go pick them?

Then all the rest is just projection and transferance bullshit?


----------



## gslack (Jun 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's the simple fact that those who feel entitled to, and would prefer, an alternate universe must run from. When a photon of light strikes a carbon dioxide molecule it is subject to certain very well known probabilities. There are odds that it will pass through unimpeded, that it will be absorbed, or that it will be reflected from wence it came. It can be shown theoretically and empiracly what those odds are for any wavelength of light.
> 
> Everything else is irrelavant.
> 
> ...



LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..

Dude seriously, this fake scientist is no better than the last several we have had here. You just altered the theory you spent pages defending...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the simple fact that those who feel entitled to, and would prefer, an alternate universe must run from. When a photon of light strikes a carbon dioxide molecule it is subject to certain very well known probabilities. There are odds that it will pass through unimpeded, that it will be absorbed, or that it will be reflected from wence it came. It can be shown theoretically and empiracly what those odds are for any wavelength of light.
> ...



So whatbis the differences between reflection, refraction, and difraction at an atomic level?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the simple fact that those who feel entitled to, and would prefer, an alternate universe must run from. When a photon of light strikes a carbon dioxide molecule it is subject to certain very well known probabilities. There are odds that it will pass through unimpeded, that it will be absorbed, or that it will be reflected from wence it came. It can be shown theoretically and empiracly what those odds are for any wavelength of light.
> ...



LOL, reflection IS absorption and re-radiation.  As is scattering.  

Laser emmision is even more awesome. The atoms absorb at one wavelength then as an electromagnetic energy passes by, it stimulates the atom to emit radiation it the same direction as the passing energy.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 11, 2013)

It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength. 

If they absorb, the energy raises their temperature, causing them to become a radiation source.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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




Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)


A claim can be made for how much IR is absorbed vs how much is absorbed, and a fair statement would be that some is reflected back towards earth. But that would be minuscule to the reflective abilities of a cloud. GH gases can't be a good absorber and good reflector simultaneously. Just as nothing can be both a good emitter and absorber simultaneously. 

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



> Absorbers, Emitters & Reflectors
> Some materials are good at absorbing and emitting thermal radiation while others are good at reflecting radiation. Examples of good absorbers and emitters are matt black materials. White and silvery surfaces are bad absorbers because they reflect away most of thermal radiation. However, bad absorbers are good reflectors and likewise good absorbers are poor reflectors of thermal radiation.
> 
> In summary:
> ...



Again, it can reflect some and absorb some, but it cannot be completely efficient at either one at the same time. 

The MET office likes to misuse the terms so they don't have to actually prove anything. 

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory



> Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left).  The earth&#8217;s surface emits infrared radiation back in to space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red arrows in the right hand picture).  *Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays reflecting heat back down to the surface.*  The AGW theory suggests that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures.



It's a fine example of just how un-scientific the methods used to further this ridiculous theory. 

Frankly You can buy their story or buy Kirchoff's law... I take the law...

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> n thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium.
> A body at temperature T radiates electromagnetic energy. A perfect black body in thermodynamic equilibrium absorbs all light that strikes it, and radiates energy according to a unique law of radiative emissive power for temperature T, universal for all perfect black bodies. Kirchhoff's law states that:
> For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
> Here, the dimensionless coefficient of absorption (or the absorptivity) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absorbed by the body when it is radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium. In slightly different terms, the emissive power of an arbitrary opaque body of fixed size and shape at a definite temperature can be described by a dimensionless ratio, sometimes called the emissivity, the ratio of the emissive power of the body to the emissive power of a black body of the same size and shape at the same fixed temperature. With this definition, a corollary of Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. In some cases, emissive power and absorptivity may be defined to depend on angle, as described below.
> ...


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength.
> 
> If they absorb, the energy raises their temperature, causing them to become a radiation source.



Oh hush now socko, anyone who took "optics 101" would know that reflection and absorption are opposites... Please...


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2013)

water micro droplets, found in clouds, are good reflectors of IR radiation. water vapour is a good absorber of IR. phase makes a difference.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> water micro droplets, found in clouds, are good reflectors of IR radiation. water vapour is a good absorber of IR. phase makes a difference.



But neither is both simultaneously a good reflector and good absorber of EM of the same wavelength. Which is the point I made.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You worked pretty hard there.. Hope it stimulates some neurons somewhere.. 

But I think the hard-core denialists are focused on the "other" excitation source. Not the sun.* GHouse theory works 24 hrs a day and has little to do with DIRECT solar irradiation..* CO2 is a poor absorber of sunlight because it's so narrow band. Water vapor (clouds) are much better absorbers on INCOMING sunlight. 

It's the heat coming from the earth as a thermal tank -- going UP --- that the denialists have problems with. Because they quote thermodynamics in error -- not realizing that the EARTH emits a spectrum of IR where MORE of the energy is shifted into the absorption bands of CO2 and the other GHGases.. That's why clouds keep the surface warm at night (except in the desert where there is little water vapor to act as the PRINCIPLE GHGas).

 No thermal conduction or convection required.. Mostly done by EM radiation....

Bottom line ---* Go find the few studies that studied the GreenHouse at NIGHT, in the DESERT, controlled for water vapor that tried to find the warming due to the rest of the GHGases.. Not many exist --- because LARGELY they don't confirm that CO2 is a huge factor... *  And the hysteria industry is NOT gonna publish findings that contradict the Warmer Bible..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength.
> ...



Only for black bodies. Real materials transmit, or absorb, or reflect in different proportions all incoming radiation, depending on wavelength. What they transmit or reflect leaves them unchanged. What they absorb changes their energy state. If that energy state is > absolute zero, then they are inclined to radiate their own energy. 

Now make up another story to try and deny simple physics.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Red herring non science. Published by big oil just like the scandal sheets in the grocery store line. Let's publish this today. It sounds like it could be the truth and could obscure the obvious for another month or so. That's a few more billion in profits for us, though a few billion more in extreme weather recovery for everybody.

Every additional molecule of carbon dioxide that we return to the atmosphere from wence it came millions of years ago acts like every other carbon dioxide molecule when struck by EM radiation in the lab or in our atmosphere. It mostly transmits short wavelength radiation and mostly reflects long wave radiation. Always. No exceptions. 

On earth, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere the less long wave goes into space. It remains here warming the planet. 

Truth is so simple, lies so complicated.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



That's a lot of material to completely miss a point. Your confusing usage and context with meaning.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

*"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..

The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."*

From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering.  The only difference is the direction.

Do explain, at a wave/elementary-particle/atomic/molecular level, the process by which a solid, liquid, and gas absorb, emit, reflect and scatter EM radiation.  

An incoming photon impacts molecule.  Then what?

Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass.  Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Your opinion on this matter seems based more on politcal alliances then science.. Especially since you took an opportunity to PREACH on my response.. But didn't comment at ALL about the science.. 

Shouldn't the conclusive measurements for CO2 heat retention be taken AT NIGHT, in the desert and controlled for water vapor??? YOU HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM with this? What is your objection. Or would you rather continue hurling insults, platitudes, and uninformed bull?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..
> 
> The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."*
> 
> ...



Lemme help you --- you're drowning here. Here's a marshmallow....  

Reflection AINT the same as absorption and re-emission because it's LIKELY that the properties of the material will cause it to shed emitted EM at a DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES and power levels than the excitation. Depending on the thermal absorption characteristic of the material. ((A black body DOES have the same absorption/emission props, but REFLECTS everything else as GSlack said. ))

So it's NOT the same. Not even close.. DSlack was very patient trying to get you to swim to shore... 

On your 2nd quest.. Clear glass does pass photons thru unaffected in the VISIBLE band with like maybe 4% absorbed. (especially if the surface is Anti-Reflection (AR) coated. Much like a good pair of glasses or an expensive display. ) But can't pass photons in the long wave IR or below.. See attached chart..  

If this was NOT true, you'd see a shift to the RED on everything coming out the exit of the glass,, (as I said above) because absorption/re-radiating IR,  generally shifts the frequencies DOWN from the visible or solar spectrum spectra that went in..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > *"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..
> ...



In other words, you don't know. *All you have is "So it's NOT the same" and this adamence about it.

Your arguing over a distinction, reflection v absorbtion-reemission with no fundamental description of any distinction.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I gave you an answer that should have been complete to a High School kid.. Along with a graph and      I worked hard at it.. You should too... Try re-reading what I wrote and try to recall something about how when things absorb -- they get hot. They will re-radiate, but NOT at the same FREQUENCIES that they were hit with as in sunlight warming an object or material.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > *"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..
> ...



Here, I'll throw you a marshmallow. *Reflection is a macroscopic term referring the measured effect after light has impinged on the material. *Absorbtion/re-emmision is a microscopic term referring to the process that occurs when the light impacts the material.

Light cannot reflect off of a material without interacting with it.  If the light returns at an angle between -90 and 90 degrees of normal to the surface, it is called reflection.  That is a measure of the light after ths interaction.

What occurs at a molecular and attomic level as the light impinges on the material is, well... depends on the material and wavelenght of the light.  There really are two categories; difraction and absorbtion/re-emmission.  Diffraction, like the slit experement, is a property of the space between the material.  Absorbtion/re-emmission is a property of the material and the energy levels of the electrons.

Frankly, no one, that knows their stuff, really gives a crap if someone refers to it as "reflection" or "absorbsion/re-emmision".

Here, let me help you.  So a photo is traveling through space and reaches a molecule. It is dead center of the nucleus and at 0 degrees of normal.  What happens?  It say, "oh shit, I ain't touching that thing?, does an about face, and heads bacl from whence it came, reflected without interaction? Or does it interact with the molecule?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > *"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Your trying to hard. *It isn't that complicated. *The light either interacts with the material or it doesn't. When light is reflected, it either interact or not. *If you have discovered some process by which light is reflected without interacting with the material, you should write a paper and send it in.

If your describing a process by which interaction occurs without involving the electrons in orbit, thus calling it "not absorbtion", then it's a fairly simple description based on other properties. 

It's really simple.  The photon interacts with what properties of the material to result in reflection, that don't involve the change in energy level of the orbiting electrons?

You can describe in a few sentences,


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

THat's not even the question you asked.. Is this a complete waste of time.. 

You question WAS  _-------------  





> Here is the one I have always quandried, transparency of glass. *Does the light pass through without ever interacting with the atoms or is it absorbed and reemited by each atom in a straight line, through the material?



*Show me in there where "reflection" was even mentioned?* Don't you bounce off and reflect when you try to walk thru a closed door? Did you get absorbed and re-emitted??  (The brain damage is obvious)


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> THat's not even the question you asked.. Is this a complete waste of time..
> 
> You question WAS  _-------------
> 
> ...



The question is how light, an electromagnetic wavicle, interacts with amorphous glass as it is transmitted through the material. *There are three option; it passes through the material without interaction, is it absorbed and re-emitted in a straight line, or it follows through the material in a waveguide fashion.

Here is a really good answer:

"Yes, the current, real, 'correct answer' to this question is indeed very complicated. It is mixed up with Quantum Mechanics which is complicated for .. really for everyone! I will try to, as you say, "dumb it down", but many people may not like my way of doing it.

Most people still think of light and the way it moves in 'classic' terms. But this way of understanding it was really disproved by the 1920's with the advent of Quantum Mechanics. It is astonishing that this old way of seeing energy is still what is taught in schools and universities today!

You know that light travels in little packets, like tiny tiny balls of energy called photons. When these bits of energy hit any material thing ... any atom or molecule, the photon ceases to exist and the energy gets added to the energy of the atom or molecule. You could say that the atom dances faster.

When light strikes glass, the energy is absorbed by the first glass molecules it meets. You could think of it as someone catching a ball, and being excited that they have caught it. Then they pass the ball on to the next molecule - to the next 'person' in the glass, and on to the next. When they are passing it, the energy becomes a photon (a ball), and when it is caught, it is again an excited atom.

This goes on until the photon leaves the glass, then it travels as a photon again. Of course, while it was going from atom to atom, it was not always a photon, and so, even if it does not stay still for long, it is not always moving. So the average speed in the glass will be slower than when it is not in the glass.

This is a VERY simplified way of understanding this."


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> THat's not even the question you asked.. Is this a complete waste of time..
> 
> You question WAS  _-------------
> 
> ...



A meaningless comparison because the wavelenght of a person is extremely small compared to their size.

The repulsive force is electrostatic.  It has no bearing on the question of the interaction between a photon and an atom/molecule.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



And none of what I wrote or quoted was specific to short wave radiation from the sun, but rather long wave radiation from the planets surface.

Also, I do not have a problem with IR emitted from the surface interacting with GH gases, that's been studied over and again, I am pretty sure it's recognized fact. What I, and most other people with any sense take issue with is the Down Welling Long Wave IR warms the warmer surface of the planet, it's heat source.

There is no misunderstanding of of the spectrum or wavelength differences between EM from the sun directly, and that of IR from the warmed surface. That is understood and acknowledged, and I don't see where you got that from anything I have said on here..

The issue with AGW theory with me is, the energy  coming in from the sun, some gets reflected, some refracted, some absorbed, some used to warm the surface, and that which  the surface emits as IR, warms the Atmosphere and then has enough left to warm it's own heat source further... It's a silly claim made by men that although were brilliant, were still wrong in their assumptions. The theory defies the 2nd law and does some nifty work around the 1st one as well.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



No silly socko, it's not just for black bodies... It's for everything.. A black body is a perfect absorber and emitter, and would deny all reflection. If it can absorb and emit all wavelengths of EM, than what is left to reflect? Nothing, and any good fake scientist would know this...

And notice what you just tried to claim up there? You misused a concept again...

*"Real materials transmit, or absorb, or reflect in different proportions all incoming radiation, depending on wavelength. What they transmit or reflect leaves them unchanged. What they absorb changes their energy state. If that energy state is > absolute zero, then they are inclined to radiate their own energy." *

You have said some backwards things on here, even tried to imply Botlzmann was your own, but that bit of nonsensical BS takes the cake...

LOL, you have a habit of half reading your googles searches findings and just winging it. Lazy... Materials can do all of those things certainly and they do but, they cannot do them all equally well or even close. Once again I don't know I bother posting links and citing them when you silly socks can't read anyway...

IGCSE - Thermal Physics Revision - Radiation



> Absorbers, Emitters & Reflectors
> Some materials are good at absorbing and emitting thermal radiation while others are good at reflecting radiation. Examples of good absorbers and emitters are matt black materials. White and silvery surfaces are bad absorbers because they reflect away most of thermal radiation. However, bad absorbers are good reflectors and likewise good absorbers are poor reflectors of thermal radiation.
> 
> In summary:
> ...



Please read something before you speak again...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Well good.. 

I have no problem with the re-radiation of heat thru IR tho the guys who WROTE the thermo laws might not have gone far enough in thinking to "embellish" it for understanding.. 

A black body -- the Earth, in thermal equilibrium (important because it's NEVER REALLY in equibrium given it's got a pumped heat switch that has 24 cycle) absorbs efficiently at the SAME frequencies as it emits. In other words, it can eat it's own RADIANTED heat very efficiently.. RADIATED heat in the form of IR does NOT obey the propagation laws of conducted heat in that it doesn't give a rat's ass if the EM wave is gonna hit a hot body or warm body.. But ----- The NET TOTAL thermal transfer will always be from Hot to Cold with NO violation of any 2nd law.  Doesn't mean that down-dwelling IR can't go to ground.. Just means there's more of it coming up than going down.. And the CO2 acts to create a thermal resistance at the CO2 by raising the temperature in the troposphere. (blanket analogy aside). Remember that conduction/convection has a forcing function of the temp differential.. Lowering that diff is like turning down the voltage and less heat flows from hot to warmish, than from hot to cold. That's the thermal resistance part.

When I first heard we were violating laws --- I was outraged and looked into it. Because it seemed perfectly legit to me. It was just confusion about how EM propagates and the NET EXCHANGE balance. Doesn't mean SOME EM IR can't do doughnuts between the sky and the ground...

I'm outraged NOW by a WHOLE LIST of law violations in other forums. And spending most of my time making certain the guilty get punished.

EDIT EDIT"

BTW: Read a great article about how the Thermo laws didn't anticipate the STATISTICS behind heat transfer. In small transfers, the chances of a particular energy state and EM frequency are random. And for low particle counts, you can actually violate the 2nd law for quite awhile til the odds correct it. Even in the presence of a substantial thermal gradient....


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



LOL now you're going to try and take some of the heat off of your sock friend and agree with his "sequestered carbon" theory???

ROFL, Numan you are one silly man....


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..
> 
> The reflectivity of something is proportional to it's absorbivity. Meaning the more something absorbs EM the less it reflects. And equally, the more it reflects, the less it absorbs.."*
> 
> ...



NO, I did my job. You made the claim, I challenged it with logic, links and sources, and now you can either try and prove my evidence false or keep on weaseling...

I have done enough of the work for you silly socko... Well okay one last little bit of help, a small clue to get you started okay...

Your answers are in the last couple of pages of posts here. Matter of fact in one of PMZ socks butcherings of science he answered your last question and he didn't even know what it meant. And obviously either do you.. It's all about the wavelength of EM radiation and the absorbing/emitting/reflecting properties  of the material.. Oh and as flacaltenn mentioned previously, phase is a factor as well...

Now you can do your own leg work..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

You are easily distracted. *The initial consideration was whether reflection and absorbtion/re-emmission are different with respect to CO2 gas and electragmetic wavicles.

It began here;



itfitzme said:


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



You say that reflection is NOT absorption and re-emission.

If were going to say that, some how reflection and absorbtion/re-emission is different, then we have to examine it at an atomic/macroscopic level. *

If not absorption and re-emission, how does light them manage to interact with the material without absorption and re-emission?

At a macroscopic level, the terms;*scattering*and transmission are typically used and refer to solids though there is nothing wrong with using them in terms of suspended particles, liquids or gasses. They are measures of effect after the light has left the material.

At a microscopic level, the terms*absorption, emission, radiation, and re-radiation are typical. *When the study becomes mixed, terminology starts getting mixed about. Atmosphere consists of gasses and particles with wavelengths of light ranging from UV to IR. The concerns can range from; the level of photon absorbtion and re-emission by the electron energy band; to absorbtion by the molecular bonds; to molecule kinetic energy; to reflection of suspended particles. *So, the use of reflection as well as absorbtion/re-emission are equally valid if were talking about gases and suspentions.

So the considerations then arise regarding the atomic processes involved in lasers, transmission through glass, as well the reflection off of materials. With respect to the reflection of materials, I didn't even mention metals. *

So, as light passes through a glass, does it interact with the material or pass through as if nothing were there? *When light reflects off the surface of a silver, does it interact with the material or what? *When light hits a gas, if indeed some is returned towards the source as reflection, how does this occur.

The answer is that it is reflected by absorption and re-emission. *Whether the mechanism is is that of vibration of the bonds or the electrons being kicked into a new energy level, the interaction is absorbtion and re-emission. *What we measure after the interaction is transmission, scattering, and reflection, defraction, and reflection.

Reflection is simply a macroscopic measure of the microscopic processopf absorptiom and reflection where the angle is in the general direction back towards the source.

Your quibbling over word usage, saying things*like "LOL" and "I'll throw you a marshmallow" when, in fact, you have no clue what your talking about. *Not knowing is fine. Nobody can be faulted for not knowing everything. *But you follow it up with a complete lack of emotional intelligence.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

That was IanC with the phase suggestion, but it's OK by me..


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Agreed.. Save one thing...

A photon, or our conception and understanding of the quanta (or discrete bundle) of EM radiation displays characteristics of both a wave and a particle. Meaning as longwave IR photons are coming up from the surface, the force of those photons would interfere with those of the down welling long wave IR photons coming down and the greater force of course would come from the warmer source, and the weaker or cooler forces would be overwhelmed by the warmer forces. 

Now this is where people like Roy Spencer go nuts and claim the energy has to go somewhere and go off on a long winded and thoroughly silly thought experiment on his blog.  

Sure it does, but we don't know where it goes or what happens to it, and we can't just assume it "must" create additional warming in the directions it's heading. but they do..

So what happens to energy when we use it? We know some is used to do the work, some is lost due things like friction, gravity, so on and so forth. ut when we say "used up" is it destroyed? Well no because energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so what happens to energy we used to do the work?

We don't know, they don't know, nobody knows. But I would rather not proclaim the sky is falling and frighten people needlessly or commit to hypotheticals and theories that are only considered because it seems to fit into the situation somewhat.. Nor would I take drastic measures that will lead to untold deaths or unnecessary poverty in places which cannot afford fashionable, yet hardly viable alternatives.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> That was IanC with the phase suggestion, but it's OK by me..



Oh you're right my bad... Sorry Ian.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > *"Reflection is the opposite of absorption..
> ...



That's down right sad.

All you've done is demonstrate you have some knowledge but don't fully understand what you're talking about.

You don't know the quantum mechanics of transmision. *You can't distinguish between macroscopic measures and microscopic effects. You don't grasp that absorption at one wavelength can be accompanied by either a change in the attomic/molecular state or by re-emission. If the energy is not re-emited the macroscopic measure of the effectnis callee absorption. If the energy is re-emitted it is called scattering, transmission, or reflection. If it passes through, it's transmission. *If it gets licked back, it's reflection. If the angle is all over the place, it's scattering.

You can post all the links you want but if you don't fully understandnthe material, you a) don't have all the links and b) all the material isn't on the internet for free.  It's still market economy.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You are easily distracted. *The initial consideration was whether reflection and absorbtion/re-emmission are different with respect to CO2 gas and electragmetic wavicles.
> 
> It began here;
> 
> ...



Oh stop posturing.. And don't quote yourself and pretend I didn't respond to your post socko..We all see I did..

And you have subtly changed the parameters of your position in your last two posts. 

You first claimed it was reflection is absorption and re-emission, then you claimed * "From the perspective of effect, absorbtion and re-emission is reflection and scattering.* Now its *"The initial consideration was whether reflection and absorbtion/re-emmission are different with respect to CO2 gas and electragmetic wavicles."*

Dude another 3-4 posts and you will be agreeing with me 100% but still claiming I'm wrong...LOL

SO, no matter how you try and rationalize it, no matter how many misunderstood concepts, misrepresented facts, or how much posturing or altering of your claim you do on this, the fact will still remain that reflection is the opposite of absorption.

And I brought links to reputable and verifiable sources to show this fact, and all you have done is alter your claim and babble...


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yes, yes socko and you haven't provided one bit of evidence and yet I supplied a good deal of it...

Frankly, you're just trifling because you got caught being wrong and can't handle it.. I'm sorry man, but that's life. Sometimes you're a successful internet fake scientist in a web forum, and sometimes your shown for being full of it... And trust me when I tell you, no matter what persona you take, if you are too lazy to actually read some of the things you're going to claim some brilliance at, you will get outed every time. You can fake intelligence and knowledge with clever google searches, but you can't fake understanding..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Don't worry.. Be Happy.. That 1st paragraph actually states a similiar idea to Total Net Energy flow. But instead of worrying about the collisions of a 12 gauge shot with a 410 load shot -- consider the effect if 90% of them miss in the air and land on their targets. 

Yes -- there is some cancellation due to Ians "phase" observation. I know this from my optical computing background. A diffraction pattern from laser light is formed by phase cancellation. But as private pilots say -- the sky is a big place and you're not likely to collide if you're 40 miles from an airport or VOR complex.

There is a winner of the your "forces" and a loser --- at the materials exchanging the fire. And that's what still validates the Thermo rules.. 

Here's what that cancellation looks like with laser light after a lens works on the phases. That optical computing stuff is amazing. You are looking at the spatial frequencies of some crystal lattice illuminated by a flat field of laser light and then focused with a lens.. At the focal point you can measure all of the vital geometry of that crystal.. The spatial distances between molecules in any direction. Working in that field gave me an unfair advantage in thinking between frequency domains and time or space domains. And the BEAUTY of this simple method was amazing.. ((That''s all a FOUR BEER topic))






Not so much happens if you use INcoherent light (like this Surface IR radiation) because of the non-uniform phase front and frequencies.. Makes those cancellations rarer if you will...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You can go forward believing what you want. Hope it works for you.

Not my job to prove it to you. You want proof, go pay for it. *Take some courses in material sciences, quantum mechanics, and field theory.

Or, just go on stroking your ego. *I did my job, for anyonr reading your bs that can figure it for themselves.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Amazing, that kind of intel gathered so simply. Well relatively anyway. 

It's amazing what they are able to do now with todays technology.  Despite my disagreement with AGW theory, I  do not doubt the potential we have.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, you didn't do anything but alter your arguments and try to BS your way out of looking a complete fool. 

Nah, I don't need courses, you on the other hand... Well, maybe internet scientist isn't your thing.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's optics 101 that all materials can only reflect, absorb, or transmit EM radiation. The prortions of the three possibilities vary with wavelength.
> ...



Are you actually saying, numbnuts, that materials don't transmit light? My windows refute that. I can see right through them. They don't absorb more than a little, but they do reflect more or less dependent on incident angle and wavelength. 

Are you saying that my windows and my glasses and my telescopes and my binoculars and my magnifying lenses and my microscopes don't work????


----------



## PMZ (Jun 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Believing what they want is a profound observation. That's what it boils down to. Believing what they want. The ultimate ego trip.

Let's just be thankful that we're not all like that or we'd still be living in caves.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...





gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




Your having*difficulty differentiating between individuals.  Can't tell the difference between what one individual presents and what another presents.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That's pretty amazing seeing as "*the wavelength of visible light (about 4000 to 7000 ångström) is three orders of magnitude longer than the length of typical atomic bonds and atoms themselves (about 1 to 2 Å). Therefore, obtaining information about the spatial arrangement of atoms requires the use of radiation with shorter wavelengths, such as X-ray or neutron"

It must be some new, never before seen technique.

Got a link to the research paper that overthrows decades of fundamental science?


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



No, What I said was right there we can read it.. You seem to be desperately trying to cover your screw up by trying to make a claim for me...

Nice try silly socko, but no what I said is right there, and moreover I supplied evidence to support my claim. You on the other hand have done nothing but alter your claims and try to make up mine for me..

Come now, we both know why you haven't supplied any links or evidence to back your claims. Because there is no such evidence and no reputable reference would support your garbage...

So please continue your foot-stomping and temper tantrum junior. It won't change the fact you showed how truly ignorant you are of this..

I got an idea.. Why not ACTUALLY READ SOMETHING YOU KEEP TRYING TO SHORTCUT THROUGH!! Again, you can't fake understanding socko..


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No silly socko, the posts were both to you.. See your name up there in the quote brackets? Yes both quoted posts are yours. You are ifitzme...ROFL.. Of course its you socko. Every time we get a new "scientist" it's one of you isn't it.  You're another iteration of the usual internet scientist we have had plaguing this board lately. Whatever your name is this time, it's the same MO.


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



And it just gets better and better.. Proclaiming reflection is absorption wasn't enough you had to deny a genuine up and coming field... WOW...

Optical computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was the first one in a google search...

Oh and look what I found...

This Laser Trick's a Quantum Leap



> *This Laser Trick's a Quantum Leap*
> JoHn Hudson   10.04.05
> 
> Physicists in Australia have slowed a speeding laser pulse and captured it in a crystal, a feat that could be instrumental in creating quantum computers.
> ...



Sounds very similar to what falc was talking about doesn't it.. Notice the date? 05' .. Yeah what have they done since then???

Yes again you show your ignorance. You can't fake it moron..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Your all over the place.*You on meth?


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Oh stop talking to yourself socko.. Or is it someone else this time? Whatever it's the same shtick anyway.. You or one of the other "you" make an ignorant, bold claim and then try to cover it up by double talk and misused vernacular and terms you grab off the net, or call yourself some sort of higher educated something or other and then start foot-stomping and grandstanding. Soon after that we get the other you jumping in and blatantly boot-licking the other...

I don't care if you're one person or a set of clones grown from some idiots nail clippings. The fact is the near identical manner and behavior and the constant claims and pretense of some higher knowledge that you obviously do not possess, is not only getting tiresome but completely lame now...


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Nice try socko... Another case of you making a claim and not backing it up.. Nice.. Now please take this failed "scientist" back with the others.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2013)

At risk of derailing the food fight, I wonder if we might refocus on the OP for a bit.  IanC has presented the questions that I think all honest scientists and we amateur science buffs have been asking throughout the whole debate and controversies of anthropogenic global warmng.  And the one single question we should all be asking separate from ideology, political prejudices, and dogma is what is normal and natural and what is not.

Some of us have the capacity to observe the issue objectively.  Some of us apparently do not.

This week I have been reading on how indigenous people in the arctic circle have been studying conditions there for a very long time and adapting their hunting and fishing according to changing conditions that have been an inevitable fact of life for them long before the industrial revolution.  There are studies of changing conditions on the MacKenzie River that are of concern to some; routine to others.  It is curious how Alaska has experienced warmer conditions over the last 30 years or so while parts of Canada have been significantly cooler.

These things and many others present the same old questions to the curious and yet unconvinced:

1.  Do human generated greenhouse gasses introduced into the atmosphere have a significant affect on the climate?

2.  If they do not, and global warming is occurring through uncontrollable forces, would not our efforts be better spent studying how to adapt productively to inevitable climate change?

3.  If they do, are we certain whether that is a good or bad thing?  Would a few degrees warming, even if it does result in some flooding of coastal areas, make it possible to better utilize large tracts of land that are currently mostly unusable?   Many scientists agree that in the past, warmer has provided a better life for many species on Earth, including ours, than have periods of below normal cold.

The arctic ice coverage is retreating more slowly this year than it has for awhile.  The 'warmers' say that isn't important because the ice 'isn't as thick as it is supposed to be.'   But is that true?  We have had capability to study the whole of actic ice behavior for such a short time.  How do we know what is 'normal' and what is not?

All this is what I would like to discuss.  I wonder if that is possible on a message board?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And the one single question we should all be asking separate from ideology, political prejudices, and dogma is what is normal and natural and what is not.



Since there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING happening within the climate that is unprecedented, or outside the bounds, or even approaching the bounds of natural variability, I believe mother nature has answered the question in terms that all but the most stupid, or dishonest can understand.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And the one single question we should all be asking separate from ideology, political prejudices, and dogma is what is normal and natural and what is not.
> ...



You are probably right, but in my opinion, we don't know for certain that nothing happening now is unprecedented any more than I believe scientists know for certain that significant AGW is happening.  And that is why I have no problem with science and technology studying the phenomena of the present and past toward the end of better understanding what is actually happening.

But what I do have a problem with is allowing the agenda and/or the facts be set by those who have strong motives to mislead us about what they are certain about, and then take away our freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities in order to conform to an agenda that they set for self-serving purposes.

And I think we have established enough evidence of that kind of dishonesty to proceed with great caution.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Evidently ItFitzme has a problem with the diff between atoms and molecules.. And metrology in general...

Would ItFitzMe PLEASE read the quote in my footer?? Do you need an explanation?? Wonder why after 10 years of board pounding --- I chose THAT particular quote?? Ponder.... 

Just look up crystallography "optical transforms".. Maybe you'll find more pretty pictures to look at.. I'm not wasting any more time being a suspect and getting interrogated.. I've got my govt to that...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



It's a global conspiracy. How deep does it go?

IPCC*IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Bank*Climate Change Home

WHO*WHO | Climate change

UN*http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/gateway/*

EEA Climate change ?

AU*Tackling the challenge of Climate Change | climatechange.gov.au

AU DAFF*Climate Change Home - Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

NZ*New Zealand climate change information

Canada*Canada's Action on Climate Change - Climate Change

Kiribati*Climate Change | Republic of Kiribati

Nasa Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

NOAA*Science & Services for Society | NOAA Climate.gov

EPA *Home | Climate Change | US EPA

USAID*USAID's Strategy | U.S. Agency for International Development

USDA*USDA | Office of the Chief Economist | Climate Change Program Office

USGS*USGS: Science Topics: climate change

NIH Climate Change: MedlinePlus

UNEP*UNEP - Climate Change - Home

NSF*NSF Climate Change Special Report

USFS*US Forest Service - Office of the Climate Change Advisor

CDC*CDC - Climate and Health Program - Homepage

API*Climate Change

Oregon*Oregon DEQ: Climate Change

Alaska*State of Alaska - Climate Change in Alaska

Calif -*OPR
Office of Planning and Research - Climate Change: Just the Facts

Vermont*Vermont Climate Change Initiative

Maryland*Maryland Department of Natural Resources - Climate Change

Wash State*Climate Change in Washington State | Washington State Department of Ecology | global warming, greenhouse gas emissions

Mass*Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report

Iowa*Climate Change

NYC*PlaNYC 2030 - The Plan - Climate Change

Starbucks*Tackling Climate Change | Starbucks Coffee Company

Christian Aid UK*Our work on climate change - Christian Aid

ExxonMobile*Managing climate change risks | ExxonMobil

BP*Climate change

Holly cow!  World organization, nations and national agencies, states, christian organization, private industry, even oil companies.  Surely, this cannot be right.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2013)

I don't see the words  Anthropogenic Global Warming is most of those titles..  Did y'all abandon that hysteria?? 

"Climate Change" is something that happens all the freaking time --- like gravity.. How come the PR adjustment? Do you KNOW the diff between science and PR?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



He also seems to have a problem differentiating the choices people make for themselves and those who make policy that controls our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities for the rest of us.

I wonder if he removed all those who have no power to make policy for the rest of us, and all those who receive personal benefits/wealth from policies/programs related to AGW, what that list would look like?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I don't see the words *Anthropogenic Global Warming is most of those titles.. *Did y'all abandon that hysteria??*
> 
> "Climate Change" is something that happens all the freaking time --- like gravity.. How come the PR adjustment? Do you KNOW the diff between science and PR?



Yeah, that's it. *They use "AWG", "global warming", and "climate change" to mean different things.

It's like "absorption/re-readiation" is different from "reflection".*

What they surely mean by "climate change" is the cyclical variations of warm and cool periods. It is part of the global conspiracy betweem China apparel manufacturers and Coppertone to sell parkas and sumscreen. *Yeah, that's it. *They don't even mean "global climate change". They mean the change in climate in bathrooms when the shower is on. *That's it..

You have real difficulty with the thought process of context, or something.

You could actually read the websites that the govt/agencies/companies maintain. Then you'de have your answer.

Or, you can just go with your ""Climate Change" is something that happens all the freaking time" and pretend that is what BP and Exxon are all about. *Yeah, that's it, BP and Exxon put up a websitw to discuss natural variability. *In fact, everyone is so concerned about it and the difficulty with doing nothing about it that they decided to focus attention on nothingness. *Yeah, that's it.

Probably just all ghost links created by Al Gore. *That's it!! Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton, in collusion with China and Coppertone, created a bunch of web pages masquerading as legit gov't/agency/business pages. *


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2013)

Hear that loud whistling sound?  It is the point flying right over itfitzme's head.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> *I'm not wasting any more time
> *being a suspect and getting interrogated.. I've got my govt to that...



Really, you feel like your being "interrogated"? *What are you, like 14?

Really, you have problems with the CIA, FBI or local sherriff interigating you all the time?

Wow, must really suck to be constantly interrogated by the gov't. You should check for non-descript white vans, with "ACME" on the side, parked outsode your house.  Also watch for black SUVs.

They are everywhere!!


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yeah, cuz backing up optical computing with a link "proves" that photons bounce off of a CO2 molecule without interaction exactly like person bounces off a door.

Nothing like a link to "prove" that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Evidently ItFitzme has a problem with the diff between atoms and molecules..*


*You are aware that molecules are made up of atom? *That the atoms which make upnthe molecules are combined as they share electrons on the upper valence band? *That the interaction between molecules is between the outer electons? *That the interaction between atoms, molecules, and light is between the photon and the electrons in the upper energy band?

You do understand this, right?


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

ifistssocks, you already killed the scientist nonsense. No one's buying anymore.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> ifistssocks, you already killed the scientist nonsense. No one's buying anymore.



So that would be no you don't.  Because it really doesn't take scientist to know it, just a grade school chem course


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > ifistssocks, you already killed the scientist nonsense. No one's buying anymore.
> ...



It's a no to what question socko? You didn't ask me anything, and frankly the only question you seemed to ask at all was to flac. And even that was you trying to save face after the last two embarrassing things you did. Claiming reflection is absorption and then denying the field of optical computing,pretty ignorant, now you google up something new to try and distract from your earlier screwups.

LOL, you fake internet scientists never learn from the mistakes you made with your previous personas, that's why these new ones get outed so easily. All we gotta do is let you talk and you will say something to ruin it for yourself..

BTW, what does the Valence bond theory have to do with this discussion?  Or was that another one of your lame attempts to fake knowledge again? LOL, you're ridiculous man. You don't even know what you're rambling about, you just go and grab something that sounds scientific off a web page and go with it. Another PMZ...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You're free to answer the same question.

And there is another good question for you, what do valence bands have to do with absorption?

Excellent.

You should also do a multivariate linear regression on atmospheric gases and other environmental measures thay are hypothesized to affect global temperatures. *You can find CO2 measures online at the Mau Loa website. Look up Hadcrut for temp data. *Sun spot data is somewhere. *What else can you think of?

If you would like to explore further, you can find ice core data under Volstock.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



So you don't know;

how light is absorbed or emitted by atoms and molecules.*

the difference between macroscopic*measures and microscopic processes. *

what x-ray crystolography is.

how light is transmitted through transparent materials.

what valence bands have to do with light.

You are not presenting yourself as credibly knowledgable about basic science.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 13, 2013)

DNFTEC. That is, do not feed the energy creature.

ifitzme, your opponent only wants a pissing match. You win by laughing it off the Enterprise, so to speak. You lose by supplying it with more of the negative emotional energy on which it feeds. Just ignore it, like everyone else does. It's focusing on you now because you're the only one who will give it the attention it craves.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> DNFTEC. That is, do not feed the energy creature.
> 
> ifitzme, your opponent only wants a pissing match. You win by laughing it off the Enterprise, so to speak. You lose by supplying it with more of the negative emotional energy on which it feeds. Just ignore it, like everyone else does. It's focusing on you now because you're the only one who will give it the attention it craves.



I remember the episode well. It's one of my favorites.

There is another sci fi show with a force field that gets stronger the
morenthe captivr struggles.

Oh, and Harry Potter with the vines that tighten when they struggled.


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I got a better one for you and I already asked it.. What does Valence Bond THEORY have to do with this thread? Or even better still, why are you asking me questions that do not help your previous case of claiming absorption is reflection?

LOL, you got caught lacking and being ignorant so you try to divert and hide it with more irrelevancies that do not further the discussion or answer for your previous mistakes..


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL

Spamming the board to hide your ineptitude won't help you this time anymore than it did in last attempts socko.. 

Please google up as much rhetoric as you need. Everyone loves desperation.


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2013)

mamooth said:


> DNFTEC. That is, do not feed the energy creature.
> 
> ifitzme, your opponent only wants a pissing match. You win by laughing it off the Enterprise, so to speak. You lose by supplying it with more of the negative emotional energy on which it feeds. Just ignore it, like everyone else does. It's focusing on you now because you're the only one who will give it the attention it craves.



Yes, yes, call back this iteration as well. Your little brother is a moron dude.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Well, if you understood the basic science, you woudn't be asking the question.

Frankly, I really don't feel like repeating it.


----------



## gslack (Jun 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, you never answered it the first time silly socko,there is no restating involved..


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> At risk of derailing the food fight, I wonder if we might refocus on the OP for a bit.  IanC has presented the questions that I think all honest scientists and we amateur science buffs have been asking throughout the whole debate and controversies of anthropogenic global warmng.  And the one single question we should all be asking separate from ideology, political prejudices, and dogma is what is normal and natural and what is not.
> 
> Some of us have the capacity to observe the issue objectively.  Some of us apparently do not.
> 
> ...





ya know, I think I prefer a good question to a good answer. growing up on Vancouver Island waterfront pointed out a lot of changes to me. changes in salmon stock, size of herring runs, even whether jellyfish were abundant or not. people obviously can make a difference, often for the worst. popularity of spearguns wiped out the big lingcod, seemingly overnight. papermills left local bays dead from dioxins in their effluent. but stop polluting and the bays return to life, stop overfishing and the fish come back. on of the interesting things about studying salmon was the discovery of the PDO. even ENSO is just a new 'discovery' with serious implications for understanding climate.

foxy- here is an article on the PDO from one of my favourite polymaths.

Decadal Oscillations Of The Pacific Kind | Watts Up With That?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2013)

If the AGW hoax would ever stop sucking all the air from the room and all the money from the coffers, maybe the natural sciences could get back on track and some headway could be made towards further understanding natural cycles.  So long as the AGW hoax reigns, natural cycles are all but non existent and certainly unimportant to the big picture.  It really is way past time to derail the crazy train.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> If the AGW hoax would ever stop sucking all the air from the room and all the money from the coffers, maybe the natural sciences could get back on track and some headway could be made towards further understanding natural cycles.  So long as the AGW hoax reigns, natural cycles are all but non existent and certainly unimportant to the big picture.  It really is way past time to derail the crazy train.



Yes, yes, and yes!!!   You're singing my song.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 14, 2013)

IanC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > At risk of derailing the food fight, I wonder if we might refocus on the OP for a bit.  IanC has presented the questions that I think all honest scientists and we amateur science buffs have been asking throughout the whole debate and controversies of anthropogenic global warmng.  And the one single question we should all be asking separate from ideology, political prejudices, and dogma is what is normal and natural and what is not.
> ...



Absolutely.  Being something of a passionate extremist when it comes to senseless, careless, or foolish destruction of the environment--nobody protests that more than I do--I applaud all scientists who study it, raise the alarm when appropriate, and those who take action to correct it when it happens.   And certainly humans, in their unique human activities, have often been guilty of it.  But unlike other creature, humans also have the capability to recognize it, understand it, and correct it.   Sometimes we do a good job of that.  Sometimes not so much.

But in all things, solid information, honest science, and common sense is the only way to go.  Being fallible humans, we will still make mistakes, but as you pointed out, we can correct those.  But when honest science is removed from the equation to fit some political or profit motive, we humans can do real violence to the Earth, and economic and physical violence to each other.

I don't remember if it was this or anothe environmental thread, but in the last several weeks I posted a video and information on a project to deal with desertification in Africa.  The scientist directing the project decided it was due to overpopulation of elephants.  Some 4000 elephants were then destroyed.  And the desertification accelerated.  Turned out it was an under population of elephants that was causing the desertification due to overhunting or whatever.  The activity of the elephants was actually what kept the foliage and grasses, etc. growing and healthy.

The lesson to be learned:  certainly we humans should stop our own activities that are causing unnecessary harm, but when we start meddling with nature itself, we should be very very certain of what we are doing.

The warmers should take notes.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Absolutely. *Being something of a passionate extremist when it comes to senseless, careless, or foolish destruction of the environment--nobody protests that more than I do--I applaud all scientists who study it, raise the alarm when appropriate, and those who take action to correct it when it happens. * And certainly humans, in their unique human activities, have often been guilty of it. *But unlike other creature, humans also have the capability to recognize it, understand it, and correct it. * Sometimes we do a good job of that. *Sometimes not so much.
> 
> But in all things, solid information, honest science, and common sense is the only way to go. *Being fallible humans, we will still make mistakes, but as you pointed out, we can correct those. *But when honest science is removed from the equation to fit some political or profit motive, we humans can do real violence to the Earth, and economic and physical violence to each other.
> 
> ...



Well there you go then. *Proof that all science amd environmental considerations should be completely abandoned. *After all, efforts to reduce carbon emissions is meddling with nature. *And an excellent example, a video that you kinda remember posting, some time in a two week time frame and somewhere on some thread. *

Yep, warmies should take note of that. The IPCC will stick that right in their model. *They can just add 10% to the final variance. That'll do it. *Cuz that's science.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Here is another.  The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 14, 2013)

Muttering to myself. . . ."I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . ."   "I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . ."

No Foxfyre, you may not neg rep Itfitzme.  Resist.  Resist.  Resist.

And questioning to everybody:  How can anybody read a post and draw such completely a wrong/different conclusion from what is posted?  Unless it is deliberate?   And wouldn't that fit the definition of a troll?


----------



## gslack (Jun 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yes please a video to hide your screw up. Don't bother acknowledging any previous errors on your part, just post more until you bury it...

ROFL, you fake scientist socks are too funny.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Muttering to myself. . . ."I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . ."   "I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . ."
> 
> No Foxfyre, you may not neg rep Itfitzme.  Resist.  Resist.  Resist.
> 
> And questioning to everybody:  How can anybody read a post and draw such completely a wrong/different conclusion from what is posted?  Unless it is deliberate?   And wouldn't that fit the definition of a troll?







Why yes Foxy, that is the definition of a troll....


----------



## mamooth (Jun 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> Yes, yes, call back this iteration as well. Your little brother is a moron dude.



OUT! We need no urging to hate humans. But for the present, only a fool fights in a burning house. OUT!


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, yes, call back this iteration as well. Your little brother is a moron dude.
> ...










Yes, it has been patently obvious you hate humanity for a long time.  And by all means, OUT with you!


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You do know who Richard Feynman is?  As Feynman describes it, reflection requires the absorbtion of the photon, by an electron, in order for a new photon to be emited in a new direction.

It is really just that simple.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, it has been patently obvious you hate humanity for a long time.  And by all means, OUT with you!



Stardate ... Armageddon. We must find a way to defeat the alien force of hate that has taken over the board. Stop the war now or spend eternity in futile, bloody violence.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it has been patently obvious you hate humanity for a long time.  And by all means, OUT with you!
> ...









I agree with that.  It would be nice if the revisionists would simply state their case and eschew the vitriol that rolling thunder and the passive aggressive nonsensical lies that Saigon spouts out etc.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 14, 2013)

westwall said:


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



So how many screen names are you using, gslack?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 15, 2013)

There is no rocket science in greenhouse gas behavior. When we return them to the atmosphere, they behave just like they did the last time they were there, and just like they do in the lab, and just like they do theoretically. They lower the energy from the sun reflected out into space.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no rocket science in greenhouse gas behavior. When we return them to the atmosphere, they behave just like they did the last time they were there, and just like they do in the lab, and just like they do theoretically. They lower the energy from the sun reflected out into space.



Beats me, never got there.*

I was just enjoying examining how materials interact with photons. That and watching the other two argue endlessly over some point I never addressed. *

I have no current idea how much of what wavelength gets absorbed, or to what percentages it may be converted from one wavelength to another.

*I was following through as to whether reflection is, in fact, absorbtion and re-emittion at the same wave length.

Transmission through glass was missing piece for me.

It obviously must be absorbtion, for reflection, a photon can't change direction. It has to be absorbed and when re-emitted, its a different photon. It must be. *Its got an different direction. *But that transmission just bothered me. *Relevant or no, it is to related and bothered me.

*Gslack and what's his name were so focused on winning, on being right, that they were hung up on the idea that absorbtion and re-emittion must mean at *different* wavelengths. I never said anything about what wavelength gets re-emmited. *I honestly didn't get what their issue was till later.

Still, I did give a hint by bringing up stimulated emission. *Obviously, stimulated emission is the same wavelength for the stimulated part. *And the question about transmission through glass is also the same wavelength. *

And why would it be a different wavelength anyways, if it's reflection?

He tries to make things to complicated. *Tries to hard. And if you've studied psych seriously, you can see their psycho stuff. *As soon as they say "you". "You this...", "You that ..." out of nowhere. *I say "object". *They say "You ..."*The net just atracts them like bees to honey. They just can't see it. *They are looking at a computer screen, little letters. No face, just words appearing on a screen.**It's like a Rorschoch test. *You see what you want to see. It's not rocket science.

I have no clue how quantum computing is suppose to fit in. * I think he just had some manic fit. *I don't want to try.

It took forever before I realized a new search term to find my missing piece. *It was "electon+valence+band+molecule+vibration+energy". *And somehow that led a path to Feynman and QED.*

You should watch the the Feynman videos I linked. *It's an awesome explanation of QED. *And he makes it not rocket sciene. *That was a missing piece for me, never studied that, too modern. *I get it. It has a natural extention from phasors in electronics and electro-magnetic wave theory. But it really nails down the fact that reflection is absorbsion and re-emission. *It's even more than that, it's then probability of absorbtion and re-emission from every possible path, added up together.

Whether reflected, scattered, transmitted, or refraction, it's all the same. *They are absorbed and re-emitted on every possible probability path.

Oh, and apparently photons aren't waves anymore, not particle/waves. *No waves. *Just particles. Any way we measure them, they go "click click click" as they hit thing. *Einstein would be satisfied with that much. So, Particles with a rotating probability amplitude phase. *Einstien wouldn't be happy with the probability part.


----------



## gslack (Jun 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, no it doesn't silly socko. And further none of 3 videos on your link state any such thing. You just read a title and went with it thinking it explains your claim. The fact is they don't. WHat one of the videos DOES DO is explain how some light is reflected and some is absorbed and emitted as heat. Nice try..

Here I will give you the explanation for a kid... 

You seem to misunderstand the behavior of light. And further the differences in light when it interacts with certain matter. There is no such thing a s a perfect reflector, all things reflect some light and absorb some light. Different wavelengths, different materials, and various other things play parts in the process, making all things react differently to light.

Ever wonder why things have color? Why some things are red, yellow or blue? Well suffice to say it is a combination of how our eyes react to the light that is reflected versus the light that is absorbed from an object, and how our mind perceives those things. Things that are black absorb the most light, things that are white reflect the most light. And all the other colors in between are variations of how much is absorbed vs how much is reflected across the light spectrum. 

You think when the video mentioned how light is absorbed and then re-emitted, that it meant it was reflection. Well it really wasn't, reflection is what doesn't get absorbed but is reflected off. The interaction at the surface of matter is not absorption because it never gets past the outer molecular bonds of the electrons. By your logic, anything able to hold out water is actually taking water in and emitting it out. That's a silly assumption and the fact you don't understand the difference between absorption and reflection is obvious. Light interacts with surface molecular bonds and the electrons there, but no further. Hence reflection and not absorption..

Get it yet or are we going to have tolerate more of your ignorant ramblings trying to show yourself right? Sorry socko but you're not right, just as you weren't right when you tried this crap as the other you, or the one before that.


----------



## gslack (Jun 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.

I only have one screen name socko,and the fact is nobody here posts like me, acts like me,or debates anything like me. I am unique unlike you and the troll army.


----------



## gslack (Jun 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no rocket science in greenhouse gas behavior. When we return them to the atmosphere, they behave just like they did the last time they were there, and just like they do in the lab, and just like they do theoretically. They lower the energy from the sun reflected out into space.
> ...



All that to say that you basically screwed up? LOL condense it socko...


----------



## Saigon (Jun 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.
> 
> I only have one screen name socko,and the fact is nobody here posts like me, acts like me,or debates anything like me. I am unique unlike you and the troll army.



Except that you do not 'debate', and neither does Westwall, of course. 

For the umpeenth time, if you have reason to believe that any poster here is using socks, report it to the Mods and have them banned. I'll absolutely support you in that. 

If not, stop making baseless attacks simply because you are losing the argument.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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








I am just me.  I have no socks, nor do I need a sock.  That is the purview of you and your ilk.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.
> ...









We've WON the argument saggy.  You have no meaningful legislation going to be passed this year or the next.  Further, as the warmists themselves finally lose control over the various journals the real data will get out to the real world and you will find your religion in full retreat.

And yes sweety, I DO debate.....but there must be two to tango and all you do is spew nonsense and silliness.   If you ever care to REALLY debate something other than posting something up and screaming "see I won", feel free to.  But your methods of "debate" bear no semblance to reality....


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Speaking of the warmers religion soon to be in full retreat, remember how much the world resisted revised scientific theories put forth by such great pioneers as Copernicus and Galileo?   Both were proclaimed heretics by the Church and most other scientists of their day rejected or ignored them.  But truth has a nasty habit of winning out over time.

Now I'm still reading new studies of primitive fossilized tree rings that so far are receiving little press and attention because they so challenge the current AGW religion.  So far only those media outlets that report ALL the news rather than only the politically correct news seem to be dealing with it:



> . . . An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the *researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. .* . .
> 
> . . . . The international research team used these density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia to create a sequence reaching back to 138 BC. The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga. The researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
> 
> ...



Copernicus's theory was not fully accepted by the scientific community for most of 150+ years but the rejection of competent science then had no significant affect on the people.  Given the political and socioeconomic damage currently in progress implementing the warmers' religion now, however, I hope it doesn't take that long to get the science right this time.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

What "socioeconomic (sic) damage" is being caused by climate change science?

Have you considered what the economic consequences of NOT adapting to a warmer and more extreme climate might be?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2013)

Already asked and answered Saigon.  I am not buying into your deflection and derailing techniques further.

What did you think of the article re global cooling that I excerpted and linked?


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> What "socioeconomic (sic) damage" is being caused by climate change science?
> 
> Have you considered what the economic consequences of NOT adapting to a warmer and more extreme climate might be?



It is hard to believe you can say that with a straight face


----------



## Saigon (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Already asked and answered Saigon.  I am not buying into your deflection and derailing techniques further.



Then please give me the post #, and I will read and respond to that post. 

I really do not understand why questioning your posts is "deflection"?!  YOU raised the issue of socio-economic damage - so why not discuss it?


Ian - 

There is enough spamming and abuse on this thread without you adding to it. Stick to the topic.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 15, 2013)

Fox - 



> What did you think of the article re global cooling that I excerpted and linked?



Interesting stuff, and possibly deserving of further study. 

Even so - it's a bit of a voice in the wilderness right now. I don't see that anyone seriously interested in the topic is going to cling to a paper that even the authors say might not be significant.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where did you read that the authors thought the paper 'might not be significant?'


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2013)

IanC, have you been following this new study--the one I just posted?  Do you have any thoughts on it?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Fox -
> ...



Here:

*"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,*" says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Already asked and answered Saigon.  I am not buying into your deflection and derailing techniques further.
> ...




how much damage has been caused by diverting corn into ethanol? unintended consequences have laid a heavy burden on the poor who have seen staple food prices rise so that junk fuel can hurt our machines.

there is a finite amount of money for research. every dollar spent on 'climate science' is money that is not spent on something else. while I am not advocating for no money to climate science, I do look askance when hacks like Lewandowsky receive a half million dollars to compare skeptics to conspiracy theorists. especially when they fail in such epic fashion. 

you cannot find new technological solutions by simply throwing money around, it has to get to the right (few) people. unfortunately there are a lot of charlatans waiting to cash in on easy money that no one seems responsible for; like the billions wasted on solar companies in the last decade.

so far there are very few realistic solutions that make a significant impact on our energy consumption. I don't believe in just doing expensive things for the sake of doing something, especially when they have _no chance of succeeding._


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



So why would you highlight one phrase without including the qualifier that immediately follows it?   The two sentences together are the writer's opinion while  cherry picking a few words out of it assumes an intent he absolutely did not intend.  Such a technique is dishonest and fraudulent and something no true scientist or even a student of science would engage in.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> IanC, have you been following this new study--the one I just posted?  Do you have any thoughts on it?



foxy- I am skeptical about every paper, even the ones that sorta agree with my position. at least this one shows historical consistency. I find it easier to believe people who have no dog in the fight, authors writing about 'ice fairs' on the Thames, explorers measuring ice 100+ years ago, fishermen noticing warm water and different fish stock, etc. everyone puts their own spin on scientific papers because they didn't listen to Feynman's advice. or Eisenhower's either.

long term cooling has been derived many times by many authors over the last many decades of science so it is likely to be correct. finding the right explanation for it is another thing altogether.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Fox - 

Yes, I would highlight the phrase I found most interesting. 

I am still waiting to hear more about the socio-economic damage, btw.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> how much damage has been caused by diverting corn into ethanol? unintended consequences have laid a heavy burden on the poor who have seen staple food prices rise so that junk fuel can hurt our machines.
> 
> there is a finite amount of money for research. every dollar spent on 'climate science' is money that is not spent on something else. while I am not advocating for no money to climate science, I do look askance when hacks like Lewandowsky receive a half million dollars to compare skeptics to conspiracy theorists. especially when they fail in such epic fashion.
> 
> ...



My point was not questioning whether converting from any one source of energy to another has a cost - but whether that cost is greater than the cost of doing nothing. 

What cost is already being levied on the people who relied for Andean glacial melt for water - and are not suffering from droughts?

What cost is already being levied by the impact of increased droughts in Spain and Australia, combined with the impact of increased floods in Australia, Bangladesh and Holland?

What cost is already being levied by the impact of coral bleaching on global tourism?

The impact of elements we already know for a fact are happening - glacial melt, Arctic melt - will be in the trillions of dollars globaly. Fox's solution is that we do nothing to limit that. I  disagree.

As for the points you raise - I agree corn is not the best source of biofuel. Ultimately, perhaps algse will be - but who knows at this point.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon I have answered your same question again and again and you ignored my answers.  So you'll have to do the work to go back to find those posts because I have no confidence that you'll bother to read them if I repeat them because they won't be 'interesting' enough to you.  If you read only what interests you and leave out what completes the thought, you would make a really sorry scientist,  Wouldn't you agree?

And you completely missed the point IanC made in his excellent response to your question.   Was that due to disinterest too?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> What "socioeconomic (sic) damage" is being caused by climate change science?
> 
> Have you considered what the economic consequences of NOT adapting to a warmer and more extreme climate might be?



It seems to me that endemic to conservatism is the belief that doing nothing is always the cheapest alternative. Of course when you are talking about national problems it's rarely the cheapest alternative. I think that conservatives are hard wired to look only at short term costs and liberals at long term investments. 

When you consider all of the national damage done by the Bush Administration it's a toss up as to whether more was from what he did do or what he didn't do.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 15, 2013)

> Speaking of the warmers religion soon to be in full retreat, remember how much the world resisted revised scientific theories put forth by such great pioneers as Copernicus and Galileo? Both were proclaimed heretics by the Church and most other scientists of their day rejected or ignored them. But truth has a nasty habit of winning out over time.



Interesting interpretation. All along I've been under the impression that Copermicus and Galileo were persecuted by the religious community, like the Spaniish Inquisition. *Perhaps the issue is you see science as religion?

It might have been easier on Galileo had there been scientific journals and a better peer review methodology in the 1600s.



> Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."



Okay, some adjustments to the model. *Isn't that the way it always is?

"Before the 17th century scientists believed that there was no such thing as the "speed of light". They thought that light could travel any distance in no time at all. Later, several attempts were made to measure that speed:

1638 Galileo: at least 10 times faster than sound
1675 Ole Roemer: 200,000 Km/sec
1728 James Bradley: 301,000 Km/s
1849 Hippolyte Louis Fizeau: 313,300 Km/s
1862 Leon Foucault 299,796 Km/s
Today: 299792.458 km/s"

That's how it goes, closer and closer.

Or are you suggesting that this article changes the measures of temperature since the late 1800's?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Yeah, I read that as in "it's not insignificant". *That's like saving interest rates of .8% aren't insignificant because it helps reduce the effecf of a 2.5% rate of inflation to 1.7%.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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




Oh, I get it.

"J. Esper et al., Orbital forcing of tree-ring data, Nature Climate Change, 8 July 2012 "

So the recent long term trend and short term variability is due to changes in the orbit of the earth.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2013)

Well, the way I read it, they attribute it to gradual changes in the position of the sun AND the increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.  Which makes perfect sense to anybody who reads it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Well, the way I read it, they attribute it to gradual changes in the position of the sun AND the increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.  Which makes perfect sense to anybody who reads it.



Not so weird.. There is a math construct of the Center Mass of the Solar System. Because of the orbital dynamics working on the Sun -- It's center of mass cycles slowly over time. 
We haven't had orbiting observatories up LONG enough to get physical evidence (and it's near impossible to ACCURATELY measure TSI directly from the ground), but my I wouldn't be surprised if we find a measureable pattern...


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...









You omit the qualifier at your peril there saggy.  As far as the damage done, how much money are you willing to squander on politically motivated research?  How many need to starve for you to be satisfied?  Hundreds of thousands could be fed with the corn that is insanely rendered into alcohol for fuel, fuel that is not as efficient as that which it seeks to replace and which causes more environmental damage in the making?

Get real, even a propagandist like you must have some base ethics...somewhere?


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > how much damage has been caused by diverting corn into ethanol? unintended consequences have laid a heavy burden on the poor who have seen staple food prices rise so that junk fuel can hurt our machines.
> ...







None of those impacts are true.  You'll have to do better than make crap up.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon I have answered your same question again and again and you ignored my answers.  So you'll have to do the work to go back to find those posts because I have no confidence that you'll bother to read them if I repeat them because they won't be 'interesting' enough to you.  If you read only what interests you and leave out what completes the thought, you would make a really sorry scientist,  Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> And you completely missed the point IanC made in his excellent response to your question.   Was that due to disinterest too?







Inability...


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre -
> ...









And yet more environmental damage has been done BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS in CA, than by all the oil companies world wide over the last 40 years.  More rare raptors and scavengers have been butchered by "green" windmills in ONE year than by all the oil spills man has caused EVER.

You too, are hoist on your own petard.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> > Speaking of the warmers religion soon to be in full retreat, remember how much the world resisted revised scientific theories put forth by such great pioneers as Copernicus and Galileo? Both were proclaimed heretics by the Church and most other scientists of their day rejected or ignored them. But truth has a nasty habit of winning out over time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







If you're going to pass yourself off as a intellectual then you had better do your research better.  Eratosthenes is the first to accurately determine the distance from the Sun to the Earth and to do so he also calculated the speed of light to within one percent.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Well, the way I read it, they attribute it to gradual changes in the position of the sun AND the increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.  Which makes perfect sense to anybody who reads it.



Which is old news






CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

So does it explain the current trend?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 15, 2013)

It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.





Obvious perhaps to a mental midget.. The hysterical projections of TOTAL warming in the future are NOT based on what additional CO2 man is putting into the atmosphere.. MOST of the projected warming comes from climate feedback mechanisms that ARE SAID to be mostly positive towards warming. For instance, a warming planet probably has more cloud cover.. Debates RAGE about the net direction of whether this is a cooling effect or warming effect. Other feedbacks include the ocean ability to sink CO2 or the increased CO2 absorption from the land. NONE of this is settled science.. WITHOUT THE FEEDBACKS, there IS no catastropic Global Warming from man-made CO2. 

Note that the theory is that a relatively minor induced rise in temp from CO2 will be the TRIGGER for a ginormous fuel air bomb when the methane melts in the Arctic.. 

Now I dont expect you'll ponder this. You'll probably keep quoting Occam. But for you to believe that the Earth climate is sooooo fragile that a 3degF forcing in Mean Temperature leads to the end times  --- Then you need to know that ANY 3degF forcing would do the same. In other words YOU have to believe that the planet we live on is a dangerous lemon that can't tolerate a 3degF shift without going totally postal.. How silly is that belief really?

Silly enough that YOU think it's simple...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 15, 2013)

Well, if it all come do to who to believe....

Hmm...

You or


Global Warming Supportive Sites


GLOBAL

UN
Gateway to the UN System's Work on Climate Change - Home (CC Gateway)

IPCC
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Bank
Climate Change Home

Europe
Climate change ?


World Health Organiztion
WHO | Climate change

OECD
Climate change - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

NATIONS

Britian/United Kingdom
Climate - Met Office

Australia
Tackling the challenge of Climate Change | climatechange.gov.au
Climate Change in Australia - Temperature, Rainfall, Humidity, Sea surface Temperature, Wind speed, Potential evapotranspiration, Downward solar radiation

Canada
Canada's Action on Climate Change - Climate Change

Iran
Iran's Climate Change Office

New Zealand
New Zealand climate change information

US-FEDERAL

National Institute Of Health
Climate Change: MedlinePlus

NOAA
Science & Services for Society | NOAA Climate.gov
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management : Climate Change

EPA
Home | Climate Change | US EPA

NASA
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

USDA
USDA | Office of the Chief Economist | Climate Change Program Office

National Science Foundation
NSF Climate Change Special Report

CDC
CDC - Climate Change and Public Health - Health Effects

USGS
USGS: Science Topics: climate change

GAO
U.S. GAO - Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions

Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service - Climate Change Emphasis Area

US-STATES

Alaska
State of Alaska - Climate Change in Alaska

Calif
Office of Planning and Research - Climate Change: Just the Facts

NY
Climate Change Information Resources - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Vermont
Vermont Climate Change Initiative

Washington States
Clearinghouse: Federal Resources for Impacts, Preparation, Adaptation | Climate Change | Washington State Department of Ecology

BUSINESS

API
Climate Change

CHEVRON
Climate Change | Global Issues | Chevron

EXXON
Managing climate change risks | ExxonMobil

BP
Climate change

SHELL
Climate change - Shell Global


That makes it way easier.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.
> ...



Thanks for the demonstration of pseudo science. I can't wait for the next installment. Meanwhile, every day we put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, more radiation is reflected back to earth, and the average global temperature goes up. Every day. The US spent over $100B in extreme weather recovery last year. Remember when that was rare?


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the way I read it, they attribute it to gradual changes in the position of the sun AND the increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.  Which makes perfect sense to anybody who reads it.
> ...








Yes it's old news and yet your little graphs don't explain how CO2 can possibly drive the bus when it lags hundreds of years behind a warming period.  There is more evidence to support the theory that the current uptick in CO2 is due to the Medieval Warming Period that occurred 800 years ago then any theory of yours that claims CO2 is the most important GHG.

You guys settled on CO2 because it is something that can be taxed pure and simple.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.







Yes, AGW is the poster child for pseudo science.  Thank you for pointing that out.  What does Occam say about a "theory" that claims global warming will cause both less snow and more snow in winter as AGW proponent have done.

That is the DEFINITION OF PSEUDO SCIENCE.  If it's untestable................_*it isn't science*_.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well, if it all come do to who to believe....
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> ...








Ahhhhh yes the ever popular appeal to authority.  That too is a logic fail.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Yeah, try going back and calculating disasters from the past and add in the cost of inflation.  The reasone why it's so expensive now is because our money is worthless.  Add to that the concentration of population in large urban areas and you have a nice little target just waiting to be demolished.

For someone who trys and pass themself off as a big thinker you sure ignore a lot of factors.


----------



## gslack (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.
> ...



AND for the umpteenth time I have and the problem is you ding dongs know enough about proxy-socking to get away with it so far. You have several personas on here, that's obvious. And you're denying it doesn't mean much to me. You're a known liar and a fake.


----------



## gslack (Jun 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



I have been saying for years now, that GH gases are more likely to aid in shedding heat from the surface than they are to provide any additional warming.

The insulating properties of gases change with temperature. Just as the effects of GH gases are logarithmic, their effects change with rising and falling of temperature. Put the two together and add in natural convection and the system makes a very good heat pump.

It makes more sense logically, and given the evidence we have seems to fit. And this concept does not come into conflict with the 2nd law.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

Iftiwazme - 

You make an excellent point with those resources, one I hope sceptics will consider with an open mind. 

Given none of us are in a position to conduct our own research on this topic, we are all taking the word of some experts.

We know that physicists, geographers, climatologists, chemists and biologists overwhelmingly favour AGW, as does the oil industry, conservative politicians and auto manufacturers. 

Opposing we have a handful of scientists, a large group of extreme right wing politicians and the coal industry. 

Looked at from that point of view, it's not a difficult choice.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon I have answered your same question again and again and you ignored my answers.  So you'll have to do the work to go back to find those posts because I have no confidence that you'll bother to read them if I repeat them because they won't be 'interesting' enough to you.  If you read only what interests you and leave out what completes the thought, you would make a really sorry scientist,  Wouldn't you agree?



Asking for the third time now - provide me with the post #, and I'll go back and check that answer. How hard is that?

I don't understand why you make points and then apparently refuse to discuss them. This is not the first time I've asked a perfectly polite on-topic question, and you have simply refused to answer it.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre -
> ...



That seems to be it. 

As I said to Ian, of course there are costs associated with transitioning from coal to tidal, but so were there in switching from steam engines to oil. It's a natural progression to move constantly from older, dirtier technologies to newer, cleaner ones. Many of these will also result in direct savings for consumers, in the form of longer-lasting batteries, lightbulbs, or hot water from solar panels. It's progress.

It's also imperative for any government to prepare for whatever contingencies they can imagine - from terror attack to earthquake to rising sea levels.

The potential cost of NOT preparing for, say, increased storm intensity is far greater than the cost of replacing coal.

Why Fox opposes this I have no idea, and she clearly won't discuss it.


----------



## gslack (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Iftiwazme -
> 
> You make an excellent point with those resources, one I hope sceptics will consider with an open mind.
> 
> ...



Oh stop patting your lil bro on the back already. It's pathetic... 

He spammed a bunch of links that are behind the BS. It's not hard to find a list of links that support AGW. All one need do is go to a UN website and look, which is pretty much what junior did. Links to the same organizations that have continually pushed this failed hypothesis and have been shown time again to exaggerate findings..

Just read my signature and we can eliminate over half of his links on bias alone.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

Gslack - 



> Just read my signature and we can eliminate over half of his links on bias alone.



Actually, *your sig line is fraudulent *- as I am sure you know. (It is missing about 50% of the words in the original statement, and you have deliberately totally changed the meaning)

What do you think it says about a posters integrity that even his sig line has been manipulated?!


----------



## Ha3mme8tt (Jun 16, 2013)

you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

Ha3mme8tt said:


> you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.



I'm not sure who you mean here, but I am sure no one believes that CO2 "runs" theclimate - THAT is simplistic.

But most scientists believe is that AGW plays a role in altering the climate. That does not mean that the sun or orbital path of the earth do not also alter the climate.


----------



## gslack (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nonsense... The full quote...



> On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but &#8212; which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. *To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.* I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45&#8211;48, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.[8]).



My shortened version does not change the meaning of his words in any way, nor is it out of context with what was said...

The rebuttal/excuse to the APS he gave in PDF format as it was printed is even worse.. He screwed up and ran his mouth thinking his position would save him, and it didn't so he tried to justify it with a lengthy but pointless excuse.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanphysicalsociety.com%2Fpublications%2Fapsnews%2F199608%2Fupload%2Faug96.pdf



> On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but &#8212; which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. *To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth]to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.* I hope that means being both.


LOL, yes it was shortened but his original is even worse, He even states they should stretch the truth in the original..

ROFL.He thinks you are stupid, and he tells you so there. Read the entire article in the pdf file, its in the "opinion section near the end. He says he didn't mean that scientists should exaggerate even though that is what he said. He also feels that leaving off the words he ended with; "double ethical bind"seems toalter the meaning of his statement. he is a liar. The fact he claims it to be a double ethical bind, rather than a simple and honest portrayal of the data and facts like scientists should do is all too telling of him and his character...


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

> My shortened version does not change the meaning of his words in any way, nor is it out of context with what was said...



Nonsense - we both know that your only intention here was to distort the meaning of the quote as dishonestly as possible without being caught. If you intention was not to distort, you'd have included this sentence: 

"...as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but &#8212; which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts." 

Having a distorted and manipulated "quote" as a sig line fairly well sums up your posting altogether, doesn't it?

You're back on ignore mode.


----------



## gslack (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > My shortened version does not change the meaning of his words in any way, nor is it out of context with what was said...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you think it's so inaccurate why not quote my text fully? Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?

You just edited your last quote of my post, and then you try and lecture me on proper quoting? Unbelievable, your hypocrisy knows no bounds..

BTW. If I'm on ignore mode or were than your incessant neg-repping a should have stopped by now but it hasn't has it... Keep it up and when somebody finally realizes what you're doing and that you do it under multiple names, we can be shut of you and your clones. Also, the fact you claim to ignore me but still neg-rep me when you can shows again that you are a liar...


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

> Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?



Because I generally quote only the exact sentence I am responding to - it adds clarity and saves space on the page. If I am responding to your entire post in general terms, I usually quote the entire comment. Any poster can scroll back and read your entire comment if they wish, of course. 

Meanwhile - your sig line is STILL fraudulent.


----------



## gslack (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No what you do is take any and all context from the post, including your previous words that led to that post. It's childish, dishonest and a douchebag tactic..


----------



## gslack (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well, if it all come do to who to believe....
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> ...



What's up with your rep dude? LOL, get caught socking?


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2013)

Ha3mme8tt said:


> you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.



I don't know you or your position on AGW. CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth.

The uncertainties in energy in clouds etc dwarf the small but real CO2 effect. Climate science has stated that they have studied all of the factors and have come to the conclusion it must be CO2! I find that to be ridiculous when the error bars are much larger than the effect being measured. It is 'hidden variable fraud'.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> Ha3mme8tt said:
> 
> 
> > you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.
> ...



"CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth."

I don't understand your point. No matter where it is, co2 reflects roughly half of longwave radiation from the earth down again. And transmits virtually all short wave radiation down too. 

Eliminate all of the red herring stuff, and things get simple. The earth is a closed system except for solar short wave radiation in, and long wave radiation out. Reduce the amount out, and that energy has to raise the temperature of the system until the same amount is coming out as going in. There are simply no other global possibilities. 

What is complicated about that?


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon I have answered your same question again and again and you ignored my answers.  So you'll have to do the work to go back to find those posts because I have no confidence that you'll bother to read them if I repeat them because they won't be 'interesting' enough to you.  If you read only what interests you and leave out what completes the thought, you would make a really sorry scientist,  Wouldn't you agree?
> ...










What a wonderful conversation you carry on with the socks.  So cute!


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...








No, it's not, and you bloody well know it yankee.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ha3mme8tt said:
> ...








The fact that it's not an accurate recital of the physical world.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?
> ...



And might be considered illegal by mods if it significantly changes a person's intent and somebody wanted to report it.  I do sometimes lift a paragraph--never a partial sentence or thought--from a post to comment on it, but I always include a disclaimer that I took an excerpt from a much longer post so there is no misunderstanding about that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The fact that you are not following along and REFUTING any of the true statements I've made puts you in the cheap seats. It is NOT a simple action-reaction as you are mindlessly parroting. Besides the dependence on complex (not well known) feedbacks to wreck havoc (in my previous post to you), you are wrong that CO2 is DIRECTLY tied to a specific temp rise.. 

I'll give you one more chance to find ANY error in this LAST ATTEMPT to educate you.. 

The CO2 forcing function is an exponential relationship built on concentration ratios.. It predicts an increase/decrease in the HEAT POWER working on the surface of the Earth.. It's units are in watts/m2.  To get to temperature, as with any surface, you need to know the thermal properties. In GW theory this is called the elusive "Climate Sensitivity Number"..  

This converts the watt/m2 into a surface temp delta. CURRENTLY, the literature shows a complete DISARRAY of agreement listing that number ANYWHERE from the low ones to the high fives... Probably because these idiots treat the entire GLOBE as having just one Climate Sensitivity number when it's obvious that's counter productive to modeling. 

Point is --- YOU DON'T KNOW what temperature will do with CO2 forcing, you only know that the watts/m2 will increase by some amount. And when skeptics with a brain hear that 
"the science is settled" -- while VITAL insights like this are still in doubt -- we're just not in the mood to be heckled for being skeptical...

There it is.. .  Your last chance to nail me on "pseudo-science".. Go spend a couple months on Climate Sensitivity and CO2 forcing function and climate feedback mechanisms and get back to slice and dice me.. I'm scared and I'll wait under the bed... 

BTW:  Please toss that Occam razor out in the trash.. It's rusted and pitted all to hell.


----------



## gslack (Jun 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ha3mme8tt said:
> ...



LOL, short wave radiation is reflected down now? Really? SO according to you the atmosphere isn't nearly transparent to SHORT WAVE RADIATION?? Dude short wave EM radiation in the atmosphere for the most part is what comes in from the sun. And according to the theory you support GH gases are transparent to short wave em.. Jesus man you don't even know what the hell you're supporting one minute to the next...


----------



## Wroberson (Jun 16, 2013)

waltky said:


> Granny says, "Dat's right - one day there won't be no air to breathe an' den we all gonna die...
> 
> *Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark*
> _10 May 2013 - Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have broken through a symbolic mark._
> ...



350-400ppm is a natural state for outdoor air.
1000ppm is good indoor air with good air circulation
2000ppm is bad indoor air with poor circulation

Effects:

350-400ppm No ill effects
1000ppm drowsiness
2000ppm headaches

Sorry I can't site the source, but it was a government paper and part of a Wisconsin College study.  Didn't think I'd run into this again.

The debate is over.  It's no longer about controlling CO2, it's about adapting or parish.

My own personal point of view is that global warming and the "so-called" high CO2 levels are about a few people making money buying and selling green energy credits.  

It's adapt or die people...


----------



## Wroberson (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ha3mme8tt said:
> 
> 
> > you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.
> ...



You can find scientists on both sides of the argument. Which side is telling the truth?

Research Maurice Strong to find the father of global warming.  No he wants your land and food.

It's about controlling people and making money.  PERIOD


----------



## PMZ (Jun 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The red herring that this refers to is that I said that co2 reflects half of the long wave radiation down. Not precisely correct but the simplification is accurate in terms of the big picture. To be technically correct I should say that the co2 absorbs the long wave radiation from earth, then reradiates it's own long wave radiation, half of which goes up, and half of which goes down. 

Absolutely inconsequential to the main point. Co2 lowers the outgoing energy in proportion to its atmospheric concentration. With the same energy going in, and less going out, the earth and atmosphere must warm, until what's going out equals what's coming in. 

This is sort of representative as to how big oil tries to obscure the big truth by  dragging those with little science through insignificant details.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The limits to your understanding get more obvious. 

Any body in a vacuum. Radiant energy impinging on it. X watts in.  What happens? It warms until watts out = watts in. Reduce the watts out. It warms again until energy balance is restored. 

That's the whole story, sad for those who are inclined to push having to deal with reality out to the next generation. You loose. 

We've screwed around with these diversions for over a decade in order to put off solving the problem. It has cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and that cost will rise every year until the cause, burning fossil fuels, is substantially reduced. 

Reality. The inconvenient truth. It cares nothing about what we want.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> You can find scientists on both sides of the argument. Which side is telling the truth?



The side which has 0.7% of scientific papers on its side is likely to be wrong.

That is how much scientific support climate change denial has.

btw.You have misunderstood the debate about CO2. The reason we need to reduce CO2 emissions is not because people might feel nauseous or get headaches as you suggest - but because CO2 drives the increase in temperatures.


----------



## gslack (Jun 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



ROFL... LOL atmospheric CO2 is nothing like a vacum silly socko.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Ahhh yes, there it is..."BIG OIL" those nasty bastards (and they are) but they too have jumped on the "green" bandwagon and are quite happy to promote green techs that they then get huge subsidies for from the government.

I hate to break it to ya but big oil loves these boondoggles.  They get money for nothing.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








I really hate to point it out to you....but the Earths atmosphere doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Unfortunately for you your cures are worse than the illness....but that's true of all collectivist cures, they don't really want to fix anything.  They just want more power.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > You can find scientists on both sides of the argument. Which side is telling the truth?
> ...







A assertion never proven in the lab nor in the real world and with CO2 levels rising ever higher and global temps beginning a long cooling trend you are just simply wrong.

Period, end of story...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ha3mme8tt said:
> ...



And that is my biggest fear.  The numbnuts who cut and paste scientific sounding words from websites--they almost NEVER link them you understand--and it is obvious from their subsequent comments that they have zero understanding of anything they posted--nevertheless feed the fires of those who desperately want AGW to be a fact.  I even see the comments of oil companies getting on board.  They have too much integrity to really buy into the AGW religion, but they will mention something about what they are doing to lessen CO2 and other green house emissions.

I recently asked a high ranking oil company person about that on their website and are they really buying into the whole CO2 acceleration meme.  His reply was "Oh hell no.  And what we're doing isn't going to help much if at all.  But the government is paying us lots of millions of dollars for green energy technology and if we don't do it, our competitors will."

So from T Boone Pickens to GE to hundreds of other groups and corporations over the country, billions and billions of dollars are up for grabs.   If the government is going to shovel out the money anyway, who would say they don't deserve a piece of that pie, most especially when they have paid in massive taxes with little or nothing returned from those?   

Pickens by the way got out of he wind energy business when government subsidies became harder to come by and he was losing his shirt.  He said it just isn't economically feasiable at this time, will never be as efficient as oil and gas, and produces nowhere near the paying jobs that oil and gas produce.   He is now wheeling and dealing with Congress in hopes of snagging $28 billion in subsidies to develop more and better uses of natural gas.  But he doesn't think much of Obama's energy policy.  Says there isn't one actually.

Pickens is just the tip of the iceberg on all this.  You are absolutely right.  The evidence is coming out all the time that it has never been about saving our climate.  It has always been about money, power, and control.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I recently asked a high ranking oil company person about that on their website and are they really buying into the whole CO2 acceleration meme. *His reply was "Oh hell no. *And what we're doing isn't going to help much if at all. *But the government is paying us lots of millions of dollars for green energy technology and if we don't do it, our competitors will."



So you have personal experience that the oil companies lie....

And you believe the one he says is a lie is the truth..

Doesn't this sound a lot like the Jodi Arias trial? *

"Are you lying now, or were you lying before? *Which are we suppose to believe?"

So basically, your admitting that you lie all the time and have no problem with it because you "know" you have a good reason...

Holly crap. *Talk about hypocracy. *No wonder you are so convinced that everyone is lying. *Like a drug addict thinks every one does drugs...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

Do you ever read what you write Itfitzme?  Does that worry you?  It should.

P.S.  Please point to the exact phrase in my post that indicates that the oil companies lie.   Your taking a phrase out of my post that changes the meaning is dishonest and possibly illegal.  Just so you know.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Do you ever read what you write Itfitzme?  Does that worry you?  It should.
> 
> P.S.  Please point to the exact phrase in my post that indicates that the oil companies lie.   Your taking a phrase out of my post that changes the meaning is dishonest and possibly illegal.  Just so you know.



Do you read your own?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Fox - 



> I even see the comments of oil companies getting on board



Actually, it's been more than 10 years since any oil company denied climate change - including those who have no interests at all in biofuels. How do you explain that? BP, Chevron, Shell and Mobil all admitted the impact of their business activity on the climate at the time the science became undeniable. 

btw. Most research into biofuels has not been funded by governments, but by the oil companies themselves, and at massive cost. They see what you do not - that there is life beyond the internal combustion engine as we know it.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Fox - 



> Pickens by the way got out of he wind energy business when government subsidies became harder to come by and he was losing his shirt. He said it just isn't economically feasiable at this time, will never be as efficient as oil and gas, and produces nowhere near the paying jobs that oil and gas produce. He is now wheeling and dealing with Congress in hopes of snagging $28 billion in subsidies to develop more and better uses of natural gas. But he doesn't think much of Obama's energy policy. Says there isn't one actually.



This is from Pickens website:

America is the Saudi Arabia of wind. According to a 2007 Department of Energy study, building out our wind capacity in the Great Plains - from northern Texas to the Canadian border - would produce 138,000 new jobs in the first year, and more than 3.4 million new jobs over a ten-year period, while also generating as much as 20 percent of our needed electricity.

No discussion about America&#8217;s energy future is complete without including wind energy. From Jay Leno putting a windmill atop his garage, to huge wind farms like those in Sweetwater, Texas, wind is a clean, abundant source of energy for America.

Wind | Pickens Plan

Can you explain why his statement says almost exactly the opposite of what you claimed?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

2012--


> oilman t. Boone pickens made a statement on msnbc's morning joe wednesday that should make every green jobs advocate including barack obama, al gore, and van jones sit up and take notice.
> 
> "i've lost my a--" in wind power. This came moments after he said, "the jobs are in the oil and gas industry in the united states" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
> 
> Read more: t. Boone pickens: 'i've lost my a--' in wind power - 'the jobs are in the oil and gas industry' | newsbusters



Didn't spend much time on the Pickens site Saigon linked as my virus protection sent up an immediate warning that I shouldn't proceed there.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Fox - 

The quotes I posted above were updated in June 2013. 

Here is more from his site:

From an environmental standpoint, electricity generation is the largest industrial source of air pollution in the U.S. and demand for electricity continues to grow. The United States produces six billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. By 2030, this number could reach 6.75 billion metric tons. 40 percent of CO2 emissions are generated by the electric power sector.

Wind power generates no emissions, and displaces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that would otherwise be emitted by fossil fuel-fired electric generation. The clean generation provided by wind capacity installed through 2008 will displace approximately 44 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. One megawatt-hour (MWh) of wind energy produced reduces CO2 emissions by roughly 1,200 pounds. A single 1.67-MW turbine produces over 5,000 MWh of electricity, and so each turbine reduces CO2 emissions by over 3,000 tons.

- See more at: Wind | Pickens Plan

Do you think you may have misunderstood his position?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

Your website is suspect Saigon.  I doubt it is Pickens website.  I don't doubt what I heard him say in his own words in that video I posted.

Or this:


> Yesterday, Pickens announced he was cutting his order of wind turbines from General Electric by more than 50%.  Pickens was set to be delivered 687 wind turbines, but now he will only receive 300.  All 687 turbines were originally slated to be installed in Texas at Pickens' proposed 1,000 megawatt wind farm.
> 
> After suspending the project indefinitely, Pickens said he would re-locate the turbines at smaller wind farms.  Apparently the wind farms are much smaller than orginally estimated.
> 
> ...



And again Saigon I recommend that people avoid the link you posted and you should run a virus scan.  My virus protection said it was a bad site.

Here is the authentic site of the Pickens Plan.  Good luck on finding much on wind energy there:
Pickens Plan | It's time to stop America's addiction to OPEC oil. T. Boone Pickens has a plan.

Edit:  Okay I did find that page you posted here so it is from his legitimate website.  He probably forgot it was there when he was still wheeling and dealing in wind turbines.  But he has obviously dropped wind energy from the Pickens Plan as of the last couple of years, at least for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Fox - 



> Your website is suspect Saigon. I doubt it is Pickens website. I don't doubt what I heard him say in his own words in that video.



Well, if is not his site, I think he might want to call his lawyers. 

I don't see any contradiction myself in Pickens reducing his order for turbines now, or for relocating some turbines, and his understanding that wind will be vital in future. That is the way the market works some times, particularly with newish technologies.



> He probably forgot it was there when he was still wheeling and dealing in wind turbines.



Possibly - but I think a more likely explanation is that you simply rushed to judgement. As far as we know Pickens remains committed to wind energy, and will probably remain so as long as the future for wind looks as strong as it is right now. 

I'm personally more of a fan of a tidal/nuclear mix as the main sources of energy, but even so - wind has its place.


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year. 

LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.

Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

This might be a good time to review energy costs:

Advanced Coal 140 (per MWH)

Coal NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine   132

Biomass   120

Nuclear 112

Advanced Coal 112

Convention coal 99.6

Wind 96.8

Hydro 89.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this shows why most experts consider coal to be an outmoded technology, and why nuclear, wind, tidal, hydro and natural gas are considered to be the main fuels of the 21st century. 

Tidal is not priced here, but pilot programs in Scotland, Korea, New Zealand and China suggest that it may become the cheapest source of energy available.


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> This might be a good time to review energy costs:
> 
> Advanced Coal 140 (per MWH)
> 
> ...



Nice numbers but the fact it was for *"Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017"* seems to change things a bit.. LOL,dude are you even capable of honesty anymore?

*Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017*

Conventional Coal	*99.6*
Advanced Coal	85	*112.2*
Advanced Coal with CCS	*140.7*
Natural Gas Fired						
NG: Conventional Combined Cycle	*68.6*
NG: Advanced Combined Cycle	*65.5*
NG: Advanced CC with CCS	87	*92.8*
NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine		*132.0*
NG: Advanced Combustion Turbine	*105.3*
Advanced Nuclear	*112.7*
Geothermal	*99.6*
Biomass	83	*120.2*
Wind1	34	*96.8*
Solar PV1,2	*156.9*
Solar Thermal1	*251.0*
Hydro1	*89.9*

That's from your link socko.. Why not cite the full list instead of cherry picking?

And the funny part is the numbers are not only estimated but do not reflect actual costs of wind power.It does not reflect insurance. it's a huge tower with big spinning blades and not only a fire hazard but a big airborne fire hazard. Not to mention the damage it can do to birds, and the habitat destruction such wind farms will entail. Oh yes insurance will be a problem. Also where is the maintenance costs? It's meaningless list generated to sell a product..


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Gslack -

I'm not sure why you re-posted what I had already posted, but either way - it seems you do understand that your previous post about wind power was wrong, and that is the main thing.


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> I'm not sure why you re-posted what I had already posted, but either way - it seems you do understand that your previous post about wind power was wrong, and that is the main thing.



Socko we can all see I posted the list as it was on your link, and you edited a version for your post..

You're pathetic, now your quote editing carries over to things you grab from other sites as well. nice work..


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Gslack - 

Providing you understand that your previous post about wind power was wrong, that is the main thing.

btw. Try and stick to the topic. No one is interested in your constant abuse, accusations and name-calling. The next will be neg-repped.


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> Providing you understand that your previous post about wind power was wrong, that is the main thing.
> 
> btw. Try and stick to the topic. No one is interested in your constant abuse, accusations and name-calling. The next will be neg-repped.



Oh grow up ya big crybaby. You cherry-picked numbers, we all see it and your dishonesty in regards to quoting posts and quoting web pages is obvious.

What you did is dishonest, and when you refuse to quote people you respond to or edit their quotes is another example of this. And all the neg-repping, whining, and crying to mods will not change that.

Want me to stop calling you out for your dishonest behavior? Fine, then stop being dishonest here crybaby.

PS. and no my previous post is not wrong. Your list is deceptive and what's worse is the way you cherry-picked the numbers shows your deception in it's presentation.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Gslack - 

Let's try again. 

Based on the figures provided, is wind power cheaper than coal, nuclear or biomass?

btw. please don't forget to correct the fraudulent quote in you sig line!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Not to mention that the words "Climate Sensitivity" or logarithmic CO2 forcing function didn't penetrate his ossified brain.. I should start negging people for being non-responsive , combative and rude, but I can't neg them for being pitiful and stupid.. 

Watts in/Watts out HAS NOTHING to do with the absolute TEMPERATURE of the object -- unless you know the thermal properties of those materials..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

 We should always follow their examples right comrade?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Fox -
> ...



The dishonesty sometimes involved in the various scenarios the warmers lay out there is amazing.  I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal.  But so far I haven't found many, if any, who acknowledge that the primary reason it is cheaper is because of the massive carbon tax imposed on coal- roughly $9 billion for a country with population of fewer than 22 million.   Also government regulations on new coal production operations are so expensive as to be prohibitive.

Even with the carbon tax, Australian coal plants built in the 80's or earlier are producing energy more cheaply than the wind energy industry.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

I could make Cadillacs cheaper than Fords if I put a high enough tax on Fords.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.



Wind does need back-up, as does solar, which increasingly in Europe is Natural Gas. 

It isn't a grid "nightmare", it's something which Europe already deals with on a day-to-day basis without much fuss. 

Solar tends to be VERY predictable, and also has the advantage of being available through peak times. Wind is obviously less predictable, but it still generates more than 50% of the energy needs of some major EU economies at peak times.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > You can find scientists on both sides of the argument. Which side is telling the truth?
> ...



You are absolutely correct of course. But the fact of warmer might not be so bad. The consequences of warmer though are changed weather patterns which can have a profound impact due the the reality that we built civilization around the old climate. A new climate will impact both our port cities and our farms, as well as the impact of extreme weather on homes.

Doing nothings absolutely unaffordable.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> .  I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal.



That is silly - wind is cheaper than coal everywhere and anywhere and all the time. With or without taxes. 

The stats were posted earlier.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Perhaps the most idiotic post ever.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Tell us what surrounds our atmosphere if not a vacuum.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Why don't you quit spouting random factoids and go back and explain how "Climate Sensitivity" is not required to predict a temp rise from CO2.. And tell me HOW CERTAIN you are that all your myriad of consensus AGREEE on what this number should be? 

OR -- you could refute my observation about the "feedbacks" dominating the temperature projections. ABOVE AND BEYOND the mere injection of some trivial amount of CO2.. 

After all -- You started this with the silly statement that AGW was "simple" and "obvious".. 

And that my bone-headed friend is the topic here... Not interested in your "recollection" of basic physics..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > This might be a good time to review energy costs:
> ...



Your costs are to build new capacity, not to run it. If you never turn them on, fueled sources are pretty cheap. If you do turn them on, fuel and waste disposal are the largest costs.

The only question left is, are you just slow or just deceptive or both?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.
> 
> LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.
> 
> Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.



Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?

Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?

What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Nobody said it did numbnuts or that it's even relevant. 

Once a body as I have described has reached energy and temperature equilibrium, lowering the radiated watts out while maintaing watts in require a warming until energy equilibrium is restored.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Fox -
> ...



Mein Herr, this is just another attempt, with another red herring, to obscure what has to be and is being done to save civilization. You trying to avoid that in order to dump the whole bill on the next generations is disingenuous to say the least. 

Weather is predictable. Energy can be stored. Wind and solar provide typically during the day when demand is at peak. By charging cars at night millions of batteries store night time energy for day use. 

You have the imagination of a conservative which is to say near none.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Why shouldn't the cost of saving civilization from the consequences of dumping waste carbon in the air not be charged to those saving money by dumping it there?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.
> ...



"....VERY predictable ..... available at peak times"

Yeah the Europeans bought that bad Wiener and now they are FURIOUS at the surcharges and taxes on their power bills.  

Here's predictable peak time Solar Power in Germany.. Paid for by MORONS who don't understand a whit about system reliability or real time load balancing..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



I've changed my mind. You are incapable of understanding simple physics and are educated only in the denial of physics. A conservative media cult exclusive. 

Anyone educated in physics would avoid all of your pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and get to the point. Temperature and energy balance. Irrefutable. 
All that is needed to describe the problem. 

All of the crap that you lay down like a manure spreader on steroids are factors necessary to quantify and predict the timing and consequences and magnitude of what is inevitable. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth must be.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.
> ...



You are arguing with tiny minds who have been pursuaded that mankind is dumb, solutions are impossible, the monsters in the closets rule, we must each protect our stash because growth is a thing of the past, and somehow all smart people ended up in business and all dumb people in government. 

It's a mindset delivered daily to the nation's Lazy Boys, remote controlling the media boxes, to maximum opinionating and minimum informing. 

The non thinkers paradise. 

They are a major indictment of our education system.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And add to the loooooooooong list of points that went sailing right over PMZ's head.  You need to pay better attention to what your Siamese twin is spouting up there.


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> Let's try again.
> 
> ...



Based on the BS figures you got off wikki it depends on the type of "fossil fuel" and methods used.. See the numbers? They are from your link and you cherry-picked your list from them.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



There are many ways to avoid answering inconvenient questions and you've employed most of them. I'll bet you are wishing that you had a supportable position about now. 

It really is a lot easier than dancing around an unsupportable position endlessly.


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.
> ...



"natural gas" usually found near coal or petroleum deposits...Also a hydrocarbon,often contains CO2 in the mix.. Moron. LOL


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon won't read it, but for the edification of others re Gslack's sig line:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > .  I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal.
> ...



BS "stats". Not indicative of actual costs. Again as I said before actual costs would include loss of power due to lack of wind, damages, maintenance, insurance, so on and so forth. The numbers you cherry picked from wikki do not represent any of that.


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.
> ...



Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



NO LOL, it's your buddy's list. Or rather the list he cherry-picked numbers from to back his claim. I simply posted the full list to show perspective and his dishonest nature.

Don't like the list? Think it's deceptive? Me too, why not take it up with your pal...


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Anyone educated in physics would know that the actual heating on this planet occurs when the short wave EM radiation interacts with the atmosphere and suface. And that is not a vacum.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2013)

gslack said:


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



The fact is, if you remove the government subsidies and/or the carbon taxes, there is no place that wind power produces energy anywhere nearly as cheaply or as efficiently as coal, natural gas, and oil.  And since we are in no imminent danger of running out of any of the carbon based fuels, it seems the smart thing would be to focus technology on minimizing any environmental damage from the use of them rather than forcing less efficient stuff on us.

When wind energy or solar energy or any other energy source becomes more profitable than carbon based energy, we will see newer forms of energy replacing the old.  Profit is a powerful motive to produce new products that work better than the old ones.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 17, 2013)

Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: ?Count.? | Grist

Thats how "....Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz explained his confidence ....." Moniz replied. 'I know how to count. I can count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere.'

Can it be that simple? *It's hotter, there is more CO2, we can count how much is from people, and they are the same.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe... 

When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...
> 
> When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....



I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so?  Coincidence?

Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: ?Count.? | Grist
> 
> Thats how "....Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz explained his confidence ....." Moniz replied. 'I know how to count. *I can count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere.*'
> 
> Can it be that simple? *It's hotter, there is more CO2, we can count how much is from people, and they are the same.



The bold part is a lie. A bad one.. They have an estimate based on a sampling from the top of an active volcano and which they extrapolate with other readings to get a global estimate. Also, the very bio-components of "fossil fuels" make virtually every deposit vary from another. Meaning they aren't going to produce the exact same amounts of energy or give off the exact same amounts of waste. It's all an estimate, every single bit of it. Anybody who claims otherwise is full of it.


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...
> ...



Simple socko. The correlation is as temperatures rise due to solar and cosmic input increase, CO2  increases, until the solar/cosmic input changes again and then CO2 levels decrease. Simple..

Now dude what happened with your rep? Looks like a socking violation to me...ROFL.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...
> ...



Well considering your level of understanding of correlation versus causation, the temp rise also correlates well with 49 other factors. Like the average mature size of farmed salmon for instance. Why don't you go back a few pages and try to hurt me with an INTELLIGENT rebuttal to the observation that CO2 forcing is NOT a temperature rise without a "Climate Sensitivity number to account for the earth's surface thermal properties.. And tthat YOUR THEORY of GW, can't decide whether this number is closer to 1 or 5 --- but they PRETEND that their graphs and models are "RIGHT SPOT ON"... 

Do a little work sucker. And YES --- I have 4 or 5 published papers on Optical Computing. Just ONE of the areas I've been blessed to work in.. Yu wanna discuss? Or just badger?
Be glad to do any number of OTHER areas I've done research and engineering in.. But let's do all that in PMessaging eh?

Respond CAREFULLY -- my anger about losing my Civil Liberties and my country is making me more NEG today than usual....


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Another Bo Jangles class dance to avoid answering a question. That's the problem with indefensible positions. You can't defend them. So, you dance.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Anyone educated in physics would know that that has nothing to do with what I said.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

gslack said:


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



How much did you say a dedicated coal fired power plant for your house would cost?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



To compare costs, first fossil fueled plants have to be charged the cost of the consequences of their choices. The wars to defend their supplies, the consequences of dumping their waste into our atmosphere. That will be done by some version of carbon taxes. Then we'll let economics decide the issue. But, business has already decided. Nobody is investing in fossil fuels anymore. All investment is going to sustainable.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...
> 
> When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....



I've told you several times, all aparently over your head.

You have no interest in the physics. Only in the denial of AGW. That's what ignorance does to you.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 17, 2013)

There are  only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth. 

Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur. 

Radiant energy in comes only from the sun. 

Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space. 

The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.

Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more. 

That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Why would you want me to "hurt" you? What id wrong with you?

I'm not the one trying to play myself of as being brilliant.*

So you have published papers on optical computing, whoopty doo. *So why are you wasting your time on an internet forum?

What, you get put in a mental hospital?

Lots of things can be correlated without causality. *CPI is correlated with population growth. *But its meaningless because the are both simply functions that are grounded in exponential growth and they are part of entirely different systems. *This leads us nowhere as it simply says that in general, there are correlations that aren't causal. Woopty do...*

That's not the issue of interest. *The issue of interest is why is temp correlated with CO2 in the last century.

Here, I'll give you a basic clue to causality. *When two quantities of the same system are correlated, the probability is that there is a causal factor between the two.

No, seriously, what is wrong with you? *Why are you so pissed of at the world that your looking for some random person to take it out on?

Do you seriously think anyone is going to find you interesting or fun like this?


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Really socko? Funny but you stated vacum several times, you even tried to use a partial and inaccurate take on emissivity and absorption in a vacum when you tried to inaccurately state your ludicrous claim.

You're tiresome socko. You state bits of partial knowledge, and even the parts you actually use, are garbled in one form or another. You cited Botlzmann and implied it was your own, then you tried to use blackbody radiation, and now it's emissivity and absorption in a vacum. And when you are called on it you go into some grandstanding rant using generalities that make little to no real point. You pretend you're a scientist yet you speak like failed politician.

At what point can we expect you to start showing the scientist you pretend to be?


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Do you have one? Not sure you can get one for your house but you can get a ridiculous ecological disaster like a windmill of your very own. Seems it's all about the show with you warmers. It's fine to own a 100 foot tall windmill that kills birds and ruins a nearby ecosystem to leisurely supplement your water heater at $50,000. But if you own a coal burning electric generator to power yours and perhaps your neighbors houses, you're evil..


----------



## gslack (Jun 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are  only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.
> 
> Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.
> 
> ...



That is utter unscientific nonsense.. IF GH gases (CO2) react to long wave radiation from the surface as your theory claims, and as your theory claims radiates heat out from the molecular bonds in all directions, and again by your theory half would go up and out and half would go down warming the surface more, than it would have to be at least as efficient emitting heat out to space.. And that's going by your theory's contentions alone..

You idiots treat Long Wave IR like a particle for your theory because it suits your needs, completely ignoring the wave-like properties. Waves do not flow back to their source, and that would defy your theory, so you ignore that part of wave-particle duality and treat it as a particle. But when it's wave-like properties fit your claim it's quickly adopted once again. How do you build up particles in something like our atmosphere when it can shed heat away just as easily as it can send it back down to it's source? Well then it is the wave-like properties allowing the build up of heat, because a wave would have trouble navigating the molecules in the atmosphere..

A fine example of circular logic and pseudo-science..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward. 

I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants. 

Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly. 

And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are  only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.
> 
> Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.
> 
> ...



I WUV YU, YU WUV ME, We're a happy family... 

1) Climate sensitivity Numbers
2) CO2 Forcing Function (log nature)
3) FEEDBACK mechanisms.. 

Sorry Johnny --- I've got to give you an "F"... 

No discussion of the REAL climate drivers in YOUR AGW theory. And an apparent assumption that the models are predicting temp rise based SOLELY on CO2 in the atmosphere WITHOUT the 3 things I listed above. In TRUTH --- YOUR AGW theory is a lot more complicated than you state (there are mORE than 3 complications) and requires you to believe that a 2degC change in surface forcing FROM ANY CAUSE --- would set off a chain of catastrophic feedbacks resulting in 1000 plagues. Bummer eh? The planet you live on is a suicidal bomb... 

*The effect from CO2 ALONE ---- would make this whole issue *--- a literal snooze.. Before you ARGUE that point with me --- I suggest you work a bit. To AVOID my itchy trigger finger this week...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There are *only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.*
> ...



Ergo, there has been no rise in CO2 global mean temperature...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



All you need to know is:

1) I am here for 2 reasons.. To LEARN   and To dispell Bullshit scientific pronouncents and misrepresentations of technology to consumers. That's a MORAL obligation I have to preserve the independence and honesty of science and technology.. 

2) This is NOT a game to me. I take it as seriously as my REAL work.

3) I have the patience of a saint when folks want to actually discuss the topic.. I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap and doesn't defend it or respond to my questions.. 

So -- I'm over in Energy trying to dispell the myth that E. Musk's EV charging stations are "solar powered". And how it's just WONDERFUL if you can charge one EV in 20 minutes using the equivalent electrical power of 2 or 3 subdivisions full of houses to do it.

Also exposing the Govt propagated myth about the efficiencies of incandescent bulbs. 

People have actually decided that Bullshit tastes good. An they have a huge appetite for this "spin" and agiprop.. My goal is like Michelle Obama's -- to get America back on an Arugulla diet with less sugar and rat crap....


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There are  only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.
> ...



The concepts that you hope to hide the truth behind, have to do with how the closed system rearranges itself to achieve the required energy balance. But, energy balance is a requirement. And therefore when all is said and done higher concentrations of atmospheric co2 must drive the endpoint of higher global absolute temperature as seen by space. There may be thousands of other drivers of global temperature also but they are irrelevant to this discussion. 

Higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses will warm the earth.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Well thanks for playing nice.. Please go research what fraction of the AGW projected warming is due SOLELY TO CO2 alone.. You did not read the bolded part of my last post..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Which would be all great, if it had any bearing on reality. *You've created some mythical
antcedant in your own mind, that you regail against endessly.

I need go no further than "I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap " to ask the simple question, "what, or who, are you talking about?"


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



See.. I gave you the 4 reasons I'm here.. And the next thing you do is ask me stuff that's not part of the 4 motivations that I gave you.. 

You should really take me literally and learn the BASICS of effective, civil conversation.... When you get that part.. We can try science and technology again...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

There are millions of sad stories in life about people who bet the whole paycheck on a sure thing only to have the nag stumble and lose. Some blame the nag, but I, the gambler. 

While it's rediculous to compare science and horses the point is that in the beginning, science starts with people speculating as to whether this or that will turn out to be true.

But, real scientists don't invest themselves in the outcome, only in the learning. 

A lot has been learned in the last 20 years about many topics related to climatology. Learning is all good, but it doesn't replace or contradict what's been discovered and proven before. 

The simple precepts of radiation still are. A body receiving radiation from a warmer source gets warmer. Not forever, but until it is forced by its temperature to radiate away the same amount of energy as it is receiving. 

Always. No exceptions. 

Every molecule of co2 in the atmosphere increases the odds that it will encounter a passing photon of long wave radiation on it's way out to space from the warmed earth radiating it. If their meeting occurs in a certain way, the photon adds energy to the molecule and raises its temperature. That higher absolute temperature gets dissipated by the molecule radiating it away in all directions. About half out in space, and half back to earth. 

Net effect? More molecules of co2 in the atmosphere, less escaping long wave radiation. The same incoming shortwave solar radiation, but less escaping longwave radiation, can only produce one effect. The closed earth system must become warmer until energy balance is re-achieved. 

No histrionics. No chest pounding. No care about who bet on what horse. Simply the acceptance of what must be.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are millions of sad stories in life about people who bet the whole paycheck on a sure thing only to have the nag stumble and lose. Some blame the nag, but I, the gambler.
> 
> While it's rediculous to compare science and horses the point is that in the beginning, science starts with people speculating as to whether this or that will turn out to be true.
> 
> ...



If it's THAT SIMPLE.. Then quit pounding your chest and go get us the NET TEMP effect from *CO2 forcing alone * (no consideration of feedbacks, or Climate Sensitivities, or any of the stuff that your theory actuallys depends on). AND the Total projected net warming from AGW that you are hysterically invoking.. If the quantities are EQUAL -- you will have humiliated and disgraced me and I would never use that argument again.. 

Go Go Go ---


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...









"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"  It's hard to get more unthinking than that....


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.
> 
> I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.
> 
> ...










Prescient?  Really?  9 SIGNIFICANT ERRORS OF FACT, 35 lesser errors of fact and you claim it is prescient?  Then you insult those of us with real education to back up our observations?  You ignorant little twerp go back to your moms basement.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








What is "CO2 mean global temperature"?


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









You ignore the fact that the Earth is anything but a closed system.  Typical sock BS.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...











The myth is yours socko.  I find it amazing how many socks you clowns produce to try and further your BS.  It's like playing Whack-A-Mole, your arguments are the same failed arguments you had before.

Do try and come up with something new.  This is getting boring....but don't let that get your hopes up, we're NEVER GOING TO STOP whacking your crap back down the sewer drain where it belongs.

That part is fun!


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are millions of sad stories in life about people who bet the whole paycheck on a sure thing only to have the nag stumble and lose. Some blame the nag, but I, the gambler.
> 
> While it's rediculous to compare science and horses the point is that in the beginning, science starts with people speculating as to whether this or that will turn out to be true.
> 
> ...









One statement made by the revisionists cancels out all that you posted...."THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED".

Your statement not ours...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.
> ...



You took the harder target that time with Al GOre.. Me personally, I'd would have gone for the


> The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants. Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable.



By posting the 10 yr sector stocks for wind and solar.. But I'm pretty bored with these clones.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore.. 

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"...... 

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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







Oh, dear old Al is an easy target too.  But I'm with you on the same old BS train.  They really do have nothing.  It's quite sad actually.  I went to a global warming "discussion" recently at WNC and they had Dettinger as the guest of honor and Brown as his screener, they had a sheriffs deputy at the door, and no questions from the audiience were allowed you had to write your questions out and then Brown could edit the question to suit him.

Naturally I wrote a very specific question that I could identify as mine due to the specific nature of the question, and it was edited down to "what does the Antarctic ice cap tell us?"

They were playing to a bunch of friends (mainly, the whole front half was friends and family) and STILL they had to resort to that sort of non-scientific bullshit.

Dettinger was repeating the same old storylines with nothing new, just correlation equals causation and he actually had modified one of the newer graphs to hide the flat temps of the last 15 years.

Sad and pathetic.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Bullshit. *

Global climate change has nothing to do with what's got your panties all in a bunch. *

It starts here;

-----


			
				itfitzme said:
			
		

> Sweeping generalization;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And you jump in to create some imaginary enemy



flacaltenn said:


> *You LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE??? *To each his own..*


-----
Which we get down to whats really got you ticked off.



flacaltenn said:


> And Medicare killed my Dad twice.. Once on paper -- a feat that it took a Congressman and 2 months of my life to fix. And then for real when they wouldn't authorize anesthesia for a procedure. That makes us approximately squared off i reckon..*



---


flacaltenn said:


> BTW: Medicare rules PROHIBITED ME or HIM from paying for the anesthesia portion of the procedure. If you're gonna get your gonads microwaved by the govt, you only get LOCAL anesthesia. No amount of SAVINGS or Recourse could fix that problem. Literally sentenced him to death for lack of CHOICE or FLEXIBILITY.....



---

So you start some stupid word arguement



flacaltenn said:


> LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..


----

And I ask;



			
				Itfitzme said:
			
		

> So what is the differences between reflection, refraction, and difraction at an atomic level?



After four pages of posts, you've drive clear off the road with;



flacaltenn said:


> Here's what that cancellation looks like with laser light after a lens works on the phases. That optical computing stuff is amazing. You are looking at the spatial frequencies of some crystal lattice illuminated by a flat field of laser light and then focused with a lens.. At the focal point you can measure all of the vital geometry of that crystal.. The spatial distances between molecules in any direction. Working in that field gave me an unfair advantage in thinking between frequency domains and time or space domains. And the BEAUTY of this simple method was amazing.. ((That''s all a FOUR BEER topic))


-----

And your imagery is full of



flacaltenn said:


> *being *a suspect* and *getting interrogated*.. I've got my govt to that...


----


flacaltenn said:


> Why don't you go back a few pages and try to *hurt me *


---



flacaltenn said:


> Respond CAREFULLY -- my anger about *losing my Civil Liberties* and my country is making me more NEG today than usual....



----

You're just trying desperately to distract youself from what's really got you pissed off. *

You're pissed off because your dad died. You blame it on the anestesiogist, the anesthesia, and Medicare.

You got angry, threatened someone, and were either hospitalized or otherwise incarcerated.

You can't fix it. You blame yourself. *You blame others. You can't deal with your own self blame. You can't get back at anyone else. *So now you look for fights to pick over global climate change so you can do something with all that anger that is just bursting out you. *

Bullshit.

And the sad thing is it's even deeper than that. *Medicare is just a proxy for deeper issues. *Your dad depended on them, they hurt him. *You depended on your dad, he hurt you. You hurt him. You hurt yourself by allowing yourself to be hurt. *You allowed Medicare to hurt your dad. *You depended on Medicare hate depending on them...

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. *Anyone that has taken an English lit class can.

Sometimes people are too smart for their own good.

Stop and look around the room, once aften year of pounding a keyboard. You could go anywhere on the net and you choose this. *You could be looking at pictures of galaxies, a bazar in Iran, studying fish, anything, and you choose ^ that. Up there, ^, "hurt", "anger", "interrogated", "losing my civil liberties", ....

YOUR AT A COMPUTER READING WORDS ON A SCREEN. *THERE IS NOBODY BUT YOU AND A COMPUTER. *IT'S THAT SIMPLE. WHAT DON'T YOU GET?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

Precious Melt-Down/Hissy Fit.. That one goes into the archives.. 

I didn't "drive it off the road".. The significance of that optical computing observation simply whizzed by WAAAAAY over your head. It was intended for GSlack and IANC -- because they were discussing photon collisions and phase cancellations.. My you are instable.. 

Does that mean you're not working on showing me that the warming from CO2 ALONE without the feedbacks, without a wide Climate Sensitivity range, without any of those things that the theory injects --- is EXACTLY what the projected temperatures from the AGW elite have been? 


I thought you were doing SUMTHIN productive..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



WNC as in Nevada? Boy they get the top road shows don't they? We haven't seen the muzzling and retail sale of science like that since Kepler and Gallileo.. 

Al Gore vs Lord Monckton.. Extreme fighting rules. Las Vegas baby.. No seconds or handlers. To the death grudge match.. No one under 16 admitted. No science prereqs.

Speaking of Sad and pathetic. We've got a clean-up on aisle 6.. Short circuit -- full melt-down..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Let's start with what we apparently agree on. 

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation. 

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

Clearly, most who post here know everything and have no need for learning. 

However, in the off chance that someone wanders through here who is still open to learning, here is a little  long, but interesting nonetheless, explanation of earth's energy balance and the details of climate thermodynamics. 

Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...






Yep, the WNC campus in Carson City.  The group putting it on really had no idea what was going on, I spoke at length with one woman and called out Dettinger for lying about Muller being a reformed sceptic and I sent her a piece Muller penned for Harvard over ten years ago that clearly paints him as a warmist to support what I had told her.  Needless to say she was not happy that one of her speakers was a liar.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Don't care what your Cliff Note version of the AGW theory is.. I'm telling you the SOLE contribution of CO2 BY ITSELF doesn't project enough warming BY ITSELF to justify your hysteria.. 

Really time for you to do some work and learn about how COMPLICATED your AGW theory really is.. Not quoting from your recollection of what YOU think it means.. 

Here's a hint so you concentrate on WHY your version of AGW is waaaay too simplistic.. 



> Global Warming : Feature Articles
> 
> Greenhouse gases are only part of the story when it comes to global warming. Changes to one part of the climate system can cause additional changes to the way the planet absorbs or reflects energy. These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.



And INDEED the IPCC reports that generated the media frenzy about our impending doom did NOT predict temp based solely on GHGases, but upped the ante with a wheelbarrow full of speculation on feedbacks and Climate Sensitivities and MULTIPLIED the effect from CO2 alone to AT LEAST 3 times, and showed examples of the total warming being 4 or 5 times that CO2 would cause.. 

You best understand the theory you're defending......


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.
> ...



Oh look! You're wrong again. 

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I understand the theory that I'm defending very well. You are denying the science, that I understand, and perhaps you do too,  for political reasons. No real scientist would ever do that.

So far you have agreed that there can't be any question that greenhouse gasses cause global warming. The only question is one of magnitude. And you believe that it's possible that something could come along that might offset the impact of greenhouse gasses. 

Is that right?  Remember, if you try to deny AGW now, you must explain which of my three facts are in error.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

Those in the business of surpressing and/or obfuscating AGW science like to pretend that there are accepted theories and data that support that which they would like to be true. 

Here are a set of matched time line graphs that illustrate how the measured data supports the models of climate change that have evolved from science, as compared to politics.

Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Oh shucks I guess that science sham website you've been eating out of TRUMPS the BBC news.. 



> BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'
> 
> Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.
> 
> ...



BTW: BOTH the Kilamanjaro and the polar bear "studies" have been since pretty much discredited. The snow study on Kilamanjaro was an unvetted college thesis and caused much embarrassment at the UN IPCC when this was revealed. 

Stay out of the gutter...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I'm thinking that one of your problems is The inability to read what you post.

For instance, "These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone."

A statement that I believe is true, and very supportive of my position.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



I think that you've made a good point. If you only read and believe information that supports what you wish was true, you can be pursuaded that what you want to be is fact.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How this SHOULD work is that you take more than 2 minutes to pounce on my latest post with a half-digested witticism that proves you don't understand the conversation. Am I now your only hobby?? 

Don't CARE AGAIN --- what you believe... You told me that Global Warming Theory  was as simple as the amount of CO2 man pumps into the atmosphere. CLEARLY what I posted REFUTES you prior assertion... 

You need to go LOOK at all the HYSTERICAL PROJECTIONS of warming and figure out WHAT PERCENTAGE of that warming is attributable DIRECTLY to CO2.. 

If you continue to do these pop-up replies 2 minutes after I post -- and you DON'T go educate yourself on the topic.. Pretty soon, I won't be having any fun or learning.. 
So either have a mental breakdown like your ItFitzMe clone on-line and in public -- or put a little prep time into your responses.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

From my reference, above:

"The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue."

"The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues."

"Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used &#8211; nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:"

"17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:"

"i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."

"22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.""

"The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down."


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The advantage in science and technology is that the REAL truth is arrived at by a good process, experimentation, confirmation. NOT by political spin, or jury packing or peer pressure. I NEVER reject someone's link because of the source EVEN IF i personally find the choice horrendous. The worse the content of the link --- the easier it is to refute.

I WELCOME garbage links from adversaries.. But I rarely use them unless it links to original sources..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Clearly part of your strategy to politisize science is to proclaim yourself of great scientific expertise hoping that nobody will test that supposition. I have, and you stand revealed as the great pretender. The King without his clothes. 

Keep strutting, but we all see now how little of value you have to offer. 

The world is not as you wish it was.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 18, 2013)

The science deniers do so for political reasons. They would like to push off the most costly project mankind has ever undertaken to future generations. 

The consequence of this, as is typical of solutions delayed, is to substantially increase the cost. 

I have kids and grandkids. They have not been as fortunate as I in their placement in history. What they face will be tough enough without the greedy generation dumping even more their way.

Fortunately the deniers of science lost the argument a decade ago, but haven't stopped whining about it. So be it. The world has moved on without them and so should I. But I can't stand the whining pretending to be science. I just have a low tolerance for ignorance. So, despite the battle being already won, I choose to continue. 

Certainly not sensible, but rewarding nonetheless.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From my reference, above:
> 
> "The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue."
> 
> ...



So you're gonna stay in the gutter and boot the BBC.. Do you want it from ABCNews? Or do we have to go get the judges ruling and find all of the misrepresentations that your garbage websites made??? 

I took my "Thanks" back...

BTW:: HERE'S THE ACTUAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPT>> Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

Read it and realize that the fact the judge put quotes around the "errors" doesn't tell you jack about what he actually ruled. Samples of the Nine "errors"... 



> 1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
> 
> In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:
> 
> ...



Hey dude --- those are ERRORS.. When Al Gore says pacific  islanders are evacuating to New Zealand and the judge finds NO EVIDENCE OF THAT --- that's not just an 'error' - its a lie.. 

And the word 'error' is not always used in quotes as asserted by your syphilitic source... 



> iii) *There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports. *
> 
> Mr Chamberlain persuasively pointed out in his skeleton (at paragraph 7(c)):
> 
> ...



Boy Dude, you are doing EXACTLY what you wrongly accuse ME and other clear thinking citizens of USMB of doing.. And that is -- Clinging to the marginal gutter in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.. You lose ---- BADLY... 

BBC --- The Trial Judgement, you gonna UNSEE and UNHEAR what I've taught you here? 
I put a lot of work into this and since I can't Neg you again right away -- You're now on ignore..


----------



## gslack (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.
> 
> I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.
> 
> ...



In other words you can't account for your logic when it's tested, so you decide to grandstand and divert rather than defend your claims.. Got it...

Next sock please, this one's done..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.
> ...



I have not seen anyone tested by you. In fact, I haven't observed anyone trying to debate my science. Just 3ird grade name calling. 

That's why your "side" has been so ostracized. Trying to introduce politics into science for your personal benefit. That certainly makes you both a bad scientist and a bad politician. 

And unAmerican.

And irresponsible.

And disingenuous. 

And ignorant. 

I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.



If your position is that algore's inconvient truth was either accurate or precient then not only has it been disputed, but proven flawed...so flawed, in fact, that not even the usual crop of warmist nutters on this board even attempt to defend it.  Only the most crazed cultists would even think to try and defend algore or his fiction...you may not have heard but he is considered to be an embarassment to the warmist cause.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > From my reference, above:
> ...



Whoever wrote what you copied and pasted apparently disagreed with the judge who had the responsibility to make the call. Why am I not surprised? 

It's all irrelevant at this point. The world has left you behind as it should have. You've earned every bit of your irrelevance. 

You are welcome to prattle on with your merry band of science losers here and pretend someone cares about what you wish was true. 

History will regard Al Gore as the Paul Revere of AGW. They will regard you as the droppings that he left behind in the road. Aptly so.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.
> ...



I have stated my position on the now proven science. It shows that his work did a excellent job of predicting what has ultimately been proven. It has shown that what you wish to be true is a dream without substance. The world left the flat earthers behind, the creationists, and now the AGW deniers. 

Ignorance never wins in the end.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.
> ...



"Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used  nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:"

"17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:"

"i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."

"22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.""

"The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down."


----------



## SSDD (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I have stated my position on the now proven science. It shows that his work did a excellent job of predicting what has ultimately been proven. It has shown that what you wish to be true is a dream without substance. The world left the flat earthers behind, the creationists, and now the AGW deniers.
> 
> Ignorance never wins in the end.



What prediction did algore ever make that has come to pass?  Be specific.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I have stated my position on the now proven science. It shows that his work did a excellent job of predicting what has ultimately been proven. It has shown that what you wish to be true is a dream without substance. The world left the flat earthers behind, the creationists, and now the AGW deniers.
> ...



That AGW was real and would have extremely costly consequences for mankind. No matter what we do. But the longer that we delay reducing the problem, the more costly those consequences will be.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



OK listen carefully.. What I bolded above it sufficient to justify the following.. 

You are a fucking moron.. If you think you're promoting a cause --- you're not..

*Whose words are "cut and pasted"??  That would be the OFFICIAL JUDICIAL transcript of the JUDGES' own words.. *

What's "irrelevent" is NOT the WRITTEN VERDICT FROM THE JUDGE and BBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, and the AP.. 

It's YOU and the horsecrap you are willfully consuming and trying to sell piles of it.

Go do something more suited to your level of retardation and stubborness...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Of course, as is typical, you are wrong. You chose the words of the Prosecuters. I chose the words of the judge in his decision. 

Just like those who quote the words of the Antifederalists who lost the debate, as the "founders beliefs". 

You keep hoping that there is something substantial behind your positions. There is. Substantial ignorance and a completely out of control ego.

That just doesn't cut it in the face of universal truths.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

BTW, I'm not "promoting a cause". I'm representing the truth. That's what you are at odds with. Believe me, truth is way more powerful than your ego.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 19, 2013)

"Ignor"ance IS bliss sometimes...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What prediction did algore ever make that has come to pass?  Be specific.
> ...



So show me any proof at all that man's CO2 is causing the climate to warm.   Show me se example of anything happening in the global climate that is outside the boundaries if natural variability. 

What consequences are provably the result of AGW?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



I have already demonstrated that simple physics requires increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG to lead to increased global temperature to maintain energy balance. 

The changing of the concentration of atmospheric GHG is natural variability. We are headed back towards the conditions at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, the last time that the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels was atmospheric. 

The following reference has three graphs in the middle of it that's show the correlation between fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG, and global temperature. 

The instability created by the earth and atmosphere trying to deal with excess energy is the cause of extreme weather. That's to be expected and is intuitively obvious to objective science.

Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology


----------



## SSDD (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I have already demonstrated that simple physics requires increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG to lead to increased global temperature to maintain energy balance.



Actually, you have done no such thing.  You have claimed some things, but certainly not demonstrated them nor have you provided any proof by way of observed, measured, repeatable experiment that would actually demonstrate the truth of your claims.  

If any such proof that CO2 put into the atmosphere by man were causing the climate to warm, you would have no problem at all providing links to that proof.  There are no links because there is no proof.

Cimate models are based on the "simple physics" and the trenberth energy budget you claim prove that man's CO2 is causing the climate to warm and the climate models are failing miserably because they are based on flawed physics and a gross lack of knowledge regarding the actual energy budget of earth's system.



PMZ said:


> The changing of the concentration of atmospheric GHG is natural variability. We are headed back towards the conditions at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, the last time that the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels was atmospheric.



Who fills your mind with this tripe?  At the beginning of the Carboniferous Period, atmospheric CO2 was about 3 times higher than the present level at about 1,300 ppm and the global mean temperature was about 6 degrees higher than the present.  Do you bother to look up anything or just spew the lies and hysterics that you got from algore?



PMZ said:


> The following reference has three graphs in the middle of it that's show the correlation between fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG, and global temperature.



Those graphs which you neglected to produce also corelate between the global temperature and the reduced size of women's bathing suits.  Rule number one in the scientific method is that corelation does not imply causation and the beleif that it does represents a logical fallacy known as Post hoc or ergo propter hoc  or affirming the consequent.  If a logical fallacy is all that you have, then you have nothing.  



PMZ said:


> The instability created by the earth and atmosphere trying to deal with excess energy is the cause of extreme weather. That's to be expected and is intuitively obvious to objective science.



Are you saying that there never was "extreme" weather before atmospheric CO2 reached 350 ppm?  At what level of atmospheric CO2 did "extreme" weather start?  What "extreme" weather that is happening now is unprecedented in the historical record?

You don't seem to have anything to back up any of your claims.

I asked you which claims that algore had made that have come true and to name any "consequences" that are provably the result of AGW.  I couldn't help but note that you dodged both questions.    Further, you still haven't named a single thing that is outside the boundries of natural variability.  Things that happen within the boundries of natural variability are not an indication of a human fingerprint.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I have already demonstrated that simple physics requires increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG to lead to increased global temperature to maintain energy balance.
> ...



What you are providing evidence for, maybe even proof of, are the limitations to your ability to understand and learn. That is not my problem. Nor am I able to solve your problem. Only you can do that. 

Let's do first things first. 

A body in empty space. A radiant heat source adding energy to it. What happens?

The correct answer of course is that it would increase in temperature until it was radiating out the same amount of energy as it was receiving. 

Do you agree?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

One of the ways that deniers confuse themselves and others is to ignore the facts of what earth has to do as the concentration of atmospheric GHG increases, vs how it does it. 

What it has to do is simple physics. It has to restore systemic energy balance. The only way to do that, given the effect GHGs have on outgoing radiation, is to warm. 

No alternatives. 

How it does that is enormously complex. For one reason, there are so many interrelated systems involved. The land, the oceans, the ice caps, the atmosphere, clouds, all have to react within themselves and with each other to determine the transition from one level of atmospheric GHG concentration to another. The excess energy to be dealt with from when the concentration changes until the resolution of a higher space perceived temperature that radiates the excess energy into space, drives many dynamics. 

It takes supercomputer power just to predict global weather a day or two in advance. Modeling the long term effects of a continually changing GHG concentration through all of the systems that are impacted by the excess energy before final balance is reachieved, is the ultimate in mathematical modeling. And science.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I have already demonstrated that simple physics requires increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG to lead to increased global temperature to maintain energy balance.
> ...



If you really want to learn from the web everything that you need to to understand AGW, here's a good source.

Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








That is an OPINION idiot.  Not a prediction, try again.


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> BTW, I'm not "promoting a cause". I'm representing the truth. That's what you are at odds with. Believe me, truth is way more powerful than your ego.









Science and the scientific method have no interest in truth.  They only care about facts.  "Truth" is the realm of religion.

You have made it quite plain you are nothing but an ignorant internet troll so I suggest to my fellow USMB'rs that we no longer feed the troll...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> "Ignor"ance IS bliss sometimes...



Perhaps to you. To me, knowledge is bliss.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Describe for us a prediction that's not an opinion. Nobody knows anything about the future except for what's probable. Nothing is for sure.

For instance, someone could say that you're a jerk today, so you'll probably be one tomorrow. True. But not certain. You could be dead tomorrow.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, I'm not "promoting a cause". I'm representing the truth. That's what you are at odds with. Believe me, truth is way more powerful than your ego.
> ...



"Science and the scientific method have no interest in truth."

Magnificently ignorant.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 19, 2013)

All of these goons, hired by big oil, to deny the obvious. How? For a pat on the head, and a "good dittohead".

Pathetic. Who knew that those among us are for sale so cheaply.


----------



## gslack (Jun 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


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





Dude everyone BUT your big brothers have disputed your claims.. Seriously man time to up your meds...ROFL


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

gslack said:


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


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 19, 2013)

Do I detect another troll melt-down here?? Am I missing it in my "filtered" world? 

***********************
View Post  Today, 09:31 PM  
Remove user from ignore listPMZ  
This message is hidden because PMZ is on your ignore list.  

View Post  Today, 09:37 PM  
Remove user from ignore listPMZ  
This message is hidden because PMZ is on your ignore list.  

View Post  Today, 09:39 PM  
Remove user from ignore listPMZ  
This message is hidden because PMZ is on your ignore list.  

View Post  Today, 09:45 PM  
Remove user from ignore listPMZ  
This message is hidden because PMZ is on your ignore list.  
*********************************

4 Posts in 14 minutes !!!

First ItFitzMe and now PMZ?? Must be a basic design flaw at the troll factory... 
I suspect they skimped on the CPU cycle times and memory.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 20, 2013)

Nothing will be significant without China

At 1.344 billion, the population of China is 4.3 times that of the US. With emissions at 9.7 million metric tons (est 2011), it leads the world in total output, with the US coming in at 5.4 million total. On the other hand*per capita output is less than the US 17.3 metric tons per capita, less than half at 7.2.

Never the less, while China emissions per capita did show a decline in growth rate beginning in '05, the rate continues to rise through '09. *The US has, on the other hand, been flat for some time, declining into '09.

us co2 emissioms - Google Search

This is an interesting issue as each can claim success, compared to the other, one on per capita output and zero growth, the other on per
capita output.

China seems to be commited to reducing the growth rate of emissions. *A bit weak of an attempt.

Article-Guardian, UK
(2013)
Is China really a climate change leader? | Jennifer Duggan

China's Policy
(2012)
http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File1324.pdf

The UN report on China's Policy
*(No date, after '05, before '10)
http://www.un.org/ga/president/61/follow-up/climatechange/China-KeyElements.pdf
*


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



you make the same case as konradv. that CO2 makes it more difficult for the surface to shed radiation therefore it must be causing global warming now, and more global warming in the future. I agree with the basic mechanism and so do all of the major skeptics. 

so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'? because it is only one factor out of many, many factors in the climate system. calculations suggest ~1C per doubling of CO2 _if all other factors remain the same._ although this calculation is also a model, the parameters are constrained enough to have confidence in the output. 

is it the 1C rise from 280-560 ppm that is causing the hysteria? perhaps the second 1C from 560-1120 ppm? no, it is the 3x feedback factor that climate models have built in that are calling for catastrophe. that positive feedback has been found to be wildly exaggerated in the last few years, as could easily be expected because the earth is full of homeostatic negative feedbacks with very few unstable 'tipping point' positive ones. 

if you look at Trenberth's energy budget, what do you see? take a good look at the different pathways, both below and above the clouds.






what did you see?

besides the 40W that directly escapes the surface through the 10 micrometer atmospheric window, how much pinballs its way to the top of the clouds? 26W. what takes most of the energy up to the cloudtop and passed the greenhouse effect blockage? thermals and evapotranspiration, 17W +80W. 

you are worried about CO2 blocking some of that 26W out, and you have been told that it is increased by water vapour feedbacks. but water vapour and clouds _are what is taking most of the energy away!_ ever wonder why tropical water gets warm but no warmer? thunderstorms pump the heat out. if you increased the solar input, thunderstorms would start earlier and more often. if you decreased the solar input, thunderstorms would start later and less often. 

to reiterate- you are right in a narrow sense that CO2 causes warming by restricting the outward flow of some wavelengths of IR radiation from the surface. but you are wrong to think that it is an independent factor that does not interact with other factors, or that it can be separated out and individually be measured. the effect of CO2 is lost in the uncertainty of our understanding of water vapour and clouds. remember high school science and math? the precision of your result is only as good as your _least precise_ measurement!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What you are providing evidence for, maybe even proof of, are the limitations to your ability to understand and learn. That is not my problem. Nor am I able to solve your problem. Only you can do that.



So you admit that you have no observed, measured proof that man's activities are causing global warming and are going to try to make your point with a mind experiment.  Good.  That's a start.



PMZ said:


> Let's do first things first.
> 
> A body in empty space. A radiant heat source adding energy to it. What happens?
> 
> ...



The correct answer is yes, if the body in empty space is a perfect blackbody.  If the body you are referring to is earth, then you must first answer a question.  Is the earth a perfect blackbody?  If not, then you are already off the rails with your premise as you will find that you will have to fudge, twist, misuse, and dishonestly manipulate the laws of physics in an attempt to move your point further.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> If you really want to learn from the web everything that you need to to understand AGW, here's a good source.



At this point in time, what I need to understand is that I have asked not only you, but a very large number of people for observed, measured proof that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm.  You, like all the others have failed to provide anything even close to observed, measured proof.  You all claim to have proof, but none of you provide it.  You have belief, assumptions, hunches, logical fallacies, suppositions, hypotheses, and inferences....and you have computer models based on the same that have failed miserably.

What I am asking for is observed, measured proof that man's CO2 emissions are causing the global climate to warm and if you have such proof, you should be able to state how much warming man's CO2 emissions are causing.

So lets see the observed, measured data.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > "Ignor"ance IS bliss sometimes...
> ...



Then start by knowing that you are operating on the basis of assumptions as oppsed to hard, observed, measured data that proves AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Describe for us a prediction that's not an opinion. Nobody knows anything about the future except for what's probable. Nothing is for sure.



I predict that if I drop a stone off my deck, it will fall to the ground.  That is a prediction based on hard, observed, measurable observation over time.  There is no opinion there, simply the repetition of observed and recorded data.

I predict that from my point of view, the sun will appear over the eastern horizon in the morning and will dissappear over the western horizon at the end of the day.  Not opinion...the application of hard, observed, measured data applied over time.

I could make a thousand predictions based on the laws of physics that would come to pass and never miss a single one because they would be based on hard, observed, measured data applied over time.  Predictions revolving around AGW are not based on hard, observed, measured data over time...they are based on computer models which are running on flawed physics based on assumption, hunches, logical fallacies, suppositions, hypotheses, and inferences...not hard, observed, measurable data.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

gslack said:


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



I have always realized that there are certain personalities who are comfortable with what's in their heads so elect to never go further. Their choice. My inclination though is to make sure that their self induced ignorance doesn't spread to those capable of more. So, enjoy where you are if that really is the limit to your ability. Just don't pretend that it is anything more, you'll accomplish nothing, because the rest of the world is already down the street. 

Be a proud flat earther.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What you are providing evidence for, maybe even proof of, are the limitations to your ability to understand and learn. That is not my problem. Nor am I able to solve your problem. Only you can do that.
> ...



It has nothing at all to do with black bodies. It applies to all bodies. It applies to all molecules. It applies to all spatial bodies.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'?"

There isn't among scientists. Just among politicians. Because you choose to spend all of your time in skeptics bars, it may seem so to you, but there really is no argument among scientists. 

All of the remaining modeling and data collecting to be done is in quantifying the impacts from AGW to understand the costs of various rates of progress in solving the problem.

Accomplishing the reduction in the variability of those costs among the various models has been, is, and will be a tough challange and, given peak oil, may never be completed to everyone's satisfaction. Given that there are so many other reasons to end the fossil fuel era ASAP, the present variability may just be good enough. 

While AGW is a fact, what's not certain are what costs would be avoided if we stopped our production of co2 completely today. Given the time constants due to earth's thermal inertia and all of the feedback loops it could be decades before we've had to deal with all of the impact of the current co2 load.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It has nothing at all to do with black bodies. It applies to all bodies. It applies to all molecules. It applies to all spatial bodies.



Perhaps you should learn the difference between a blackbody and graybodies of varying degrees.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> "so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'?"
> 
> There isn't among scientists. Just among politicians. Because you choose to spend all of your time in skeptics bars, it may seem so to you, but there really is no argument among scientists.



The science is only "settled" among a very small group of climate scientists.  



PMZ said:


> All of the remaining modeling and data collecting to be done is in quantifying the impacts from AGW to understand the costs of various rates of progress in solving the problem.



Hardly.  None of that matters till they can actually produce a model that has some predictive power in regards to the climate.  Thus far, they are abject failures in large part due to the flawed physics and unfounded assumptions programmed into them.



PMZ said:


> While AGW is a fact,



AGW is not fact.  It is an assumption.  If it were fact, then you would be able to produce hard, observed, measured evidence of it and say precisely how much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions.  By now it is obvious that you can't.  It may be fact that you believe in AGW, but AGW itself is not fact.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > If you really want to learn from the web everything that you need to to understand AGW, here's a good source.
> ...



What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it. 

There is no science that denies it. 

The only question is, where are we in response to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > "so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'?"
> ...



AGW is a fact to everyone who understands the science. That obviously excludes you. 

What's left is to calculate the consequences of the fact of it, at the current and future levels of it, to civilization.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It has nothing at all to do with black bodies. It applies to all bodies. It applies to all molecules. It applies to all spatial bodies.
> ...



Perhaps you should learn that all bodies in space warm and radiate just enough to maintain energy balance.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"is it the 1C rise from 280-560 ppm that is causing the hysteria?"

It's interesting that you call solving a problem potentially costing mankind trillions of dollars and millions of lives "hysteria" rather than measured response.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



My point was that you are going to have to twist the laws of physics if you are working your way up to invoking the Stefan-Boltzman equations.  On second thought, maybe you don't even know what they are or how they have been misapplied to the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's interesting that you call solving a problem potentially costing mankind trillions of dollars and millions of lives "hysteria" rather than measured response.



One degree is a problem for us on a planet that experiences wild temperature swings?
The Miocene, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were at least a degree warmer than the present...what sort of problems does history tell us that temperature increase caused other than to allow mankind to flourish?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.


 you have provided is nothing...no measured, observed, empirical data whatsoever. 





PMZ said:


> is no science that denies it.



Not only does actual science deny it, reality denies it.   The models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they are failing miserably because the hypothesis is wrong.



PMZ said:


> only question is, where are we in response to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years?



No, the question...which remains unanswered..is where is the hard, measured, observed, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm.  Where is the human fingerprint in the climate?  Lets see the data.  After that, lets discuss how much warming due to CO2 and then determine whether it will cause any problem at all or even if it can be recognized within the noise of natural variability.

Typical of all warmists, you are eager to jump past the hard scientific questions right to income redistribution.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I believe that you are looking at the picture incorrectly. 

Let's try a mind experiment. 

Let's assume that the world including the atmosphere is as it is today, with he sun switched off. Let's replace GHG with a half silvered mirror, transparent to shortwave, instead of the GHG absorption and radiation in all diirections that we know is the truth.

Switch on the sun.

The earth will start warming from the impinging solar energy. When will it stop warming? When the temperature of the surface is hot enough to radiate 396 W/M2 and therefore the net energy out = the energy captured from the sun. 

Replace the half silvered mirror with one twice as reflective. What happens? The first thing would be that the net energy out would halve, the world would start warming, until it reaches a new temperature that once again restores the energy out balance with incoming energy. 

How many years would that take, and what would be the final temperature? 

For others to determine.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.
> ...



I see that you are not a businessman or a scientist. If you were a businessman you'd know that all future prospects involve risk. The earth could end tomorrow. The consequences of the certainty of AGW could be twice or half as bad as anyone is predicting. 

Smart people play the odds . Conservatives do nothing until the problem is insurmountable. Then ask liberals to bail them out.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



The Stefan-Boltzmann equation doesn't need me to invoke it. That happens automatically.


----------



## westwall (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.
> ...









Seriously, it's a troll.....don't feed it.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that you call solving a problem potentially costing mankind trillions of dollars and millions of lives "hysteria" rather than measured response.
> ...



They hadn't arranged their civilization around a previous climate like we have. Plus the whole world population then was nothing compared today.

Too many mouths to feed today. To many farms and cities to relocate.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Quick, run and hide or the truth is gonna get cha and eat you all up!

Ignorance is hard to defend because you got no facts. Your best option is to slam your mind closed and never, no, never open it again!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I see that you are not a businessman or a scientist. If you were a businessman you'd know that all future prospects involve risk. The earth could end tomorrow. The consequences of the certainty of AGW could be twice or half as bad as anyone is predicting.



I see that you are nothing more than a poser who enjoys pretending intellectual superiority.  The problem is that it isn't very convincing when you don't have any actual observed, measured, empirical data to support your claims.  

As to the consequences of AGW, to date, neither you, nor anyone in climate science has produced the first bit of actual observed and measured data that proves AGW is anything more than a failing hypothesis.  No observation, no measurement, not even any experimental evidence to support the claims...nothing but failing computer models.  

If you want to spend money on AGW, you first must prove it exists.  Lets see the proof.  How much warming is man's CO2 emission responsible for?



PMZ said:


> Smart people play the odds . Conservatives do nothing until the problem is insurmountable. Then ask liberals to bail them out.



Not a student of history either I see.  Liberals are not rightly known as the princes of unintended consequences for nothing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 20, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Captain.. TriCorder readings confirm this is a probe of alien origin.. It seems to have been developed as a primitive form of galactic advertising. Probably pre-cognitive programming..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Quick, run and hide or the truth is gonna get cha and eat you all up!
> 
> Ignorance is hard to defend because you got no facts. Your best option is to slam your mind closed and never, no, never open it again!



I am afraid that it is you who is short on facts.  I keep asking for facts and you keep giving me opinion.  Lets see the hard data that proves that AGW exists....following that, state how much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions.

You keep talking about facts but remain incapable of producing any.  The models are based on the AGW hypothesis and they are failing spectacularly.    Look at this.  It is a graph of the output of 73 climate models compared to the satellite record and actual measurements made with balloons.






All of these models claim to be based on the same set of actual atmospheric physics but look at their output.  None of them produce the same result....in fact, they are all over the place and diverged completely from the observed temperature.  If I build a model, or 50 models based on the Stefan-Boltzman law, or the ideal gas law and run them, the results could not help but be the same because if any number of models were based on a physical law, by definition, their output would have to be the same and the output, if it were in fact based on the physical law, would match observation very closely.  That isn't what is happening with the models...they not only do not match each other even though they claim to be based on physical laws, they do not match observation.

If you are unable to see the uncertainty, flaws, and spectacular failure of the claims made by climate science, then I am afraid it is you who suffers from the closed mind.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Captain.. TriCorder readings confirm this is a probe of alien origin.. It seems to have been developed as a primitive form of galactic advertising. Probably pre-cognitive programming..



Probably brought on by consuming undisclosed, but certainly copius quantities of a certain well known sort of kool aid.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

It never ceases to amaze me how tightly ignorance closes minds. I'm pretty sure that we have a nest of pretenders here. Probably not a high school graduate among them. Their collective mantra? If I'm not capable of understanding something, it cannot exist. 

Probably all came from ancestors who said, "open your eyes! If the earth was round the people on the bottom would fall right off. Why would stupid people not see the obvious problems with the very idea of a ball shaped earth!"

They believe that if they keep their eyes and ears shut tight to the data and the proof and the logic and the weather for God's sake, they will get their way. 

Which is really, that what Rush Limbaugh said 20 years ago was informed. And what Al Gore said 15 years ago was dumb. 

They cannot and have not derailed science a bit. They did derail politics some. They are clearly on the sidelines now awaiting extinction as befalls all species who don't accept the truth. 

Flush.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how tightly ignorance closes minds. I'm pretty sure that we have a nest of pretenders here. Probably not a high school graduate among them. Their collective mantra? If I'm not capable of understanding something, it cannot exist.



Like I said, pretending intellectual superiority doesn't play very well if you don't have any actual proof to back up your claims.  I keep asking for hard observed measured data and you keep not delivering.



PMZ said:


> Probably all came from ancestors who said, "open your eyes! If the earth was round the people on the bottom would fall right off. Why would stupid people not see the obvious problems with the very idea of a ball shaped earth!"



You don't see a problem with being asked for hard observed measured data to prove your postion and not being able to provide any at all?  You are describing yourself.  You believe but hold your belief based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors and apparently aren't intelligent enough to see that the fact that you can't provide actual observed data to support your claims calls your claims into question.



PMZ said:


> They believe that if they keep their eyes and ears shut tight to the data and the proof and the logic and the weather for God's sake, they will get their way.



You haven't provided any actual data, or proof to support your claims.  If you did and I missed it, then repost it or point me to the post where you provided it.



PMZ said:


> They cannot and have not derailed science a bit. They did derail politics some. They are clearly on the sidelines now awaiting extinction as befalls all species who don't accept the truth.



Rambling and talking to yourself just looks stupid.  Post the actual proof of AGW.  Hell, you won't even say how much warming you believe is due to man's CO2 emissions.  When you are asked the hard questions, rather than providing answers, or at least hard observed data to support your claims, you pretend intellectual superiority.  That may work when you are talking to your fellow junior high students, but we are adults here and expect to see evidence to support your claims.  You have provided none.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

Are you in any way informed about physics? Are you capable of, and did you follow my posts today?

Prove that even one of the concepts that I posted was wrong using actual observed data.


----------



## westwall (Jun 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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









  Almost fell out of my chair!  Reps are OWED!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Are you in any way informed about physics? Are you capable of, and did you follow my posts today?
> 
> Prove that even one of the concepts that I posted was wrong using actual observed data.



Yes, I am informed about physics...yes I saw your posts.  You didn't offer up the slightest proof of anything.  You made claims and nothing more and I never saw any instance of you completing a thought based on a principle of physics.  

What do you think you posted that was based on actual observed data?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



A warmer climate is better for food production.  When the Roman warm period ended around 500 AD, there was massive famine all over the world.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


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



Yup.  Some areas might have to switch to crops more suitable for a somewhat warmer environment and Canada and Siberia could become breadbaskets for the world.  But nobody ever seems to want to focus on the potential positives.


----------



## westwall (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in any way informed about physics? Are you capable of, and did you follow my posts today?
> ...








Seriously SSDD, this is a troll.  It can't be reasoned with.  It can't be taught anything.  It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.

Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.


----------



## westwall (Jun 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


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








Yes that time is called the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and it was immediately followed by the Dark Ages......  Kind of appropriate as the enviro libtards want to see us descend into a new Dark Age.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Seriously SSDD, this is a troll.  It can't be reasoned with.  It can't be taught anything.  It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.
> 
> Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.



You are probably right.  If he doesn't start making some sort of coherent argument soon, I am going to grow bored and ignore him as well.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously SSDD, this is a troll.  It can't be reasoned with.  It can't be taught anything.  It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.
> ...



Actually I think most of us who are actually debating the topic understand SSDD.  It's like when you smell the bottle of sour milk, we almost all feel compelled to take a second whiff just to be sure.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Actually I think most of us who are actually debating the topic understand SSDD.  It's like when you smell the bottle of sour milk, we almost all feel compelled to take a second whiff just to be sure.



I am pretty sure that he CAN see the emperor's new clothes and I am equally sure that he pitys us poor proventials who can't.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in any way informed about physics? Are you capable of, and did you follow my posts today?
> ...



Is this the sum total of your evidence that anything that I posted is wrong!


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I think most of us who are actually debating the topic understand SSDD.  It's like when you smell the bottle of sour milk, we almost all feel compelled to take a second whiff just to be sure.
> ...



I have never read a more apt moniker than yours.

SSDD.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



What do you think? Do you have any theory or evidence that anything that I posted today is not right on?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously SSDD, this is a troll.  It can't be reasoned with.  It can't be taught anything.  It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.
> ...



How on earth would you know if I made a coherent argument or not? Do you have a friend who reads?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Is this the sum total of your evidence that anything that I posted is wrong!



You didn't post anything that means anything.  You made some claims and that is it.  You didn't finish a single point based on physical principles.  You started something regarding black bodies, but dropped it before you got to the point at which you could be proven wrong.

The failure of the climate models proves the AGW hypothesis wrong.  Those models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they have failed.  They failed because they are based on unproven, unphysical assumptions.  You have failed because you believe in them.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I have never reads more apt moniker than yours.
> 
> SSDD.



It describes what I hear from warmists.  You folks universally fail to provide any proof at all to substantiate your claims.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What do you think? Do you have any theory or evidence that anything that I posted today is not right on?



Again, you haven't posted anything that means anything.  You have posted some incomplete thoughts that suggest that you may have read some warmist literature but didn't understand it well enough to actually discuss the topic.  

The one actual statement you made that AGW was fact has yet to be proven so in that, you were wrong...unless you care to provide proof that AGW exists.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually the extinction of conservatism has us already in America's Renasance. Our Dark Ages have been ended by the gift of democracy.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think? Do you have any theory or evidence that anything that I posted today is not right on?
> ...



I'm still awaiting the first iota of evidence. Some little scrap or tidbit. Something?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> How on earth would you know if I made a coherent argument or not? Do you have a friend who reads?



Once more, pretended intellectual superiority doesn't play well when you can't back up your claims.  I keep asking for actual evidence and you keep not providing it.  Which of us is in the weaker position?  If you have any actual debate experience, you know full well that you are holding an untennable position.

One must be careful when making claims.  When you make one and are asked for hard evidence or proof to support that claim, if you can't provide it, you lose the point.  I have asked repeatedly for hard evidence and you continue to fail to provide it.  That means you lose.

Care to actually provide what you believe to be hard evidence for the existence of AGW?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I have never reads more apt moniker than yours.
> ...



It describes every post of yours that I've read.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I'm still awaiting the first iota of evidence. Some little scrap or tidbit. Something?



You want me to prove a negative?  You really are lost here.  The weight of proof lies on your shoulders.  You are the one making claims of AGW and the terrors of AGW.  Therefore the responsibility of proving AGW rests on you.  I have asked for proof and you have not provided it therefore you have lost the debate.  It's that simple.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > How on earth would you know if I made a coherent argument or not? Do you have a friend who reads?
> ...



There are many things that you could ask for that you are completely unequipped to understand. Anyone delivering on your request would be wasting their time, right? What's true has nothing at all to do with your understanding of it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



OK.  I am going to ask one more time for you to post what you believe to be proof of AGW.  If you can, then do it and the conversation can continue.  If you can't, then I must assume that westwall is correct and you are no more than a mindless troll and your conversation with me is finished.  You may continue your mental masturbation if you wish.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still awaiting the first iota of evidence. Some little scrap or tidbit. Something?
> ...



The question is not my proof but your ability to understand it. You've proven yourself, beyond the shadow of a doubt, simply incapable, and you'd like to make that my problem. It is simply not. It's your problem exclusively.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Seriously SSDD, this is a troll.  It can't be reasoned with.  It can't be taught anything.  It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.
> 
> Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.



Guess you are right.  Life's to short to talk to trolls.  Maybe some day he will grow up enough to actually engage the conversation and discuss the topic rather than claim that his opponent couldn't understand what he had to say if he did.  

No one can say I didn't at least try to talk to him.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Understanding physics requires education which you've demonstrated that you don't have. You need to move on to topics that you are equipped to understand. Nobody tries to explain the complexity of multi variate analysis to fifth graders. There is good reason for that. They, like you, need to learn many things as background before they can understand that step, which would ultimately open their world to many more things based on that topic. 

Your education simply is what it is.  It has nothing to do with mine or my ego or my explanation or my science. It has to do simply with you. 

Accept some personal responsibility.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously SSDD, this is a troll.  It can't be reasoned with.  It can't be taught anything.  It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.
> ...



What you didn't try to do is to listen to me. Why? You don't have the tools to understand.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think? Do you have any theory or evidence that anything that I posted today is not right on?
> ...



"Again, you haven't posted anything that means anything"

I agree that I haven't posted anything that means anything to you. But, that's not my problem. It is 100% yours.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's about water, not temperature.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Another way to look at things that leads to the same conclusion. After replacing the mirror with one twice as reflective.....the back radiation would double, heating the earth until the 396 W/M2 gets sufficiently more to re-establish energy balance at TOA. 

Either way to look at it, there is no possibility that AGW can be avoided. It's only a matter of how long it will take the re-establish equilibrium, and exactly what the global average temperature has to rise to compensate for any specific atmospheric GHG concentration.


----------



## gslack (Jun 20, 2013)

I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...

I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...

So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...
> 
> I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...
> 
> So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...



You, aparently, are highly allergic to learning, a common condition that, unfortunately, always leads to life long ignorance. 

You have no place here in a discussion about the science behind AGW. It is completely, and irrevocably, outside your grasp, and, as learning is no longer possible for you, it will ever be. 

I'm sure that you can find other topics within your grasp. I hope that you do.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 20, 2013)

Gslack, when are you bringing back your IamBorg sock? You know, that account that so quickly disappeared. Want to tell us about that?

Go on, folks, go search on the name. Wonder why that account isn't there any longer. Maybe gslack will fill us in. Maybe not though, given how he's so touchy about the topic.

Why do I bring this up? Because I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of a sock abuser calling others socks.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Gslack, when are you bringing back your IamBorg sock? You know, that account that so quickly disappeared. Want to tell us about that?
> 
> Go on, folks, go search on the name. Wonder why that account isn't there any longer. Maybe gslack will fill us in. Maybe not though, given how he's so touchy about the topic.
> 
> Why do I bring this up? Because I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of a sock abuser calling others socks.



What is a sock? It seems to be the slacker's favorite word.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...
> 
> I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...
> 
> So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...
> 
> I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...
> 
> So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...



And as I have suggested to you several times - report any socks to the moderators and let's have them banned once and for all. I will support you in that. It shouldn't be hard for the Mods to determine which IP we all post from.

However, anytime you accuse me of being a sock, you will be neg-repped.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Gslack, when are you bringing back your IamBorg sock? You know, that account that so quickly disappeared. Want to tell us about that?
> ...



A sock is a fake poster, as in a 'sock puppet'. In theory, a poster could have 3 different names and log in and start agreeing with himself. 

I doubt we have any here myself, and I notice glskack refuses to take any complaints he may have to the moderators. 

I think it's fairly clear to everyone that Gslack only uses the whole sock thing to avoid discussing science, which frankly I am losing patience with. 

*Is it time we asked the Mods to clean up this section of the board and throw out the trolls, spammers and time wasters?*


----------



## IanC (Jun 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



there are a few things that you seem to be confused about. solar input is the stable component of the temperature equilibrium, therefore the surface can be a wide range of temperatures depending on the conditions for heat loss. this is an important point! without GHGs to constrain IR radiation from directly escaping to space the surface would be ~minus 18C. the 496W/m2 from the surface is a combination of solar input and charged heat sinks of the ground and atmosphere. it can have many other values but the net output from the earth must equal the net input from the sun ( to a close degree, the conditions are always changing).

you are also confused about CO2 somehow being equivilent to a half-silvered mirror for IR radiation. it is not. the extinction length for CO2 reactive bands of IR is roughly 10 metres. got that? the IR is totally dispersed in random directions in 33 feet, it cannot become any less ordered. if a CO2 molecule has absorbed a suitable IR photon and is vibrating (quantum vibration, not ordinary vibration), then collides with another molecule, that IR quantum becomes part of the overall energy equation and can be emitted as blackbody radiation. if the CO2 molecule simply emits the same type of photon its direction has been randomized. because we dont care about the lateral component, only the vertical component, we say that half goes up and half goes down on avg. there is no 'reflection', only total dispersion, happening constantly.

while I admire your confidence in your ability to think things through, so do a lot of us here on the message board. I think you need to delve a little deeper because your posts have been very simplistic and in many cases have significant errors in them.


----------



## gslack (Jun 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...
> ...



I'm sorry socko who got penalized for it and now has drastically lowered rep, but you do not get to decide who can post where..

Ya got busted socking and now your reps is gone, we can see that. Either that or some other violation.

fact us you have been rambling half-baked nonsense in here from the start. You have yet to defend a position you take coherently. So spare me the "who can grasp what" nonsense .. ROFL. and we see the sock brigade chiming right on time..

Did I call that or what? LOL, I must be psychic too..ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...
> ...



And as I told you plenty of times, YOU aren't in charge here junior. Get it yet? All of your neg-repping and crying to mods about people and incessant whining to me, means squat. If you telling me what to do was going to work, it would have by now, but it hasn't. So you can either ignore me like you claim you do, or stop whining to me,or keep on see how far it gets ya..


----------



## gslack (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



yes, yes explain it to little brother, after all he's some kind of scientist here,he couldn't possibly understand the concept without your explanation... ROFL,a scientist who can't google a term or understand it from all the posts about it here in this thread which has been apart of????

Right, and I'm a journalist from Finland with a united states IP address too, just like you are...ROFL


----------



## IanC (Jun 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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





this would be a good time for people to think about what 'temperature' and 'heat' are. heat is kinetic energy available to transfer to other particles. temperature of a gas is a measurement of that kinetic energy, either directly by pressure or indirectly by characteristic radiation given off by collisions of a certain velocity. liquids and solids similarly can be meaured by the conduction or radiation of a surface.

this should not be confused with the preferential absorption and emission properties of different types of particles.


as an interesting aside (to me at least), has anyone seen any literature on the web that describes the proportions of radiation/kinetic energy transfer in conduction?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

To All Environment Posters - 

I've started a thread on cleaning up this part of the forum so that we can get beyond the endless accusations of socks, fake IP addresses etc. Have your say here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/299403-time-to-clean-up-the-environment-forum.html


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > A warmer climate is better for food production.  When the Roman warm period ended around 500 AD, there was massive famine all over the world.
> ...



I suspect the reason this is not discussed more is because we all agree. Some areas of the world are already moving more into particular forms of agriculture, e.g. England and wine production. 

However - we are also seeing some parts of the world abandon particular forms of agriculture, and that will be expensive. 

Given you in particular, Fox, seem to oppose any form of contingency planning for a warmer environment in favour of a "lets hope nothing happens" approach, it is worth considering how some US states may cope in a warmer, wetter environment with more intense storms.

What effect would that have on US cotton? Corn? Cattle farming? Wine production?

There is also the impact of diseases and insects which may thrive in the new climate zones. 

While there is no question this will be good for some parts of the world, it is also something which needs to bevery carefully managed.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> there are a few things that you seem to be confused about. solar input is the stable component of the temperature equilibrium, therefore the surface can be a wide range of temperatures depending on the conditions for heat loss. this is an important point! without GHGs to constrain IR radiation from directly escaping to space the surface would be ~minus 18C. the 496W/m2 from the surface is a combination of solar input and charged heat sinks of the ground and atmosphere. it can have many other values but the net output from the earth must equal the net input from the sun ( to a close degree, the conditions are always changing).
> 
> you are also confused about CO2 somehow being equivilent to a half-silvered mirror for IR radiation. it is not. the extinction length for CO2 reactive bands of IR is roughly 10 metres. got that? the IR is totally dispersed in random directions in 33 feet, it cannot become any less ordered. if a CO2 molecule has absorbed a suitable IR photon and is vibrating (quantum vibration, not ordinary vibration), then collides with another molecule, that IR quantum becomes part of the overall energy equation and can be emitted as blackbody radiation. if the CO2 molecule simply emits the same type of photon its direction has been randomized. because we dont care about the lateral component, only the vertical component, we say that half goes up and half goes down on avg. there is no 'reflection', only total dispersion, happening constantly.
> 
> while I admire your confidence in your ability to think things through, so do a lot of us here on the message board. I think you need to delve a little deeper because your posts have been very simplistic and in many cases have significant errors in them.



Till that cartoon energy budget is disposed of and replaced with something approaching reality, climate models, and climate science with it will continue to fail.  A model that represents the earth as a flat disk with no day or night, and averages out the solar input across the entire globe continuously and arbitrarily puts the sun 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is simply can not be expected to reproduce reality.   And that doesn't even get into the incorrect physics it portrays.


----------



## IanC (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > there are a few things that you seem to be confused about. solar input is the stable component of the temperature equilibrium, therefore the surface can be a wide range of temperatures depending on the conditions for heat loss. this is an important point! without GHGs to constrain IR radiation from directly escaping to space the surface would be ~minus 18C. the 496W/m2 from the surface is a combination of solar input and charged heat sinks of the ground and atmosphere. it can have many other values but the net output from the earth must equal the net input from the sun ( to a close degree, the conditions are always changing).
> ...





I concur that Trenberth's energy budget diagram is seriously flawed. do you have a better one? post it up and I will start using it. until then I have to use what is available to make simple points.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> What effect would that have on US cotton? Corn? Cattle farming? Wine production?
> 
> There is also the impact of diseases and insects which may thrive in the new climate zones.
> 
> While there is no question this will be good for some parts of the world, it is also something which needs to bevery carefully managed.



What happened to civilization during the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval warm periods which were all warmer than the present?

You people seem to think that civilization is precariously balanced on the edge of a razor.  It isn't.  Do you live in an agricultural region?  Clearly not.  Anyone who does knows that crops change at the drop of a hat.  It isn't an expensive proposition to plant a different seed in the ground from one year to another.  In fact, it is necessary to keep a particular crop from leeching to much of any particular mineral or nutrient out of the ground.

A one degree, or two degree, or even a 5 degree increase in temperature...which is bound to happen at some time due to the natural variability of the climate on earth will not shut down agriculture.  It will merely shift, and the equipment will shift with it.  

You asked what would happen to the US Cotton crop.  Did you bother to look at the range in which cotton grows?  There is a several degree spread between the northernmost producers and the southernmost producers.  Do just a bit of research on the growing range of the various grains and livestock of all kinds.  You will invariably find a spread of several degrees, if not more between the northernmost producers and the southernmost producers.  

We are not as delicately balanced as you like to think.  A warmer climate would, in general, give farmers a wider choice of crops to plant and open up a world of agricultural opportunity for the cold northern regions which were productive during the warmer periods in history.  If you must fear climate change, fear cooling because that would indeed be devastating to mankind as well as the rest of life on earth.

History has already shown us that the benefits of a warmer climate far outweigh the disadvantages while there are few, if any benefits to be found for anyone in a cooling climate.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> I concur that Trenberth's energy budget diagram is seriously flawed. do you have a better one? post it up and I will start using it. until then I have to use what is available to make simple points.



Seriously, what's wrong with this one?  It is certainly better than trenberth's if for no other reason than it portrays the earth as it actually is.  I have read all of the critique of it that I could find and the complaints seem to be nit picky at best and I didn't see anyone prove that it was more flawed than trenberth's cartoon.  You tell me where you think he has left the rails and produced a model that is more deeply flawed than trenberth's cartoon.

So seriously.  What is wrong with this alternative model?

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD - 

It is worth trying to think this through with an open mind. Really it is. 

The impact on a crop like cotton is not only temperature - it is the cost of water and irrigation. It is the cost of pest control. It is the cost of flood and storm damage.

Have you considered the cost to US farming should the incidence of anything from dengue fever to schistomiasis to leshmaniasis to foot & mouth disease to various forms of moth take hold?

Ask any farmer about these things and they will confirm that those issues can fatally impact the viability of a farm far more than temperature alone can.



> A warmer climate would, in general, give farmers a wider choice of crops to plant and open up a world of agricultural opportunity for the cold northern regions which were productive during the warmer periods in history



In some areas it will, yes. In others it will drastically reduce the options available. Some areas not currently arable will become so - other areas currently arable will cease to be so. Other areas will not be effected at all. This isn't difficult to understand, really. 

And yes, I grew up in a farming area.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> It is worth trying to think this through with an open mind. Really it is.
> 
> The impact on a crop like cotton is not only temperature - it is the cost of water and irrigation. It is the cost of pest control. It is the cost of flood and storm damage.



First, it has yet to be proven that a warmer world will have more floods and storm damage and there is plenty of peer reviewed research that suggest that there will be less of what you guys like to call extreme weather in a warmer world.

Second, have you looked at the temperature spread between the northern most producers of cotton and the southernmost producers?  The range is greater than the temperature increase being predicted.  Do the same for the various grains and livestock.  You will see that agriculture is not precariously balanced on the edge of a razor.



Saigon said:


> Have you considered the cost to US farming should the incidence of anything from dengue fever to schistomiasis to leshmaniasis to foot & mouth disease to various forms of moth take hold?
> 
> Ask any farmer about these things and they will confirm that those issues can fatally impact the viability of a farm far more than temperature alone can.



Certainly a consideration and dangerous...but as science has shown the spread of such things is more a product of practice than climate.  



Saigon said:


> In some areas it will, yes. In others it will drastically reduce the options available. Some areas not currently arable will become so - other areas currently arable will cease to be so. Other areas will not be effected at all. This isn't difficult to understand, really.



Name a real agricultural area that will have its options drastically reduced.  What is it's primary crop now and what will be its only options if the temperature rises.


You guys like to talk in terms of the vague horrors of climate change.  Lets get specific.  I live in the southern US.  The primary crops within 100 miles of me in no particular order are tobacco, wheat, soybeans, milo, cotton, fruit (apples, peaches, grapes, pears) potatoes, sweet potatoes, and rye.

Lets assume an increase in the global mean temperature of 2 degrees.  How does my world change? First, if the global mean increases 2 degrees, what is the actual temperature change here?  What does my summer look like?  What does my winter look like?  How does my growing season change?  What crops that grow here will no longer grow here?  What crops become available to me?  What happens with the water situation here?

What does my world look like if the global mean increases 2 degrees.

Take your time.  I am leaving for work and won't be home for about 5 hours.  Think it through seriously and try, if you can, to actually weigh the good vs the bad.  If you like, afterwards, we can continue on to other parts of the world trying to be as specific as possible regarding what a region would actually look like if the global mean increased by 2 degrees.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD -

Agriculture is ALREADY being impacted around the world - and largely negatively. I've posted stories here in the past about Australian wine producers ploughing their grapes under because the increased frequency of droughts and the subsequent cost of water made the crop unsustainable. 

Spain is one of Europe's major agricultural suppliers - as well as being one of the countries where climate change is most evident. Tomato and grape crops are under threat there. 



> First, it has yet to be proven that a warmer world will have more floods and storm damage and there is plenty of peer reviewed research that suggest that there will be less of what you guys like to call extreme weather in a warmer world.



Actually, that was proven around 10 years ago. The latest IIPC report suggests storm frequency is not linked to climate change, but storm intensity is. And the rest of the world knew ten years ago that wet countries can expect wetter weather; drier countries will experience more drought. 

As for the US - I'm AMAZED you need to ask how this "will" effect your world. Honestly...do you not have access to a news service?

The 2012-2013 North American Drought, an expansion of the 2010&#8211;2012 Southern United States drought, orignated in the midst of a record breaking heat wave. Low snowfall amounts in winter, coupled with the intense summer heat from La Nina, caused drought-like conditions to migrate northward from the southern United States, wreaking havoc on crops and water supply.[1] The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as *the costliest natural disaster in US history*.

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you not think that impacted on farmers?

Do you need proof that it did?

Remember when you used to ask for observable impacts of climate change?!


----------



## IanC (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I concur that Trenberth's energy budget diagram is seriously flawed. do you have a better one? post it up and I will start using it. until then I have to use what is available to make simple points.
> ...




I didnt ask for a link to Joe's manifesto, i asked for a diagram showing energy flow by different pathways. c'mon now....Joe doesnt even take the water cycle into consideration. what diagram am I supposed to be using from that pdf? we all know that sunlight varies according to time and latitude. according to the Slayers, is the average solar input off by 5%, 10%, 50%? which way? I can certainly see the need for two diagrams, night&day, but how many are you proposing? do you guys really ignore clouds, atmospheric gas composition, ocean currents and other effects?


----------



## IanC (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Agriculture is ALREADY being impacted around the world - and largely negatively. I've posted stories here in the past about Australian wine producers ploughing their grapes under because the increased frequency of droughts and the subsequent cost of water made the crop unsustainable.
> 
> ...





you guys are insane. you cannot even definitively prove that CO2 has had a direct impact on the temperature yet you are sure that whatever fraction CO2 is responsible for, out of the fraction of a degree of warming since 1880 is causing calamities. witchdoctors cloaked in bogus models rather than grass skirts and bones through their noses.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD -



> Certainly a consideration and dangerous...but as science has shown the spread of such things is more a product of practice than climate.



Is it, really? Leshmaniasis is a product of farming practice? Malaria? Dengue? Tse tse fly?

You must realise yourself that your claim here is utter nonsense. While the use of water has an impact on mosquito breeding, we both know that the single biggest factor in insect-borne disease is climate.   

This is exactly the kind of phenomena American farmers may face in future - phenomena which I have no doubt you would prefer not to even think about.


----------



## gslack (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Next time you decide to make a thread whining about me being mean to you, perhaps you should try NOT editing peoples posts and posting twice to respond to one post.... Pretty lame considering how much whining you do junior...

Again, as you have been told, it's not proven at all. It's just more doomsaying from the eternally morbid...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You will see that agriculture is not precariously balanced on the edge of a razor.



It is. Not by temperature, but by precipitation. Can't grow anything without water. If you're not taking precipitation changes into account, you're ignoring the most important factor.

For example, the aquifiers are running dry in parts of Oklahoma and Texas. Coupled with the chronic low rainfall we now see, that means farms being abandoned.

And you can't just shift north. There's no soil north. Highly acidic Arctic muck on top of bedrock is not a suitable growing medium.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



First, hopefully you realized that I understand the GHGs absorb and re-radiate, I was using the half silvered mirror as a metaphor. If you find it confusing, it's not a necessary part of the explanation. 

From my perspective you are inclined to confuse things with frequency domain stuff that is both confusing and unnecessary. The only relevant commodity is energy, no matter it's form. 

Also, you intoduced Trenbarth's energy budget, so I assumed that you bought into his portrayal of reality.

Considering the energy budget and simple physics, I don't see how anybody can, and certainly nobody has, come up with any rational that denies AGW. 

GHGs make it harder, considering outgoing longwave radiation, to achieve energy balance. The force that overcomes that additional resistance is the long term average temperature of the earth and atmosphere. With the incoming solar energy the same, and a reduction of outgoing longwave energy, the earth components will warm. There simply is no other possibility to achieve eventual equilibrium. 

The dynamics of the transition are very complex,  made more so by the reality of daily massive additions to our atmospheric GHGs, but the stable end can only be achieved by a warmer planet and atmosphere.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I don't sense any reasonable doubt that mankind can adapt to new and different climates. This issue is economics. Faced with an unfriendly future, every business on earth would look for the path that gets there that consumes the least resources. 

Denial is almost without doubt the most expensive position that can be assumed given what is known today. It is simply unaffordable given the challanges. Business is moving ahead with huge investments in sustainable energy. Science is moving ahead with intense research quantifying the transition details so that the economics are more precisely known. Government and democracy are hand in hand removing the obstacles to progress. 

Forums like this are the deniers last stand.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...








Be careful whay you say when you attempt to denigrate a poster there saggy.  Foxfyre has NEVER stated she was against contingency planning.  You are lying in a huge way when you make that assertion.  Your little attempt to "clean up" the enviro forum is cute and it starts with you.

Outright lies like that have no place in a legitimate arena of discussion.  

You, a KNOWN liar, have been warned.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> It is worth trying to think this through with an open mind. Really it is.
> 
> ...









Once again we can turn to the known historical record and look at that, primitive farmers with no high tech at all actually produced FAR more of EVERYTHING during the aforementioned warming periods.  Just imagine what we can do with all this high tech.

Your problem saggy is you are so narrow minded you have no clue of what you speak.  EVERYTHING you speak about is couched in terms of desperation.  Read some history, find out what really happened during those previous warming times, LEARN something other than the propaganda you spew.

Until you at least get the basics down your myopia will color everything you say.  Credibility will forever elude you in that case.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You will see that agriculture is not precariously balanced on the edge of a razor.
> ...









What chronic low rainfall that we are only now seeing?  Read a book dude, drought is a natural way of life in the southwest and Great Plains....history is replete with land barons fighting for water.  Until you actually learn something and especially some history your credibility is zero.  All you spew is propaganda.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 21, 2013)

Thanks West.  I appreciate your correcting our friend Saigon who does seem to have a selective reading comprehension problem.

I have been beating the drum for years and years now that we demand that government, and the scientific community it uses for its own purposes, be honest about it.  And we are seeing increasing evidence that they are not honest about showing us all sides of the issue.

If indeed the Earth is still in a warming cycle, and even if human activity is having an affect on that, it is obvious that the current silly authoritarian and coercive measures to deal with it are not working.  It makes a whole lot more sense to me to focus most of our research into helping people adapt to climate change rather than try to change our climate.

Let's use government and science to help people, not enslave them or force them to hand over their liberties to powers that so far have not shown me that they have my best interests at heart.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Thanks West.  I appreciate your correcting our friend Saigon who does seem to have a selective reading comprehension problem.
> 
> I have been beating the drum for years and years now that we demand that government, and the scientific community it uses for its own purposes, be honest about it.  And we are seeing increasing evidence that they are not honest about showing us all sides of the issue.
> 
> ...









It was my duty to challenge an outright lie, posted by a known liar.  I despise people like saggy who intentionally mischaracterize peoples positions on subjects.  You, especially you, have been one of the most balanced posters on this issue and like me I KNOW you are in favor of doing GOOD research that will benefit mankind in the event of whatever happens.

saggy and his ilk are partisan in the extreme and they have a proven record of massive environmental damage in the pursuance of their political goals...which in the long run have nothing to do with the environment.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Thanks West.  I appreciate your correcting our friend Saigon who does seem to have a selective reading comprehension problem.
> 
> I have been beating the drum for years and years now that we demand that government, and the scientific community it uses for its own purposes, be honest about it.  And we are seeing increasing evidence that they are not honest about showing us all sides of the issue.
> 
> ...



What you wish for is, in fact, underway and making progress. You choose to remain a decade or so behind. That's your choice.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

It was my duty to challenge an outright lie, posted by a known liar. I despise people like saggy who intentionally mischaracterize peoples positions on subjects. You, especially you, have been one of the most balanced posters on this issue and like me I KNOW you are in favor of doing GOOD research that will benefit mankind in the event of whatever happens.

saggy and his ilk are partisan in the extreme and they have a proven record of massive environmental damage in the pursuance of their political goals...which in the long run have nothing to do with the environment.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks West.  I appreciate your correcting our friend Saigon who does seem to have a selective reading comprehension problem.
> ...



Westwall and his ilk are partisan in the extreme and they have a proven record of massive environmental damage in the pursuance of their political goals...which in the long run have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with government and wealth distribution.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 21, 2013)

Good lord.  The speculation may be right and we have assigned the wrong sock.  He's Jake.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

Why is it that deniers would rather discuss socks than physics? Problem obfuscation rather than progress? The cost of doing something and not the cost of doing nothing?

Strange bunch!


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> It was my duty to challenge an outright lie, posted by a known liar.



Which is to say, someone disagreed with Westwall, hence Westwall instantly declared the person was a liar. Like he does every time someone disagrees with him. In the Westwall cult world, it is not possible to have an honest disagreement. Anyone who disagrees with his cult in any way has to be a liar, by definition, because his cult is perfect and can never be mistaken in any way.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 21, 2013)

I have been known to disagree with Westwall here and there on various subjects.  But I have not caught him in a single lie.  In addition he is careful enough to develop his arguments and support his opinions and concepts so that I don't believe I have ever caught him contradicting himself.  Nor have I reason to believe he is lying about what he believes, what he knows, what he defends.

Sorry, but I cannot say the same re Saigon, Mammoth, or PMZ re any of these things.  You all may or may not be related, but you all use the same techniques of smoke and mirrors to pretend you understand concepts that you are unable to explain when pushed to do so, you all use the same code words, the same method of insulting people, and you all dodge uncomfortable concepts (for you) in exactly the same way.   It is quite remarkable actually.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I have been known to disagree with Westwall here and there on various subjects.  But I have not caught him in a single lie.  In addition he is careful enough to develop his arguments and support his opinions and concepts so that I don't believe I have ever caught him contradicting himself.  Nor have I reason to believe he is lying about what he believes, what he knows, what he defends.
> 
> Sorry, but I cannot say the same re Saigon, Mammoth, or PMZ re any of these things.  You all may or may not be related, but you all use the same techniques of smoke and mirrors to pretend you understand concepts that you are unable to explain when pushed to do so, you all use the same code words, the same method of insulting people, and you all dodge uncomfortable concepts (for you) in exactly the same way.   It is quite remarkable actually.



Sorry. There is a limited amount of truth. But there is an infinite variety of fiction. Telling of fictional things allows infinite stories. 

So, the fact that those committed to truth all say the same things doesn't mean that we are the same people. We're many people saying the one truth. 

What you, for some reason, fail to consider is that deniers offer no evidence, no proof, no coherent theories, no science. Merely questions. Denial is a mindset, and has nothing to do with reality. 

You all are saying what you wish was true, and you have come to believe that you are entitled to what you want.

Of course at this time all of this has no further point. The world has moved on. If you'd like to believe that we've moved on as though we were right, have at it. You have no evidence for your position and we have loads. 

Time to act and we are. We have been for quite a while. You can continue to whine from the sidelines if you'd like.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Agriculture is ALREADY being impacted around the world - and largely negatively. I've posted stories here in the past about Australian wine producers ploughing their grapes under because the increased frequency of droughts and the subsequent cost of water made the crop unsustainable.



Drought is an intergal part of australia's climate.  It is nothing new and certainly nothing that can be blamed on global warming.  Try again.



Saigon said:


> Spain is one of Europe's major agricultural suppliers - as well as being one of the countries where climate change is most evident. Tomato and grape crops are under threat there.



Under threat of what?  Drought?  Flood?  AGW inspired locusts?  Stop predicting vague doom and gloom and get specific.  What specific threat can you name and point to a human fingerprint?



Saigon said:


> Actually, that was proven around 10 years ago. The latest IIPC report suggests storm frequency is not linked to climate change, but storm intensity is. And the rest of the world knew ten years ago that wet countries can expect wetter weather; drier countries will experience more drought.



You believe because a thing is printed in an IPCC document it has been proven?  You are working from model output, not observation.  The observation is that neither droughts nor floods are happening with any more frequency today and are generally happening less.

Reconstructed cool- and warm-season precipitation over the tribal lands of northeastern Arizona - Springer
Possible linkages of late-Holocene drought in the North American midcontinent to Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar activity - Tian - 2006 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library




A 5200-year record of freshwater availability for regions in western North America fed by high-elevation runoff - Wolfe - 2011 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
Reconstructed drought variability in southeastern Sweden since the 1650s - Seftigen - 2012 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

CP - Abstract - Orbital changes, variation in solar activity and increased anthropogenic activities: controls on the Holocene flood frequency in the Lake Ledro area, Northern Italy
A 450 year record of spring-summer flood layers in annually laminated sediments from Lake Ammersee (southern Germany) - Czymzik - 2010 - Water Resources Research - Wiley Online Library
Extraordinary hydro-climatic events during the period AD 200?300 recorded by slackwater deposits in the upper Hanjiang River valley, China
Holocene Floods of China's Jinghe River

And I could continue with published paper after paper stating that the climate is more extreme during cooler periods than the present.



Saigon said:


> As for the US - I'm AMAZED you need to ask how this "will" effect your world. Honestly...do you not have access to a news service?



Again with the vagaries.  I have access to the news and again, I ask you to describe what my little corner of the world will look like.  How will my winters be different?  How will my summers be different?  How will my growing season be effected.  What crops can no longer be planted here?  What new crops might be planted here.  What will the average summertime temperature be?  What will the average wintertime temperature be?  How might my summertime and winter time energy use change? 

Be specific.  Vague threats are meaningless.  Lets get down to what the actual changes will be.



Saigon said:


> The 2012-2013 North American Drought, an expansion of the 20102012 Southern United States drought, orignated in the midst of a record breaking heat wave. Low snowfall amounts in winter, coupled with the intense summer heat from La Nina, caused drought-like conditions to migrate northward from the southern United States, wreaking havoc on crops and water supply.[1] The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as *the costliest natural disaster in US history*.



Paper after paper fail to find a human fingerprint regarding the drought here in the US.  It is neither unusual nor unprecedented in its scope, or duration.  In fact, numerous worse droughts occurred back when CO2 was at "safe" levels.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Arizona droughts were less frequent and less extreme during 20th century


> A new paper published in Climatic Change reconstructs droughts in NE Arizona over the past 400 years and finds the 20th century had "fewer multiyear [severe droughts] than any other century" and that "Perhaps of greatest relevance, this study suggests that severe and sustained episodes of dual-season drought, which are largely missing from the instrumental period, have occurred multiple times in the past (e.g., 1660s, 1740s, 1890s)." The paper adds to multiple others demonstrating that global warming does not increase the frequency or severity of droughts, floods, cyclones, or extreme weather.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Arizona droughts were less frequent and less extreme during 20th century


> A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds Midwest US droughts were less frequent and less extreme during the 20th century in comparison to the past 3100 years.The authors find the precipitation proxy "record of the past &#8764;3100 years reveals that droughts of greater severity and duration than during the 20th century occurred repeatedly, especially prior to 300 AD. Drought variability was anomalously low during the 20th century; &#8764;90% of the variability values during the last 3100 years were greater than the 20th-century average."



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds 2012 Great Plains drought was within natural variability


> paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds the 2012 extreme Great Plains drought was within the natural variability of climate and that there is no evidence of a link to AGW. According to the authors, "it is concluded that the extreme Great Plains drought did not require extreme external forcings [i.e. greenhouse gases], and could plausibly have arisen from atmospheric noise [natural variability] alone." The four authors hail from different divisions of NOAA



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows N. American droughts were much more extreme 500 years ago


> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that the Central Plains of North America experienced multiple severe "megadroughts" [lasting up to 50 years each] during the Medieval Climate Anomaly from 1100-1500 AD. According to the authors, "These megadroughts had exceptional persistence compared to more recent events." By comparison, the paper shows that droughts over the past 500 years have been much less extreme.



And again, I could continue with peer reviewed, published papers that are in direct opposition to your claims which derive from climate models.



Saigon said:


> Do you not think that impacted on farmers?



Sure it impacted farmers, but there is no provable human fingerprint on the drought as research clearly shows that they are not as bad today as they have been in the past.  Drought is nothing new and pointing at it and every other natural climate variation and claiming demon CO2 and AGW is why you are not being taken seriously.  If drought were something new then you would have a point but it isn't...neither are floods and neither have any definable human fingerprint attatched.



Saigon said:


> Remember when you used to ask for observable impacts of climate change?!



Climate change is not the issue since the climate is, has, and always will be changing.  Man made climate change is the issue and it still remains unproven.  Nothing is happening in the climate today that is new or unprecedented or outside the bounds of natural variability.

So again, describe in some detail exactly how a 2 degree increase in the global mean temperature will change my little corner of the world.  I suspect that you won't really attempt to do so because in the long run, the pros will far outweigh the cons.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> I didnt ask for a link to Joe's manifesto, i asked for a diagram showing energy flow by different pathways. c'mon now....Joe doesnt even take the water cycle into consideration.



Neither does trenberth.



IanC said:


> we all know that sunlight varies according to time and latitude.



And trenberth doesn't take even that into consideration.



IanC said:


> according to the Slayers, is the average solar input off by 5%, 10%, 50%? which way?



How does trenberth address that?

I can certainly see the need for two diagrams, night&day, but how many are you proposing?



IanC said:


> do you guys really ignore clouds, atmospheric gas composition, ocean currents and other effects?



Which of those are intergal parts of trenberth's cartoon.  You are hammering Postma, but his model is superior to trenberths if for no other reason than he considers night and day.  Don't hammer postma for not doing this or that when trenberth doesn't do it either.  You asked for a better one and Postma's is better.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands died in the southern US due to malaria.  It doesn't happen now.  It isn't because the temperature changed, it is due to practices that are in place now that weren't then.  The anopholes mosquito was successfully controlled here and malaria is no longer a problem.  The aedes mosquito can be controlled via the same practices.  You are invoking boogie men that we have already proven controllable.  Dengue, and malaria would be things of the past had misguided envirowackos not banned DDT.



Saigon said:


> You must realise yourself that your claim here is utter nonsense. While the use of water has an impact on mosquito breeding, we both know that the single biggest factor in insect-borne disease is climate.
> 
> This is exactly the kind of phenomena American farmers may face in future - phenomena which I have no doubt you would prefer not to even think about.



We faced it in the past and through practices, brought it under control.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> It is. Not by temperature, but by precipitation. Can't grow anything without water. If you're not taking precipitation changes into account, you're ignoring the most important factor.



I have asked specifically what sort of changes a 2 degree change in the global mean would mean to my little part of the world.  You guy seem unwilling to get into any sort of specifics.  I have asked about winter temps, summer temps, precipitation, growing seasons, crops that could no longer be grown here, crops that might be grown here...and on and on but am still gettting nothing but vague threats of doom and destruction.  There is ample research showing that drought is worse during cooler periods.



mamooth said:


> For example, the aquifiers are running dry in parts of Oklahoma and Texas. Coupled with the chronic low rainfall we now see, that means farms being abandoned.



Is that a new thing in Oklahoma?  Is drought and low aquifers a new thing in that part of the country.  Have worse episodes happened in the past?  This is an example of the vague sort of threats you guys hype up...you threaten drought in places where drought is business as usual.  



mamooth said:


> And you can't just shift north. There's no soil north. Highly acidic Arctic muck on top of bedrock is not a suitable growing medium.



Ever hear of lime?  We have plenty of acidic soil here in the south due to the decomposition of evergreens...lime takes care of acidic soil very quickly.  The wonders of chemistry.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

westwall said:


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


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Thanks West.  I appreciate your correcting our friend Saigon who does seem to have a selective reading comprehension problem.



Nah...he is just a liar.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


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


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

They have to stick to ethereal threats of doom and destruction because if they get specific, or even close to specific, history will tear them to shreds every damned time.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I have asked specifically what sort of changes a 2 degree change in the global mean would mean to my little part of the world.



A really dumb question, as the answer is meaningless. Your part of the world is a tiny part of the world, and it being safe has little to do with the harm of global warming.



> You guy seem unwilling to get into any sort of specifics.



Because we recognize your attempt at deflection, and are not willing to play along with your deliberate distortion of our position.  _You_ are the only one claiming total catastrophe. That's your problem, not ours. If you denialists are going to shriek and panic hysterically, it's not going to be possible to speak with you.



> There is ample research showing that drought is worse during cooler periods.



Depends where you are. In the southwestern and central west USA, rising temps means more drought. In the southeast, rising temps means more flooding.

Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States - Andreadis - 2006 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
---
Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century. The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where, notwithstanding increased precipitation (and in some cases increased soil moisture and runoff), increased temperature has led to trends in drought characteristics that are mostly opposite to those for the rest of the country especially in the case of drought duration and severity, which have increased.
---



> Is that a new thing in Oklahoma?  Is drought and low aquifers a new thing in that part of the country.



Yep. The aquifiers haven't run dry before. That's what long-term drought does, combined with the pumping out the aquifiers.



> Have worse episodes happened in the past?



No. The aquifiers have never run dry before.



> Ever hear of lime?  We have plenty of acidic soil here in the south due to the decomposition of evergreens...lime takes care of acidic soil very quickly.  The wonders of chemistry.



You're going to lime most of northern Canada? Um ... sure. Yes, that will turn the quicksand into solid soil right off.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Dengue, and malaria would be things of the past had misguided envirowackos not banned DDT.



This is how the nutball right-wing-fringe political cult works. The cultists aren't permitted to only embrace one single retarded conspiracy theory. They're mandated to embrace every last one of them.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Dengue, and malaria would be things of the past had misguided envirowackos not banned DDT.
> ...



I'm sure that if a good journalist had interviewed the people at Jonestown before the Kool Aid party the same thing would have been revealed. The cult package isn't a single belief but a tall stack of lies built on the first one. A small seemingly innocuous version of truth that's easily swallowed. The next one is a little bit bigger leap of faith but acceptable because the first lie proves it. And the beat goes on. And on. And on. 

The media carrot is the lie that this is what smart people believe. The stick is that you don't want to have anything to do with those other people. The socialists. The intellectuals. The other races. The other religions. The union members. The politicians. The liberals for God's sake. People who don't worship at the Church of the NRA. The environmentalists. Muslims. Democrats. Yankees. 

Worked for Hitler. 

What saved us from being engulfed by the cult was good old democracy. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not enough of them. 

Now that they're on the sidelines, and the country has mostly recovered from their onslaught, there's much work to be done. Many problems to be solved, the result of their let's ignore them and maybe they'll go away irresponsibility. 

But, don't expect their whining to stop. It's all that they have.


----------



## gslack (Jun 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And there it is.. You have run the full gamut of BS now, you managed to squeeze in a Hitler reference.. Nice way to show yourself for the useless troll you are... I already knew you were not to be taken seriously, but now pretty much everyone else does too.. Except for the other you or clones..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> A really dumb question, as the answer is meaningless. Your part of the world is a tiny part of the world, and it being safe has little to do with the harm of global warming.



I never claimed my part of the world was going to be safe.  I asked what you warmists believe it would look like with a 2 degree rise in the global mean.  The fact that none of you can even begin to describe how it might change speaks volumes.  If you can't even speak to my little corner of the world, how do you expect to be taken seriously when talking about the whole world?



mamooth said:


> [Because we recognize your attempt at deflection, and are not willing to play along with your deliberate distortion of our position.  _You_ are the only one claiming total catastrophe. That's your problem, not ours. If you denialists are going to shriek and panic hysterically, it's not going to be possible to speak with you.



Not distortion...actual engagement on what you people believe will actually happen if the temperature increases 2 degrees.  When called on actual results of such a rise, you can't even begin to discuss the issue.  You dodge, rant, and deflect rather than engage the question.




mamooth said:


> [Depends where you are. In the southwestern and central west USA, rising temps means more drought. In the southeast, rising temps means more flooding.



That's not what the peer reviewed published studies I provided above say.  In typical fashion, you provide a study that is nothing more than the output of compuer models that predict the catastrophe they are told to predict.  I provided studies based on actual observation that find that the warmer it gets, the shorter, and less severe droughts are.   Observation vs computer models and the models fail again.




mamooth said:


> [Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century. The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where, notwithstanding increased precipitation (and in some cases increased soil moisture and runoff), increased temperature has led to trends in drought characteristics that are mostly opposite to those for the rest of the country especially in the case of drought duration and severity, which have increased.



The peer reviewed studies I provided say exactly the opposite.



mamooth said:


> [Yep. The aquifiers haven't run dry before. That's what long-term drought does, combined with the pumping out the aquifiers.



And they haven't run dry now either.  Blaming water use by a growing population is yet another smoke and mirror tactic.



mamooth said:


> [No. The aquifiers have never run dry before.



And again, they haven't run dry now either.



mamooth said:


> [You're going to lime most of northern Canada? Um ... sure. Yes, that will turn the quicksand into solid soil right off.



We limed most of the southeast farmland.  It isn't anything new....and 200 years ago, there was a whole lot more swamp land  here.  So far, you haven't made any headway towards proving that farming would have to move north over a 2 degree increase in the global mean temperature.   

As I pointed out already, if you look at the northernmost and southernmost areas of production for most money crops in the US, you will find more than a 2 degree spread so what makes you think that a 2 degree increase would force agriculture to move?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Dengue, and malaria would be things of the past had misguided envirowackos not banned DDT.
> ...



The hard fact remains that not so very long ago, malaria was a severe health problem in the southeastern US.  It isn't any more and the reason, while you may not like it is because the threat was eliminated through the use of DDT.  No malaria, and oddly enough, no extinct birds.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> And there it is.. You have run the full gamut of BS now, you managed to squeeze in a Hitler reference.. Nice way to show yourself for the useless troll you are... I already knew you were not to be taken seriously, but now pretty much everyone else does too.. Except for the other you or clones..



Don't feed teh troll.  He isn't worth the band width it takes to reply to his comments.  Several of us have tried to actually engage him on various topics and all he seems to be able to do is tell you that it would be pointless for him to talk to you because you wouldn't understand what he has to say.  

Clearly the sock of one of the more intellectually challenged members of the warmer cult.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

It doesn't take much to get the denial cult off the topic at hand. They are in a defenseless position and they realize it. Rather than learn from their mistakes they run from them. 

They and only they are surprised by their irrelevance. They actually thought that they were right at one time. Now it's too late to turn back so they're left with nothing but attitude.


----------



## gslack (Jun 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It doesn't take much to get the denial cult off the topic at hand. They are in a defenseless position and they realize it. Rather than learn from their mistakes they run from them.
> 
> They and only they are surprised by their irrelevance. They actually thought that they were right at one time. Now it's too late to turn back so they're left with nothing but attitude.



Ever read your own posts? LOL, it's a constant outpouring of circle talk and grandstanding. You say something completely ignorant and obscure having less than the smallest amount of anything coherent much less scientific in it,and when you get called on it or tested, you post a speech containing vague generalities and cries of everyone being in a cult mindset...

ROFL, the only cult mindset here has been you and the endless parade of identical posters just like you. Lets see... Cult mindset checklist.. Circle talking and nonsense? Check.. Believing yourself something greater, smarter, better than anyone with a differing opinion or facts? CHeck.. Illogical ramblings using pseudoscience you pull out of your butt or make up as you go along? Check.. Believing everyone not in with your cult is obviously in a cult? Check... When your belief system is challenged you make large grandiose speeches using the broadest strokes to divert from your shortcomings? Check...

Sounds like you're the cult member socko.. Maybe your loved ones should have an intervention?


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't take much to get the denial cult off the topic at hand. They are in a defenseless position and they realize it. Rather than learn from their mistakes they run from them.
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't take much to get the denial cult off the topic at hand. They are in a defenseless position and they realize it. Rather than learn from their mistakes they run from them.
> ...



I'm very comfortable with my positions. I can defend them. They are in support of my country. They are honorable. 

You, on the other hand, are regarded as a sock puppet not in the sense of an abuser of message boards, but in the real sense of being a dittohead. Given to the thought from others. Incapable of independent thought. 

You are redundant. Nobody needs you to parrot Rush's thoughts. They were wrong when he said them. They are still wrong when you say them. 

I remember when America was the land of the free. You are living denial of that position. 

The country has left you behind for a reason. You are baggage. You are the past. You are over. 

Extinction awaits those who are unable to adapt.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 21, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Run, run, run. When fight or flight kicks in, don't even think, just run and hide. if you don't, learning might eat you alive. 

Newspeak. Ignorance is knowledge. Flight is fight. Denial is science. Freedom is slavery. Up is down. East is west. 

Pitiful.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...








Yes, you are indeed pitiful.  No scientific reasoning utters from your computer, no scientific thought ever enters your brain, you are a parrot repeating whatever your masters feed you.
You are a succubus, a time waster, you educate not at all, you learn not at all, you exist merely to suck the life from those who oppose your masters.

Goodbye troll, I am not running and hiding, I just am choosing to no longer allow you to suck up my time.  You are a worthless critter that I no longer choose to deal with due to your innate inability to refrain from lying, and your pathological intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> If indeed the Earth is still in a warming cycle, and even if human activity is having an affect on that, it is obvious that the current silly authoritarian and coercive measures to deal with it are not working.  It makes a whole lot more sense to me to focus most of our research into helping people adapt to climate change rather than try to change our climate.
> 
> Let's use government and science to help people, not enslave them or force them to hand over their liberties to powers that so far have not shown me that they have my best interests at heart.



What is "coercive" about capitalism and free trade?

I'd love to see evidence of quotes from you supporting the use of research to help society adapt to a warmer climate - if you are honest, I think you will admit that you would oppose any such moves, just as you oppose climate change solutions from the private sector. 

The only policy you will support involves doing nothing at all - a policy which will pass enormous financial burden on the next generation.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD - 

As I explained earlier, malaria, leshmaniasis and cholera were eradicated from some areas by improved farming practices and by changes in waste water treatment etc, but the key factor remains climate. Many of the diseases I mentioned have never existed in the US. 

Malaria remains a threat across vast swathes of the world not because farm practices are not adequate, but because natural waterways, swamps and deltas can not be rendered mosquito-free without the wholesale destruction of the ecosystem. 

We also know that pesticides are not an ideal solution to anyone who values human life. 

There is every chance that some tropical diseases could return to the US, and at the moment the US is ill-equipped to deal with increased incidence, of, for instance, dengue fever.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I got an actual chuckle when he said that we should look at this with an open mind.  Worst thing he can threaten us with if the temperature increases is bugs.  Malaria, etc...I guess he doesn't know that malaria used to be a real problem down here in the south but we eliminted the problem.
> 
> .



Um...no...that isn't a very honest statement, is it?

I listed a number of factors which are already occuring in the US - droughts being the obvious one, but also increased storm intensity and rising temperatures.

You have to use a little common sense here - the US just experienced its hottest year on record and the most expensive drought in US history, and you don't think that is a problem worth even mentioning?


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I got an actual chuckle when he said that we should look at this with an open mind.  Worst thing he can threaten us with if the temperature increases is bugs.  Malaria, etc...I guess he doesn't know that malaria used to be a real problem down here in the south but we eliminted the problem.
> ...






Both statements are completely untrue.  Hansen stated in a peer reviewed paper that last year was 9th warmest (he is the original source for all US temp data sets), and corrected for inflation the Dust Bowl of the 1930's is orders of magnitude more severe.

Do get your facts straight.


----------



## gslack (Jun 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And there it is again, grandstanding and nonsense...

Defend the claim then, start now... Ya can't socko, we know...

Now you try the old politicians best friend. Speak of "america" and say a lot of words like "land of the free" and try and spin your BS into a matter of patriotism... ROFL.. Not a genuine bone in your body is there?

Dude you're not even real, you're so phony you don't even know what part of you is real any more. Freaking used car salesman of the environmental web forums.. ROFL


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



your half silvered mirror being replaced with a 3/4 silvered mirror is just wrong. a better analogy is a deck of cards. it takes seven shuffles to randomize a deck, shuffling 70 times doesnt make it more random. 10 metres of atmosphere randomizes (disperses) the wavelengths preferential to CO2, the next 10, 100, 1000 metres dont make any significant differences.

the theoretical 1C temp increase per 2xCO2 is based on no change to other parts of the system. but that extra energy (actually decreased loss of energy) will go into other pathways rather than simply only get used to warm the surface. GCMs (general circulation models) are unable to handle water vapour, thermals, clouds, and a host of other local small scale factors. the assumptions made in 5x5 degree, or even 1x1 degree grids make for uncertainties that are far larger than the actual CO2 effect being looked for. there is a slim chance that one of the models may be correct, but that would be more of a lucky guess than an accurate physical description of the climate system.

as an interesting side question.....I wonder how much IR radiation from the Sun gets 'blocked' from entering the lower atmosphere and surface by CO2?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't take much to get the denial cult off the topic at hand. They are in a defenseless position and they realize it. Rather than learn from their mistakes they run from them.
> ...



Don't feed the troll.  West wall was right.  Life's to short to waste time on people like that.  Save your words for people who will at least try to engage the topic.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

Jon -

I am trying to explain this to you as clearly and patiently as I can.

Water is not poisonous.

What happens if you drink 100 litres of it?


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I didnt ask for a link to Joe's manifesto, i asked for a diagram showing energy flow by different pathways. c'mon now....Joe doesnt even take the water cycle into consideration.
> ...




SSDD- I dont really have anything against the Slayers except that I dont find any of their nitpicking to be useful. Trenberth's cartoon at least gives a general picture of what energy is going where and by what method. I would love it if the slayers did the calculus, broke down the time zones and latitudes, and came back with a defensible study that said "Trenberth is wrong by x amount here, y amount there, and z amount overall". but instead they argue about gravity and ignore atmosphere composition and clouds. and when anyone challenges them to explain themselves they say "can you explain Uranus?"

honestly, I wish them luck. but they only discuss certain issues and are blind to the rest. Joe and Doug seem to be lightweights but Claes has some interesting ideas even if they end up producing the same numbers as standard physics. until they can manage to interact with other scientists they are doomed to cranksville. I asked you to read the Pot Lid Hypothesis, which incorporates what I believe to be some of the strongest points of the slayers and you wouldnt. it is a typical response. accept it all unflinchingly or you can't be part of the group. the mad Hungarian's take on the virial theorum is also captivating, so beautiful you wish it was true, and it may well be. there are lots of ideas out there that are probably partially true but if the authors wont let them sink or swim on their own merits they will not catch on.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

I asked specifically what was wrong with postma's model atmosphere.  You complained about the same things that trenberth ignores.  Postma's model is superior if for no other reason than it recognizes day and night and doesn't move the sun 4 times further away from us than it actually is.  

So again what is your specific objection to postma's model?  How do you believe trenberth's is better?

Try and leave personalities out and simply focus on the two models


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I asked specifically what was wrong with postma's model atmosphere.  You complained about the same things that trenberth ignores.  Postma's model is superior if for no other reason than it recognizes day and night and doesn't move the sun 4 times further away from us than it actually is.
> 
> So again what is your specific objection to postma's model?  How do you believe trenberth's is better?
> 
> Try and leave personalities out and simply focus on the two models



I asked for a replacement diagram for Trenberth's cartoon. you gave me a multipage pdf with no useable diagrams. what is the actual number that the slayer's come up with for the average solar input? is it demonstably different than Trenberth's?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The hard fact remains that not so very long ago, malaria was a severe health problem in the southeastern US.  It isn't any more and the reason, while you may not like it is because the threat was eliminated through the use of DDT.  No malaria, and oddly enough, no extinct birds.



Bullshit. Malaria was mostly wiped out in the USA before DDT was invented. Kind of difficult for DDT to control malaria before its invention, no?

You know what did eliminate malaria in the USA? Public health programs. Isolating the people from the infected mosquitoes, and the mosquitoes from the infected people. That evil gubmint did it.

So, did your cult not inform you of that? No wonder you didn't know. All you have to go on is your cult's revisionist history.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> When called on actual results of such a rise, you can't even begin to discuss the issue. You dodge, rant, and deflect rather than engage the question.



Nice projection of your tactics. It's funny, how lacking in self-awareness you are.

Given that you'll just keep ignoring any info you get, what's the point of wasting time doing it yet another time? Wave those hands! Wave for all you're worth! That will make the inconvenient data vanish!

At least it's good to see you declaring AGW is real and significant. You've fallen back to the "but warming is good!" tertiary line of defense. I hope you understand how doing that risks the ire of your fellow denialists, who all swear there's no warming at all. You should all get together and figure out a consistent position.

And don't worry. Once "warming is good!" becomes untenable, you can fall back to your final line of defense, "It's bad, but we can't do anything about it!".


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > When called on actual results of such a rise, you can't even begin to discuss the issue. You dodge, rant, and deflect rather than engage the question.
> ...



who swears that there has been no warming since the Little Ice Age, or even the commonplace use of thermometers? seem like a bit of a strawman there mamooth.

but I can understand how you got the idea of fall-back positions. global warming became climate change, and now it is extreme weather. each needing less and less evidence because.....well, there is less and less evidence to support your position.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Bullshit. Malaria was mostly wiped out in the USA before DDT was invented. Kind of difficult for DDT to control malaria before its invention, no?



Do you guys just go through your lives never actually knowing anything at all.  Do you constantly just make it up as you go and expect to be believed?  DDT was invented in 1939.  In 1947 the National Malaria Eradication Program, a cooperative of 13 southeastern states, in conjunction with the CDC and the US Public Health Service began operations to eliminate malaria in the southeast US.  In 1949 the country was declared free of malaria as a signifigant health problem and by 1952 the CDC was out of the operation altogether.

Here, from the CDC.  There are plenty of other sites that provide information on the topic of how much suffering malaria caused right here in the US prior to the invention of DDT.  You and your mindless, ignorant counterparts prove over and over that you don't know squat.  You lie at the drop of a hat without the slightest bit of knowledge of what you are lying about.  

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html

So again, the hard fact is that malaria used to be a severe health problem in the US and through the use of DDT it was eliminated without the bird extinctions and other health problems the lying environmentalists claimed would result if the compount weren't banned.  After all, it was no longer a problem here....the only people who would suffer and die at that point were brown people breeding like rats in third world countries....right?



mamooth said:


> You know what did eliminate malaria in the USA? Public health programs. Isolating the people from the infected mosquitoes, and the mosquitoes from the infected people. That evil gubmint did it.



Yeah, I know what eliminated malaria in the USA...because I took the time to actually learn something rather than just make it up like you idiots.  Here is what eliminated malaria according to the CDC...



> The National Malaria Eradication Program was a cooperative undertaking by state and local health agencies of 13 southeastern states and the Communicable Disease Center of the U. S. Public Health Service, originally proposed by Dr. L. L. Williams. The program commenced operations on July 1, 1947. It consisted primarily of DDT application to the interior surfaces of rural homes or entire premises in counties where malaria was reported to have been prevalent in recent years. By the end of 1949, more than 4,650,000 house spray applications had been made. It also included drainage, removal of mosquito breeding sites, and spraying (occasionally from aircrafts) of insecticides. Total elimination of transmission was slowly achieved. In 1949, the country was declared free of malaria as a significant public health problem.





mamooth said:


> So, did your cult not inform you of that? No wonder you didn't know. All you have to go on is your cult's revisionist history.



Clearly your cult has misinformed you and you are so stupid that you just believe everything you are told and never bother to find out for yourself.  I personally observed the anti malaria program in action during my childhood and if you were as old as you claim to be you would not be unaware of it.

As you can clearly see...as stated by the CDC, your cult is once more found guilty of revising history and apparently that is all you have to go on.

You are a f'ing idiot and you prove it over and over and over at every opportunity.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Nice projection of your tactics. It's funny, how lacking in self-awareness you are.



So describe what the southeast US will look like if the global mean rises 2 degrees.  What will summer look like?  What will winter look like?  What happens to the growing season?  How do the seasons change?  What crops will no longer grow here?  What crops will be able to grow here that couldn't before?  What happens to precipitation?  Snow in winter?  Rain in spring and summer?  Describe it in detail. 

If you have nearly as much evidence as you claim, you should be able to get into detail.  That is the purpose of evidence...to enable you to describe events in more and more detail.  So lets hear it.

At least it's good to see you declaring At least it's good to see you declaring AGW is real and significant. [/quote]

Not only are you a f'ing idiot, you are once more proven to be a f'ing liar.  Show me anywhere I have said that AGW is real and signifigant.  I said assume that the temp is up 2 degrees...tell me what it will look like.  If you had an actual argument, you wouldn't be forced to lie in an effort to make a point....or maybe you would just because your character is so hopelessly flawed that lying is just what you do.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> who swears that there has been no warming since the Little Ice Age, or even the commonplace use of thermometers? seem like a bit of a strawman there mamooth.
> 
> but I can understand how you got the idea of fall-back positions. global warming became climate change, and now it is extreme weather. each needing less and less evidence because.....well, there is less and less evidence to support your position.



Nah...she is just a liar....picking up siagon's tactic of editing what people say in an attempt to make an argument since they have no actual evidence upon which to make one that is believable.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD - 

Have you noticed how often you ask a question, receive an excellent answer, ignore it and then ask the same question all over again as if nothing had ever happened?

THIS is the future of agriculture where you live:

2012&#8211;13 North American drought

The 2012-2013 North American Drought, an expansion of the 2010&#8211;2012 Southern United States drought, orignated in the midst of a record breaking heat wave. Low snowfall amounts in winter, coupled with the intense summer heat from La Nina, caused drought-like conditions to migrate northward from the southern United States, wreaking havoc on crops and water supply.[1] The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as *the costliest natural disaster in US history*

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add to that increased problems with pests, disease and storm intensity.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD - 

Climate and the spread of diseaseare not linked? 

This article suggests otherwise:

Climate Change One Factor in Malaria Spread

Mar. 4, 2010 &#8212; Climate change is one reason malaria is on the rise in some parts of the world, new research finds, but other factors such as migration and land-use changes are likely also at play. The research, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology, aims to sort out contradictions that have emerged as scientists try to understand why malaria has been spreading into highland areas of East Africa, Indonesia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Climate change one factor in malaria spread


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Climate and the spread of diseaseare not linked?
> 
> ...



The fact remains, and will not go away that malaria was once a serious problem here in the southeastern US.  It isn't now and hasn't been since, through practice, it was eliminated.  It could be eliminated in the third world as well but envirowackos fight tooth and nail against the means by which all that suffering and death could be eliminated.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> 2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Add to that increased problems with pests, disease and storm intensity.



Wikipedia?  That's your argument against all of the published, peer reviewed material stating that drought was worse back when the climate was cooler?  You guys get nuttier all the time.  Wiki


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> I asked for a replacement diagram for Trenberth's cartoon. you gave me a multipage pdf with no useable diagrams. what is the actual number that the slayer's come up with for the average solar input? is it demonstably different than Trenberth's?



Realistic Terrestrial System Model...beginning on page 34.  Now once again, why believe in trenberth's cartoon that you acknowledge is terribly flawed when a more realistic model is available?  Do you not like it because it isn't "cartoony" enough or because it doesn't require an ad hoc greenhouse effect to explain the temperature here on earth?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> In 1947 the National Malaria Eradication Program



Check it out. SSDD is actually claiming, for reasons no one can fathom, that there was no malaria eradication in the USA before that specific program in 1947. He's taking historical revisionism to glorious new heights.

For example, the malaria control campaign during the Panama Canal construction? Didn't happen, according to SSDD. The canal was finished in 1914, before DDT. Since SSDD says DDT is the only method of malaria control, the malaria control campaign there must be a conspiracy, a liberal fiction.

Back in the real world, Malaria had already been vastly reduced in the USA by the time DDT came around. Claiming DDT did all the work is kook talk.



> After all, it was no longer a problem here....the only people who would suffer and die at that point were brown people breeding like rats in third world countries....right?



And now SSDD calls me a genocidal racist. Par for the course. After all, his cult says that any tactic, no matter how reprehensible, is justifiable so long as it pushes the cult agenda. "The ends always justify the means for my side!" isn't just their motto, it's their sole guiding moral principle.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No matter what happens within system earth, energy balance remains the necessary long term equilibrium big picture end point. 

It is very entertaining to consider all of the various thermodynamics of earth, oceans, atmospheres, ice caps, natural and man made sources and sinks, frequency domain details, as long as they are regarded as actors on a stage who play their parts and interact and then retire to the wings. But the play is Conservation of Energy and at the end of the performance that's the plot that the audiance carries home. 

Energy in = energy out. Incoming solar radiation is constant enough to be considered so over the long term. Outgoing long wave is presented obstacles on the way out. Unles you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the higher the concentration of it in the atmosphere, the more incoming energy temporarily exceeds outgoing, and that energy will have its way with earth until the net effect of warming drives it through the obstacles. 

How long that play takes, and how much forcing is required as a function of GHG concentration, can be debated endlessly, and has been, and the majority of scientists are now converging on some more reliable estimates. 

Let me say that I have been no part of that but have researched and followed it objectively and am the reporter here. 

While you've been consumed with proving denial, a professed skeptic is not an objective perspective, the mainstream science community has considered all possibilities in an open minded way, and discovered, as often happens, the big picture is pretty simple. The details endlessly fascinating. 

There is a time and place for skepticism, but it's long over. The problem has moved from a science problem to a business, political, and engineering one. 

Technology, economics, risk, profit making, jobs, organizations, laws, etc are the stars of the next act and are already on stage playing their roles.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So describe what the southeast US will look like if the global mean rises 2 degrees.



Still demanding everyone address your strawmen? Nah. We've seen how doing that turns out. You don't debate in good faith, so there's no point treating your arguments seriously.

Anyways, congratulations on so thoroughly defeating those strawmen that exist only in your fevered mind. Now just remind us why anyone else should care.



> Not only are you a f'ing idiot, you are once more proven to be a f'ing liar.



You get so upset when your strawmen are laughed at, and it's so damn funny. Red faced, bug-eyed, sputtering, spittle flying at the computer screen ... my point here is made, my work here is done.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > 2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Do try and post with a little honesty and self-respect, SSDD. 

You asked what impact climate change would have on agriculture where you live - you have the evidence. Increased temperatures may well mean more droughts where you live. 

You also have the evidence that climate change IS linked to the spread of tropical disease.

Both of these points have now been proven, and an honest poster would accept that. 

You won't.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > In 1947 the National Malaria Eradication Program
> ...



SSDD is the most descriptive moniker here. He can produce endlessly and his chief tool is to introduce distractions from what he has not been given his way on, AGW. And extreme conservative media politics. 

One can be appaled or entertained or angered by his SS production. i see it as entertainment like trained animals in the circus. Makes you wonder why animals don't have more self respect.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> For example, the malaria control campaign during the Panama Canal construction? Didn't happen, according to SSDD. The canal was finished in 1914, before DDT. Since SSDD says DDT is the only method of malaria control, the malaria control campaign there must be a conspiracy, a liberal fiction.



And the lies just keep on coming.  You claimed that malaria was wiped out in the US prior to the invention of DDT.  



			
				mamooth said:
			
		

> Bullshit. Malaria was mostly wiped out in the USA before DDT was invented. Kind of difficult for DDT to control malaria before its invention, no?



Now you switch your story to panama?  You were wrong and aren't grown up enough to admit it.  And the estimate is that 30,000 workers died of malaria that wouldn't have died had DDT been around.  Perhaps you would prefer the sorts of programs they used because they didn't have DDT...like pouring hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil onto wetlands,or drained them entirely destroying the entire ecology to stop mosquito breeding.



mamooth said:


> Back in the real world, Malaria had already been vastly reduced in the USA by the time DDT came around. Claiming DDT did all the work is kook talk.



Back in the real world, you are a liar.  In the 1940's malaria was still such a problem that a government agency had to be created in an attempt to deal with it.

Here, again from the CDC and this only deals with the area of the Tennessee Valley Authority which wasn't the worst area for malaria:



> U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933. The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region. An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley. *Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.* The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications.



So in 1933, 30 percent of the population in the area of the Tennessee Valley Authority was affected by malaria.  Note that it didn't come under control till 1947 after the invention and use of DDT.  This is all in the history books idiot and no amount of spin is going to make it go away.



mamooth said:


> And now SSDD calls me a genocidal racist. Par for the course. After all, his cult says that any tactic, no matter how reprehensible, is justifiable so long as it pushes the cult agenda. "The ends always justify the means for my side!" isn't just their motto, it's their sole guiding moral principle.



If the shoe fits, wear it to the dance.  You are also in favor of blocking hydroelectric dams in 3rd world countries.  That lack of access to electricity alone accounts for the deaths of more brown people in the world than stalin, lenin, hitler, and polpot killed combined.    If you didn't have that wall outlet and all it brings to you, your life expectancy would also be 25 or 30 years...but hey, they are just brown people...right?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Still demanding everyone address your strawmen? Nah. We've seen how doing that turns out. You don't debate in good faith, so there's no point treating your arguments seriously.



You warmers are always telling us how bad it is going to get if we dont' change our ways.  You claim evidence upon evidence to prove it.  How is it a strawman to ask you to describe exactly what a 2 degree increase in the global mean will look like?

You make the claims but when asked what it will look like, you have no answer.  Just more vague hints of doom and the claim that asking for you to describe what 2 degrees will look like is not important to the discussion.  How can you claim that I should be worried about 2 degrees if you can't tell me what 2 degrees will look like?

We both know that you don't do it because the benefits of 2 degrees will far outweigh the problems it will cause.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> You asked what impact climate change would have on agriculture where you live - you have the evidence. Increased temperatures may well mean more droughts where you live.



That isn't what the peer reviewed research says.  It says that droughts were longer in duration and more severe when it was cooler.  Climate science says that a warmer world will be wetter.  Does wetter mean more drought in climate pseudoscience speak like warmer means colder?..

Warmer world gets wetter : Nature News
Expect a Warmer, Wetter World this Century, Computer Models Agree : News
World getting wetter and warmer - SpecialsEnvironment - www.smh.com.au

So your own scientists say that drought is not going to be a problem...one vague threat down.




Saigon said:


> You also have the evidence that climate change IS linked to the spread of tropical disease.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD - 

Again, you simply don't understand the science because you don't listen or read what other posters explain to you. 

How many times do you need it explained that wet regions are becoming wetter as the climate becomes more extreme? That areas prone to drought are seeing increasing and more intense droughts than ever before?

This has been posted here dozens of times, with endless links and info - all of which you have simply ignored.

We both know that you can never and will never admit that you are wrong, but you must also realise your habit or simply refusing to read or listen makes meaningful debate with you futile, right?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

btw. The material I posted earlier proves that there IS a link between climate and the spread of diseases like malaria.

You know it, I know it.

We also both know that your ego cannot allow you to admit that.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Again, you simply don't understand the science because you don't listen or read what other posters explain to you.



You may accept information that is not backed by hard, observed evidence and assume that it has been "explained" to you.  I don't.  The changes you claim are not happening outside the bounds of natural variability.   If you believe they are, then provide some hard proof to support the claim of unprecedented changes.



Saigon said:


> This has been posted here dozens of times, with endless links and info - all of which you have simply ignored.



Endless links to failing computer models.  Computer output does not equal hard evidence and certainly not proof.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> btw. The material I posted earlier proves that there IS a link between climate and the spread of diseases like malaria.
> 
> You know it, I know it.
> 
> We also both know that your ego cannot allow you to admit that.



I didn't say that there wasn't a link.  I said that it could be dealt with through practice just as malaria in the southeastern US was dealth with and eliminated through practice.

Do you ever ask yourself why you must lie about what people say?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

The statement from the Nature article doesn't match the IPCC report.

Nature-"But climate models project that global warming will also bring weaker winds, "

IPCC-"Confidence in future changes in windiness in Europe remains relatively low. Several model studies (e.g., Zwiers and Kharin, 1998; Knippertz et al., 2000; Leckebusch and Ulbrich, 2004; Pryor et al., 2005a; van den Hurk et al., 2006) have suggested increased average and/or extreme wind speeds in northern and/or central Europe, but some studies point in the opposite direction (e.g., Pryor et al., 2005b). "

"Most of the MMD-projected pressure changes fall between the two PRUDENCE simulations shown in Figure 11.6, which suggests that the most likely outcome for windiness might be between these two cases."

Curious.



Warmer world gets wetter : Nature News

11.3.3.5 Wind Speed - AR4 WGI Chapter 11: Regional Climate Projections


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Climate and the spread of diseaseare not linked?
> 
> ...







Here's a video that deals with your cute little story.  Amazingly enough (well, not really) THE leading experts on tropical disease say your story is full of shit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxtWEW2nKRI]The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


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









Don't you dare try and lecture us on posting honestly you prevaricating little twerp.  Mind your damned manners.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Again, you simply don't understand the science because you don't listen or read what other posters explain to you.
> 
> ...









You are lying through your teeth yet again.  You have posted NOTHING of SUBSTANCE.  That's the point.  You and your ilk avoid facts whenever possible.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> btw. The material I posted earlier proves that there IS a link between climate and the spread of diseases like malaria.
> 
> You know it, I know it.
> 
> We also both know that your ego cannot allow you to admit that.








THE leading experts on tropical diseases say you are full of shit.  What a non-surprise....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxtWEW2nKRI&feature=player_embedded]The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Here's a video that deals with your cute little story.  Amazingly enough (well, not really) THE leading experts on tropical disease say your story is full of shit.
> 
> The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube



Vague threats of this and that are about all they are good for.  Ask for specifics and they choke because they know that they will be shot down in no uncertain terms. For example:

I live in the southern US...Virginia specifically.  The average mean temperature across the state is 55.1 degrees.  If the global mean increased 2 degrees I suppose our average mean would be in the neighborhood of 57 or 58  degrees.  Looking at the average state temperatures I see that Georgia has an average of 63.5..that's more than 8 degrees warmer than here.....Mississippi has an average of 63.4...again more than 8 degrees warmer than here...Florida has an average of 70.7....15.6 degrees warmer than here.

Now tell me what plagues infest and devastate the state of Florida with an average mean temperature that is 15.6 degrees warmer than where I live that do not already threaten me?  Answer...none.  A couple of degrees, if it happens, will be a welcome change in this somewhat chilly world.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a video that deals with your cute little story.  Amazingly enough (well, not really) THE leading experts on tropical disease say your story is full of shit.
> ...







I agree 100%.  I live in an alpine forest right next to a desert.  2 degrees will have zero impact here.  Hell three degrees would have no impact other than the make my growing season longer...which would be good.  Currently my area is STILL below normal average temp and it's interfering with our veggie growing.  And here is the video from THE leading experts on tropical diseases stating, once again that saggy, mammy, poopy, and oltrollingblundertrakarfraud are full of crap and warm weather has NOTHING to do with the spread of disease...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> > Granny says, "Dat's right - one day there won't be no air to breathe an' den we all gonna die...
> ...





> The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:
> 
> 250 - 350 ppm  background (normal) outdoor air level
> 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
> ...




The issue isn't about breathable air, though. If that was it, no problem.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > waltky said:
> ...



But the EPA has gone rogue and classified CO2 as a "pollutant" --- hasn't it? 

Seems like they've gone into the social planning biz...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You warmers are always telling us how bad it is going



You mean we give accurate info, and you exaggerate it and declare we're predicting the end of the world.

Congratulations. You've conclusively debunked your total global destruction strawman. Trouble is, you haven't touched anyone's actual argument.

Oh, there's also the fact that your "benefits" of warming are your bizarre opinions, which you justify by cherrypicking and distorting the research you like, and ignoring what you don't. 

Almost nobody in Georgia wants it to get hotter, being they're not retarded. Sure, there's a fringe of stupid people who want it to get hotter, but those are the ones people point at and twirl a finger around their ear.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Now tell me what plagues infest and devastate the state of Florida



I don't know about Florida, but bark beetles have wiped out western forests. Why? Lack of winter kill, longer breeding season, drought-stressed trees. 

Higher temps mean more bugs. Do you classify that as one of your benefits of warming?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> And the lies just keep on coming.  You claimed that malaria was wiped out in the US prior to the invention of DDT.



Liar. I specifically said "mostly wiped out". Words mean things. Malaria was way down in the USA by the time DDT came around.

So, given that you always end up lying about damn near everything everyone supposedly says, why should anyone bother speaking with you? After all, you're just going to lie about what they supposedly said or supposedly believe. Like you do here:



> If the shoe fits, wear it to the dance.  You are also in favor of blocking hydroelectric dams in 3rd world countries.  That lack of access to electricity alone accounts for the deaths of more brown people in the world than stalin, lenin, hitler, and polpot killed combined. If you didn't have that wall outlet and all it brings to you, your life expectancy would also be 25 or 30 years...but hey, they are just brown people...right?



So when I point out how you've been a brazenly lying piece of shit, you respond by stepping it up being an even bigger brazenly lying piece of shit. You lie more readily than normal humans breathe. It's a truly remarkable talent you have.

How do you manage to look in a mirror without puking? Oh, that's right. Your cult says all of your big lies are a good and holy thing, being they're for the glory of the cult.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Now tell me what plagues infest and devastate the state of Florida
> ...



New thing or same old same old?  History says same old same old.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Liar. I specifically said "mostly wiped out". Words mean things. Malaria was way down in the USA by the time DDT came around.



You call 30% of a population being mostly wiped out?  What was the infection rate prior to 1930?



mamooth said:


> So when I point out how you've been a brazenly lying piece of shit, you respond by stepping it up being an even bigger brazenly lying piece of shit. You lie more readily than normal humans breathe. It's a truly remarkable talent you have.



I am afraid that it is you who has once again been proven to be the lying piece of shit.  Hell, piece of shit in general best describes you.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Quick, run and hide or the truth is gonna get cha and eat you all up!
> ...



Who is Dr Roy Spencer? *How do*CMIP-5 models of*Tropical Tropospheric Temperature fit into the discussion of mean global temperature changes and IPPC models?

I don't know, but I'm getting this sneaky suspicion that the presented graph is out of context.

It was the balloon measurments that seemed odd.  If the discussion is about global average means, balloon readings have nothing to do with it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Quick, run and hide or the truth is gonna get cha and eat you all up!
> ...



Here is the appropriate image if actual mean global temperatures vs IPCC models from the last IPCC assessment report.






Errata FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

Posting a comparison of *troposhperic temperature models* with the statement "It is a graph of the output of 73 climate models compared to the satellite record and actual measurements made with balloons." is, at best, disengenuous.

This is why I can't take anything these guys say as credible. *Everytime I look beneath the surface of something that seems poignant, it end up being competely misleading.

It strikes me as an extension of cherry picking.*


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

Oh, straight from the IPCC on CMIP tropospheric models.


"* These models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature differences since 1979).*Clouds and humidity also remain sources of significant uncertainty, but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities." *

And their own published graph is






So**Dr Roy Spencer doesn't add anything new.


IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

---

A related example is out of Sacramento, Ca. *The local new station runs investgative reporting stories about some problem that has been discovered with a department of the California State Government. The funny thing, that they never mention, is they got their info from the State Auditors Department, that regularly looks for inefficiency in govt departments. The station didn't uncover anything. The state did, regularly.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

Postma and analysis



SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I concur that Trenberth's energy budget diagram is seriously flawed. do you have a better one? post it up and I will start using it. until then I have to use what is available to make simple points.
> ...



The short of the rubutal is



> "Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results. *He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature. *In no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect."



An earlier comment, in this thread, about Postma's model using night and day, stuck out. It seemed obvious that averaging the two would be the*thing to do. *So the following addresses this;



> "Postma then goes on to describe fictitious boundary conditions. *In particular, he seems to have serious objections to the averaging of the solar radiative flux over the Earth. *In essence, he would prefer we had one sun delivering 1370 W/m2 of energy to the planet, with a day side and a night side, noon and twilight, etc. instead of the simple model where we average 1370/4=342.5 W/m2 over the planet (so that the whole Earth is receiving the appropriate "average" solar radiation). *The number becomes ~240 W/m2 when you account for the planetary albedo (or reflectivity). "



Yada yada yada, more technical stuff.



> To summarize so far, Joseph E. Postma did not like a simple model of Earths radiative balance where we approximate the Earth as a sphere with uniform solar absorption....
> 
> **Of course, this is never done in climate modeling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature, so*it is more an exercise in complaining about undergraduate education than an attempt to correct what he calls a paradigm in climatology. *



Yada yada yada...more technical stuff...



> Postma stretches a simplified model to areas that it was never designed to go to, and then declares that its failure to work means the whole paradigm of the greenhouse effect is wrong. *The incompetence is overwhelming. Postma is not done though, and decides to dig in further. *His next argument is amusing, but perhaps a bit strange to follow, so I will try to explain.



yada yada yada...



> In summary, Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results. *He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature. *More sophisticated models are obviously designed to handle the uneven distribution of solar heating (which is why we have weather!); nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect



Which was my sense of it from the start. The "cartoon" is just a basic presentation. *The argument seems to be that it doesn't work as a good model. I am sure that the IPCC doesn't use it as a model. *So the argument is foolish, at best.

I continue to be unconvinced by coollies arguments which seem to be, basically, "Your not a scientist, therefor the IPCC is wrong." or "No fair posting from one of those biased warmy websites".

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

Joseph Postma and the greenhouse effect


----------



## PMZ (Jun 22, 2013)

People who post here should realize that deniers are very good at sidestepping science and denying. They are well trained by extreme conservative media and they can always find denier web sites that repeat the same thing that they heard on Fox News. 

It just no longer matters. The country has moved on. We, the people, and business and our government just don't sit around doing nothing until there is 100% agreement on anything, much less everything. We're acting. The deniers are antiquities. 

The relevant discussions now are about the fossil fuel replacement technologies. The sustainable technologies that are our future, not the unsustainable ones from the past. 

While there can't be any question that our energy future will come from a mix of solar, wind, water, and perhaps tidal, my current favorite is concentrated solar with molten salt storage. We have so much empty land with nearly perfect solar conditions and concentrating solar requires zero new technology. 

There are some big projects underway now, and the technology scales so well, that it's future seems nearly unlimited.

While our obsolete energy plants get replaced by sustainable sources they must also prepare for the transition of automobiles to electric, trucks to CNG and planes, well, planes will be the last bastion of fossil fuels. 

There are only finite supplies of oil left. Using what's left for applications that we alternatives for is incredibly stupid. 

Time to move on.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PxtWEW2nKRI]The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oh, straight from the IPCC on CMIP tropospheric models.
> 
> 
> "* These models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature differences since 1979).*Clouds and humidity also remain sources of significant uncertainty, but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities." *
> ...



Actually he did since your graph is over 10 years old and doesn't seem to have ANY temperature curve superimposed. Especially not the satellite record which is starting to depart significantly from the butchered GISS station data..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 22, 2013)

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

I like this;

"This message is hidden because flacaltenn is on your ignore list."

If only I could do that in real life.

And what's really funny is I keep reading it as;

"FLATULANCE has been ignored."

Which would be even greater in real life.

It just makes me laugh, every time.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 22, 2013)

I was trying to compare that stomata graph, above, to the one that the IPCC has, but couldn't match up things.

Here are CO2 atmospheric concentrations, based on numerous proxy measures, from IPCC and geocraft.

Geocraft





IPCC





I just can't get a marker where I can put them together.

But, still, not like stomata is something new. Why do these guys act like they've discovered something new. *You'd think they'd have read the IPCC report, right? *Or are they afraid they will come under it's hypnotic spell and they might start believing it?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-1.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html


----------



## Saigon (Jun 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Not at all - ask any epidemeologist about this and they will tell you that many of the bugs and diseases that the US is not at risk from have never occured in the US in the past. 

There is more than one reason for this - changing agricultural patterns, immigration, urbanisation and the overuse of pesticides all being obvious ones - but climate change will bring challenges that US farmers have never faced before.

I've mentioned leshmaniasis and schisctomiasis on this thread already, but it's worth checking them out. 

Of course you will poo-poo the ideas here, but off-line I suspect you also realise that many of these things are not theoretical - they have actually already happened.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

Obama Moving on Climate Change

"The White House released a video today saying Obama will address the threat of climate change in a speech at Georgetown University on Tuesday. "I'll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go - a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it," he said. "


Obama Moving on Climate Change - The Daily Beast


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Obama Moving on Climate Change
> 
> "The White House released a video today saying Obama will address the threat of climate change in a speech at Georgetown University on Tuesday. "I'll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go - a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it," he said. "
> 
> ...



good for him


----------



## IanC (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for a replacement diagram for Trenberth's cartoon. you gave me a multipage pdf with no useable diagrams. what is the actual number that the slayer's come up with for the average solar input? is it demonstably different than Trenberth's?
> ...



does this mean that _you don't_ have a replacement diagram?

and you dont have a figure for average solar input?

if you have the answers just post them up, dont send me on wild goose chases.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Nothin'

_*Realistic Terrestrial System Model - Google Search*_

Here is the one that was all the ruckus;





Apparently, they think that is THE MODEL.

Principia Scientific Intl | UN Climate Report Fundamentally Wrong in Greenhouse Gas Gaffe


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



You are a full fare paying passenger in the first class section of the AGW crazy train, aren't you?  Those models are the basis for all AGW claims and now you say that they are irrelavent to the conversation.  I agree.  They have always been irrelavent to anything resembling actual science as have the wild claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and all of the horrors that go with it that have been made based upon them.  The have always been based on unjustified, unproven assumptions and flawed physics and for that reason, have failed miserably.  If you want to agree that the models are irrelavent then you must also believe that the claims of AGW are also irrelavent as those models are the sole piece of (cough cough) "evidence" supporting the claims.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 23, 2013)

> Those models are the basis for all AGW claims



Very obviously they aren't. 

What we know about climate change is based upon at least a dozen different areas of study  - from CO2 readings to glacial melt, from energy budgets to arctic ice, from deep ocean temperatures to storm patterns, from local temperature readings to desertification patterns. 

I am sure you would love to believe that finding a kink in the scientific armour would somehow mean the climate ceased changing, but no one believes that will happen - least of all you, I'm sure.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Not at all - ask any epidemeologist about this and they will tell you that many of the bugs and diseases that the US is not at risk from have never occured in the US in the past.



Name them.  State specifically how much the temperature must rise, where the pests will come from, and into what specific region.



Saigon said:


> There is more than one reason for this - changing agricultural patterns, immigration, urbanisation and the overuse of pesticides all being obvious ones - but climate change will bring challenges that US farmers have never faced before.



Describe them.  How much temperature rise.  Describe specifically the changes you are suggesting.  What change in immigration and how do you tie it to rising temperature...and how much of a rise?  Describe the changes you expect to see in "agricultural patterns".  



Saigon said:


> I've mentioned leshmaniasis and schisctomiasis on this thread already, but it's worth checking them out.



Already did.  There is no reason they can't be eliminated as thourougly as malaria.



Saigon said:


> Of course you will poo-poo the ideas here, but off-line I suspect you also realise that many of these things are not theoretical - they have actually already happened.



I am not poo pooing anything.  I am asking for specific descriptions.  You claim that they are not theoretical and are already happening but don't seem to be able to name a single thing that hasn't already happened multiple times before.  No one disuptes that the climate is changing and that conditions change along with them.  The issue is whether the change is man made.  If it were, then one should reasonably expect to see things happening that have never happened in the past and so far, you haven't pointed out a single thing that is not already part of the historical record.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD - 

Let's try and keep this to a reasonably adult level of discussion, shall we? I don't see how naming the epidemeologist I was talking to a few weeks back is going to help you out. 



> . State specifically how much the temperature must rise, where the pests will come from, and into what specific region.



In your case, the infection zones for illnesses like, say, Cholera are moving northwards through Central America. It makes sense that areas like Florida, California and New Mexico are most at risk. 

This might help you understand the point here:

The density and habitats of Aedes aegypti have expanded both in urban and rural areas. This mosquito is once again infesting regions from which it was previously eradicated. The disease was originally imported into the Americas from Africa, but became widely established there. Yellow fever has never been reported from Asia, but, should it be accidentally imported, the potential for outbreaks exists because the appropriate mosquito vector is present.

WHO | Yellow fever : a current threat

I'm constantly amazed that you are unable to figure these things out for yourself. 

As for the extent of the temperature rise needed, I doubt even experts can say precisely. Breeding conditions for insects depend a lot on humidity and local conditions, obviously. Mosquitos are difficult little bastards to control. 

If you had read the article I linked yesterday, it did explain this quite clearly. You poo-poohed it, of course, as you usually do.

I don't see this as a national crisis and I don't think there is any reason to panic, but when you claim US farmers have nothing to fear from climate change, then clearly you have not thought things like this through at all. How much would a single Yellow Fever outbreak in an urban area cost?


----------



## IanC (Jun 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




_"you've been consumed with proving denial"_

that funny! the warmers call me a denier and the deniers call me a warmer, hahahahaha.

I am not consumed with anything. I try to point out the weakness in the logic and data that the catastrophic AGW side puts up as evidence, thats all. 

by coincidence the 90's appeared to support the CO2 theory. the idea got locked in but since then they have been trying to jam square pegs into round holes to make things fit.

there is no 3x feedback. nature abhors positive feedbacks because they are unstable.

there is no 'hotspot', which is an obligatory condition for all climate models. not from lack of looking for it, I might add.

if there were no GHGs in the atmosphere then more than 90% of the heat would escape by direct radiation from the surface and less than 10% would be carried even part way up by conduction and convection. as GHGs are added the ratio changes, especially at lower elevations because heat is stored, temps go up, and energy is available to drive convective and latent heat pathways. the ratio has already gone from 90:10 to 66 (40 through the window, 26 pinballing through GHGs) : 97 (17 thermal, 80 latent heat). nature has already found a way past the blockage in the near-surface atmosphere, any diminishment of that 26W by CO2 is mostly going into the already primed other pathways, not being completely transformed into extra surface temperature.

it has been this warm, or warmer, for much of the interglacial with no catastrophes. proxy reconstructions wipe out the variance so we cannot see the peaks and valleys of past temperature records, if you looked at the modern thermometer era at the same resolution as proxy records it would hardly be an upturn. that is why it is so dishonest to splice on high definition data to proxy reconstructions like the MBH98,99 Hockey Stick abominations. they are pure propaganda, and the authors knew it.

I could care less whether you understand the points I am trying to make but the one thing I know that you are wrong about is my politics. I am a socialist Swedish-Canadian, although I must admit I am old enough to have been forced by reality to give up some of my youthful exuberance about the intelligence and character of mankind. global warming alarmism isnt the stupidest thing I have seen from group think herd mentality, but it has been the longest lasting and most expensive.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I think that your science is strong on the thermodynamics of the earth adjusting to energy imbalance, but you seem to think that energy only sometimes needs to be conserved. 

But there is a more important point that you tend to underplay by an order of magnitude. The resulting warming of AGW is not the problem at all. The fact that we have built a civilization capable of feeding and housing 7B people assuming a stable climate which has now become unstable from this energy imbalance is the problem. We have just experienced only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what it will require to rebuild civilization to accomodate the new climate. But it's something for which there is no choice. That's why the current discussion is mostly outside of the scientific community. It's among engineers and business people and politicians and meteorologists and public safety people and agriculturalists.

Denialists assume that do nothing is a choice. They present zero evidence to support that which they'd like to be true. For that reason they are no longer relevant to the future. Cultural Natural Selection is at work on the problem and denialism will go extinct. 

Doers have taken over and will save at least some of us from the delay in action that the Denialist culture has imposed on our fate.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

Saigon said:


> In your case, the infection zones for illnesses like, say, Cholera are moving northwards through Central America. It makes sense that areas like Florida, California and New Mexico are most at risk.



OK, finally an actual claim.  So let's examine it to see how real it actually is.  What are the vectors by which cholera spreads?  The CDC says that cholera is a danger primarily in places where the water source is contaminated with feces from a person already infected with cholera or places with inadequate water treatment or poor sanitation and inadequate hygene.  You may think that the southeast US is a backwater, but we do have water treatment and to the best of my knowledge, feces contaminated water, inadequate water treatment, and poor sanitation are not an issue anywhere within the US.  

So that is how the CDC says that cholera becomes a problem in any given area.  Clearly, no matter how warm it gets here, especially with a 2 degree increase in the global mean, it will not be an issue.  For example, the average mean in Florida is more than 15 degrees higher than it is in my state and Florida does not have a cholera problem.  

Then we must necessarily look at the history of cholrera to see if temperature really is the issue here.  A quick look at the history of cholera in the US highlights the great cholera outbreak in New York in 1832.  The history says that New York was probably hit harder than any other state in the US with cholera.  Now the average mean temperature in my state is 55.1 and the average mean temperature in New York is 45.4.  New York is 9.7 degrees F colder than my state and yet, it has been the hardest hit by cholera including Florida which has an average mean temperature of 25.3 degrees higher than that of New York.

Further examination of the history of Cholera tells me that it was a chronic problem throughout Europe, even in the northern Climes as well as Russia where 100,000 people died between 1829 and 1951, in Germany where 150,000 people died in 1831, in England, where 55,000 people died in 1832, and even the north pacific coast of the US in 1834.  Even Finland was hit multiple times with cholera epidemics during the 19th century.  Are you going to tell me that the average mean temperature in Finland is higher than anywhere in the southeast US?

I could go on, but clearly, temperature is not the threat with cholera as it can reach epidemic proportions in a place as cold as Moscow.

Under moderatly close examination, your threat of cholera turns out to be no threat at all unless you are claiming that a 2 degree temperature increase will cause water treatment plants to shut down and people to disregard sanitation and hygene.
This might help you understand the point here:



Saigon said:


> The density and habitats of Aedes aegypti have expanded both in urban and rural areas. This mosquito is once again infesting regions from which it was previously eradicated.



You can bet that if white people start dying from malaria again as opposed to the brown people in the 3rd world, the ban on DDT will disappear post haste.  And there are other means of controlling insects.  That threat also doesn't stand up under even moderat examination.



Saigon said:


> I'm constantly amazed that you are unable to figure these things out for yourself.



I am amazed that such blatantly fraudulent threats could impress you enough so that you would repeat them in public.  Cleary you have not actually looked at the history of cholera or malaria otherwise you would know that temperature is not the threat and both can be easily contained via practice.



Saigon said:


> As for the extent of the temperature rise needed, I doubt even experts can say precisely.



Of course not.  "Experts" seem to know all till actually put to the question and then everything becomes vague and ethereal.  Clearly 2 degrees would not produce any such issues and at this point, only the real crazies are predicting more than 2 degrees as a result of their fraudulent AGW hypothesis.



Saigon said:


> Breeding conditions for insects depend a lot on humidity and local conditions, obviously. Mosquitos are difficult little bastards to control.



No they aren't.  We did it handily in the 1940's when there was much more rural swampland than there is now.  Again, your threat doesn't hold water.



Saigon said:


> If you had read the article I linked yesterday, it did explain this quite clearly. You poo-poohed it, of course, as you usually do.



I read the article then looked at the video that was provided showing THE preiminent insect disease vector expert in the entire world saying that temperature was not a threat insofar as insect spread disease goes.



Saigon said:


> I don't see this as a national crisis and I don't think there is any reason to panic, but when you claim US farmers have nothing to fear from climate change, then clearly you have not thought things like this through at all. How much would a single Yellow Fever outbreak in an urban area cost?



So far, you have not named anything that even requires mild concern.  The problems you name might have been problems 150 years ago and still are in the third world where they are living as we did 150 years ago due to environmentalist denying them access to electricity and all the benefits that come with it...but they are not issues in the industrial nations today.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Doers have taken over and will save at least some of us from the delay in action that the Denialist culture has imposed on our fate.



Maybe you are unaware that your "doers" are dependent on public support (votes) and at present, climate change doesn't even rate in the top 10 concerns for voters.  In fact, politicians up for election or reelection are afraid to even say climate change.  So as far as doing, the only thing being done is AGW wackos yammering on the internet and modelers and their models continuing to fail.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Doers have taken over and will save at least some of us from the delay in action that the Denialist culture has imposed on our fate.
> ...



Thanks for sharing your typical this is the world as I wish it was and is reinforced daily through extreme conservative cult media. 

You continued irrelevance is guaranteed.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



You will get an opportunity to see how wrong you are in the upcoming mid term elections.  How many politicians, even in liberal states who are up for reelection are in the news regarding action on climate change.  Examples please.  Obama is a voice in the wilderness simply because he isn't up for reelection.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



What you don't accept is that you and your cult are the outliers. You are unaware of that as you get your opinions from extreme conservative cult media. They are paid to advertise that you are mainstream. 

Those of us who choose to get our input in the form of news, rather than the opinions of others, are more realistic. 

As an ardent democracist, I'm perfectly fine waiting for the results from 2014 and 2016 elections. In fact it will take those elections to completely marginalize the scourge of conservatism that has cost us so much.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What you don't accept is that you and your cult are the outliers. You are unaware of that as you get your opinions from extreme conservative cult media. They are paid to advertise that you are mainstream.
> 
> Those of us who choose to get our input in the form of news, rather than the opinions of others, are more realistic.
> 
> As an ardent democracist, I'm perfectly fine waiting for the results from 2014 and 2016 elections. In fact it will take those elections to completely marginalize the scourge of conservatism that has cost us so much.



As expected...no answer...no rebuttal...no names of those running on a platform including more than the most meager lip service to climate change.  Thought I might give you another chance but alas, you are still a troll.

The conversation is over.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

One of the reasons that conservatism is so costly is that it is built on the assumption that doing nothing is always an option, and is usually the least expensive one. 

Of course in this hyper-dynamic world that foundation is toxic. As we have observed.

The main reason that the extreme conservative cult media imposes the opinion on their followers that weak government is better government is to build towards a plutocracy of the wealthy and business making the job of wealth redistribution up, easier. 

The main reason why the cult swallows what they are told is that doing nothing is their favorite thing to do. They interchange the concept of freedom with the concept of irresponsibility. Of doing nothing in the face of problems and challanges. 

The time of the fashion of conservatism is however over, and while the bill for it to us appears to be on the order of $20T, no structural damage to the country appears to have been done. 

America needs to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and go back to work on all of the problems that languished during their time.

While adapting civilization to a new climate, and rebuilding our energy infrastructure are our most expensive challanges, solving them, like the original building of our now obsolete energy infrastructure, is replete with opportunities as well. 

America always moves forward, always against the tide of ignorance and pessimism and greed and self servitude. 

This hill maybe a little steeper but it's definitely not insurrmountable to real Americans.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What you don't accept is that you and your cult are the outliers. You are unaware of that as you get your opinions from extreme conservative cult media. They are paid to advertise that you are mainstream.
> ...



You have no idea how to hold a conversation.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

Those of you who have been around this forum longer than I recognize that the SS Delivered Daily here is the stuff of third grade playground fights. He always avoids responsibility to defend his positions by dragging across the trail any red herring that he can think of, absolving himself from the need to defend his indefensible positions, and requiring those who question him to defend some irrelevant trivia that he chooses. 

Useless for everyone. Boring for everyone. 

Just say no. Keep him on topic. Stay on the path and not in his weeds. If he wants to yammer on about inconsequential things, think of that as bait to make you inconsequential by avoiding talking about important things. Let him wander off by himself. 

It would be nice to think that adult debate trumps third grade playground fights. 

I think it's more likely that ignoring playground stuff extinguishes it faster.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.
> 
> 
> The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube



This should be interesting to and inspire a desire for further information to ANYBODY who is interested in the science, cause and effect, related to global warming.  Yes?

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video?  Much less grasp what he is saying?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You can bet that if white people start dying from malaria again as opposed to the brown people in the 3rd world, the ban on DDT will disappear post haste.



As DDT wasn't banned for malaria control, SSDD's race-baiting big lie look especially dumb. However, if the brainwashing is thorough enough, you can convince yourself that not banning DDT is the same as banning DDT.

Now, back in the real world, DDT had been abandoned for malaria control because it had stopped working. The mass agricultural usage of DDT had led to the mosquitoes becoming DDT-resistant. Along with all the other bugs, like the Boll Weevil. That's why American agriculture didn't protest the agricultural ban, because they were already moving away from the failing DDT.

So, by stopping the process of mass agricultural use that gave mosquitoes DDT resistance, Rachel Carlson and the environmentalists thus made DDT effective for malaria control again.

For that, she's earned the undying hatred of the death-cultists. Such as SSDD, the sick genocidal racist (hey, he made those standards) who wants all brown people dead. Just look at how enraged he is because the environmentalists made DDT effective for malaria control again. I don't know what upsets him more, his lack of success at genocide, or the fact that the environmentalists were proven correct yet another time.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video?  Much less grasp what he is saying?



Going back to accusations of socking, Fox? Despite your claims to have reformed, you always fall back on that, since you can't hack the art of an honest discussion.

We saw Westwall's diversion. Incredibly, he actually denies warmer temps don't mean more bugs, by trying to only discussion mosquitoes and malaria, as if mosquitoes are the only bug that exists.

Meanwhile, those with common sense understand what winter kills are, and how they reduce insect populations. For example, yellowjacket nests around me are small, because most of the yellowjackets are killed every winter. But go to the deep south, and the the yellowjacket nests can be found growing to terrifying sizes.

Winter kill affects many insect species. Africanized honeybees ("killer bees") are restricted in range by winter kill. Warmer temperatures mean they'll be able to spread significantly further north. (Right now, they're in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Utah)

The bark beetles were already brought up. And handwaved away.

SSDD is diverting by demanding an insect-by-insect listing of exact results, and then declaring victory when no one bothers humoring him. Sensible people just understand that less winter kill and a longer breeding season means more bugs.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Well, now I know why you're so confused.

You are an intentional idiot.

The basis is this one






It has always been that one. It always will be that one. *Anyone with half aa brain can make a reasonable prediction on what the most likely future is from that one. *A sixth grader can tell. *It's not hard.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video?  Much less grasp what he is saying?
> ...



I am not accusing anybody of being socks.  Just being amazingly similar in language, spelling, context, method of debating, and claimed education while demonstrating a lot of questionable knowledge.  You all may not be socks, but you're either receiving the same talking points and marchng orders or you were all separated from birth and still share a common brain.  And it is pretty telling that whenever one of you gets into deep sh*t, the others immediately show up to divert and deflect.

The video didn't spend all its time on bugs though and its purpose was not to spotlight bugs but rather to spotlight disinformation that is being spread as science.  What did you think about the other points raised about misinformation being spread as science?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

Let me cite as an example, rather than claim as a calculation, of a possibility for the transitory thermodynamics of energy imbalance. 

Let's assume that measured climactic temperature rise has slowed over a few years. What could cause that?

How about the melting of millions of tons of polar ice? 

The latent heat of fusion of salt water is about 80 C/gm. If incoming solar energy is melting ice, the energy imbalance would go first to that use. When we run out of ice to melt, that energy will go into warming the earth and oceans, until they reach a higher temperature capable of getting enough energy through the resistance of GHGs to rebalance incoming solar energy. 

Not only that but many estimates have put the amount of CO2 sequestered in plant and animal remains frozen in tundra at greater than our entire fossil fuel supply. As the ice melts, those remains will decompose, and that CO2 will be put back in the atmosphere from wence it came during the hotter times in earth's history. 

Creating a time of low climactic temperature increase followed by a time of very rapid increase.

Our future? Seems so.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

To wit:  deflection #1.  How many more to follow?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The question of socking is clearly an unprovable indictment for the purpose of deflecting debate from the topic of AGW. The opposite of AGW as a proven indictment against extreme conservative cult media's denial of proven AGW science.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

Deflection #2.   Who will be next?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yeah, like when the police interview witnesses and the witnesses all say the same thing.

Or when an auditor gets the same balance sheet total as the accountant. *

It happens in engineering a lot. *This guy asked the design engineer a question about the product. Then he went and asked the manufacturing engineer the same question. He was amazed that they both said exactly the same thing.

Oh, and two English teachers will spell words exactly the same. *You can ask two English teachers how to spell "receipt", and they will both spell it exactly the same. *It's almost like there was some book that they both read, like they had some sort of dictionary.**Amazing.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

Deflection #3.  How many does it take to consider the deflection successful and/or the thread derailed?


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








We don't "think" that energy needs to be conserved.  It's called a physical LAW.  No one need look any further than that post to realize just how much of a tinfoil hat wearer you are.

Thanks for making it so obvious.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

Speaking of permafrost, NASA has just begun a program of determining the rate of GHG emissions from thawing permafrost. *The program, CARVE (Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment), an equipment laden plane flies at 500 ft, gathering samples.











Daily Kos :: Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA

NASA Tracks Greenhouse Gases from Thawing Permafrost | Climate Change | LiveScience

Missions - CARVE - NASA Science

Science - Water and Carbon Cycles: Projects

Missions - CARVE - NASA Science

nasa carve - Google Search

nasa tundra methane - Google Search


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

Fox, if you're going to call people socks, just do it and admit it to doing it. The way you constantly do it and then weasel about it makes you look cowardly and dishonest.

The way you're trying to derail discussion here also makes you look cowardly and dishonest. Deflection is all you do, aside from buttkissing the rest of your tribe, and repeating the idiot fables of your political cult concerning some vast mysterious unnamed "loss of freedom". You contribute nothing meaningful to any discussion. You are essentially a troll, which is why you're not taken seriously.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.
> ...









No, and no.  They don't care about facts Foxfyre.  They made that plain from the very beginning.  I post that up for those who read these threads and actually wish to learn something.  saggy is a very useful idiot in that he will parrot very basic talking points and then try and defend them to the death.  He is a very good target and the skeptical side has won over at least five people from that interplay. 

PMZ is simply a troll with no redeeming value at all so I pretty much ignore what it posts.

olfraud is in the same vein as saggy and I have won over many converts by demolishing his arguments.  The same go's for trolling blunder and poopy.  The more they repeat the party line over and over and over again the less people believe them because we have more and more recent information to present.

They are losing and losing big time.  They know it, they're just not smart enough to figure out how to stop it.

Not lying about facts would be a step in the right direction, but they are incapable of that.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Speaking of permafrost, NASA has just begun a program of determining the rate of GHG emissions from thawing permafrost.



Another interesting program is the Dark Snow expedition, heading out to Greenland now to look at soot effects. They're having trouble with money though, having to beg just to get 80k for the expedition.

Dark Snow Project

Getting rich, those guys are not. These expeditions operate on a shoestring in the most godforsaken places on earth. Makes the cranks who claim "it's all about grants" look stupid and dishonest. Yeah, greedy people always camp in the ice for peanut wages.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I like this;
> 
> "This message is hidden because flacaltenn is on your ignore list."
> 
> ...



I come in ONCE on this thread. Make an almost irrefutable beat down on his post.. And he blissfully thinks he's winning by running away scared.. 

That's the problem with putting folks on ignore that you cant refute.. Everyone ELSE KNOWS youre a clucking chickenshit...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here?  Hmmm. . . .

Anyhow, for grins and giggles, I think the deflections are now up to five or more, so let's put it out there again and see what happens:

Did anybody on this thread watch the video Westfall posted?  If so, you know that his comments on the presence of malaria bearing mosquitos was to illustrate that the 'scientific opinion' that global warming would increase malaria was just simply foolish on the face of it.  But he was discussing that not to discuss malaria bearing mosquitos or bugs in general, but to address a much larger issue.

And then he went on to discuss a really serious issue with the IPCC formal report.

I just wondered what those who watched the video thought about the issue he raised and the point he was making?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> What did you think about the other points raised about misinformation being spread as science?



I think avalanche o' crap tactics are sleazy.

You want to prove a point, then state a point. Directly, so there's no ambiguity about it. Don't just reference a video, demand everyone "refute" it, and declare victory if they don't. No one is ever obligated to play such weasel games, but those weasel games seem to be all you have.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of permafrost, NASA has just begun a program of determining the rate of GHG emissions from thawing permafrost.
> ...








Ahhhh yes, good old Bill....poor little guys freezing out in the snow huh?  Suuuuure they are....

350.org has the look and feel of an amateur, grassroots operation, but in reality, it is a *multi-million dollar campaign run by staff earning six-digit salaries.*

Rockefellers behind ?scruffy little outfit? | FP Comment | Financial Post


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

Deflection #1 and pretty storng confirmation mamooth didn't watch the video.  Who is next?


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > What did you think about the other points raised about misinformation being spread as science?
> ...









So, you'll ignore a five minute video from THE LEADING experts on tropical diseases that refute categorically the drivel you have been posting.  

I think we can all clearly see who the science deniers are here.

And it's not the sceptics.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

What everyone can see is how you and Fox are terrified of stating any facts directly. You just yell "watch the video!" and run. You have to keep things vague. You know you're spouting a lot of crap, and that making specific claims leaves you vulnerable to being proven wrong. That's one of the points of your "avalanche o' crap" tactics.

But here, sauce for the gander time. Here's a page of 174 debunkings of skeptic arguments. Refute them. All of them. By your standards, you have to refute every bit of it, or admit defeat.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Deflection #1 and pretty storng confirmation mamooth didn't watch the video.  Who is next?



Asskissing taken to this type of extreme often indicates a sock.

My suggestion: try kissing some asses other than Westwall's. That will make you more believable.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

Did you watch the video mamooth?  What was your impression of what the speaker was saying about the IPCC reports?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here?  Hmmm. . . .
> 
> Anyhow, for grins and giggles, I think the deflections are now up to five or more, so let's put it out there again and see what happens:
> 
> ...



Good video from a genuine expert.  Earlier one of the "tuplets" mentioned bark beetles out west as a climate change problem.  I took a quick look and wonder of wonders, it isn't a climate change problem at all.  Turns out that bark beetles are just one more of the seemingly neverending parade of unintended consequences heaped upon us by do good liberalism.  Seems that bark beetles are a problem because of fire control.  When fire was allowed to be a natural part of the ecology out west, bark beetles were controlled naturally.  Do gooders out to save the trees turn out to have been responsible for tens of thousands of them, and more every year,  being killed by bark beetles.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.
> ...



That interview is so valuable from a whole list of angles. On the IPCC process. On the way these lies get embedded in the public media. On the fallacy of "consensus". AND on bugs.

I haven't been following THIS thread closely.. Have ANY of the quadruplet choir responded to this link? Think ANY of them has listened to it? 

This is a keeper --- thanks to (I think) Westwall...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Did you watch the video mamooth?  What was your impression of what the speaker was saying about the IPCC reports?



Didya?? I'd really like to have ANYONE on the "science is settled" side spin this one for us.. 

(Hopefully without some dumb blog piece trying to character assassinate the fellow)


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

"*Flatulance* has been ignored."

It's still funny.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

Hmmm, so far crickets.  Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.  Would really appreciate your impression of it.  And direct refutation if you think he gets any of that wrong.

To help you out, here it is again, the exact video Westwall orginally posted:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PxtWEW2nKRI]The[/ame] Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here?  Hmmm. . . .
> ...



Also exaccerbated by replanting a less diverse selection of trees. Bark beetles have preferences. When the Forest Service and BLM serve up their favorite fast foods in concentrated areas, there is less foraging, less diversity of forest and the beetles have less predation because they don't leave home to travel as much.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

I don't know anything about infectious diseases and bugs.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yeah, a couple of specific claims of impending AGW disaster but they turned out to be nothing more than smoke.  Claims that cholera would be a problem in the southeast if temps go up a couple of degrees but it turns out that historically, cholera has been a problem up north where the average mean temp is several degrees cooler than here and bark beetles which turned out to be an unintended consequence from fire control and the banning of logging on so much public land.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

I do. Suffice it to say the cranks are parroting their cult's nonsense again. The independent sources point to warming as the cause of the bark beetle explosion.

Climate Change and Bark Beetles of the Western United States and Canada: Direct and Indirect Effects

I thank the cranks for giving me the opportunity to prove my point, with independent sources, yet another time. It's a habit I have, backing up my points with evidence. Pity none of them can do the same. Heck, I can't even get them to do so much as even state a simple point directly, that's how craven that bunch is.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

Like I said, as soon as warmist try to get specific with the threats from climate change, we see that the doom and gloom they predict is really all in their heads and most certainly not based on any sort of solid science.  For all the horrors they promise from even a slight rise in temperature, they sure don't seem to be able to name any actual consequences that will hold water.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I do. Suffice it to say the cranks are parroting their cult's nonsense again. The independent sources point to warming as the cause of the bark beetle explosion.
> 
> Climate Change and Bark Beetles of the Western United States and Canada: Direct and Indirect Effects
> 
> I thank the cranks for giving me the opportunity to prove my point, with independent sources, yet another time. It's a habit I have, backing up my points with evidence. Pity none of them can do the same. Heck, I can't even get them to do so much as even state a simple point directly, that's how craven that bunch is.



Surprise surprise surprise....another model.  And the authors admit that there is very little information available to support the claims of their model.  From the abstract:



> The success of bark beetle populations will also be influenced indirectly by the effects of climate on community associates and host-tree vigor, *although little information is available to quantify these relationships. We used available population models and climate forecasts to explore the responses of two eruptive bark beetle species*. Based on projected warming, increases in thermal regimes conducive to population success are predicted for Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) and Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, although there is considerable spatial and temporal variability.



When are you people going to learn that the output of models is not data and especially models where the authors admit that there is little data available to quantify their claims.  That is, by defnintion, an admission that they just made it up.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Hmmm, so far crickets.  Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.



Watched it before. The whole movie. Strangely, you seem to be under the impression we're unfamiliar with denialist propaganda like "The Great Global Warming Swindle". But then, since you refuse to look outside of your cult for information, you naturally assume we must act the same way. Not how it works. 

Anyways, the clip's big problem is the cherrypicking. There's essentially a single dissenter from the IPCC position, and the clip solely quotes that guy. It doesn't even mention that contrary evidence exists. Pretty dishonest, but it's how the whole movie works.

But don't take my word for it. Here's what the British government says.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/71.pdf
---
Professor Paul Reiters evidence does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published
---

Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, so far crickets.  Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.
> ...



So by way of rebuttal, you provide a single statement by a guy who is not one of the preemininent experts in his field.  Good one


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Output of models is not data and especially models where the authors admit that there is little data available to quantify their claims.  That is, by defnintion, an admission that they just made it up.



Do you just shut your brain down when you see the word "model"?

Of course you do. Because it allows you to pretend there isn't a buttload of non-model  evidence there as well.

Next time, try reading. It will prevent you from looking like so dumb. But you won't. After all, you so badly want those excuses to fabricate your idiot conspiracy theories. And it's not like you've ever cared about looking dumb. Having a normal sense of shame pretty much disqualifies someone from being a denialist.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.
> ...



Can I call it or what?

Rather than read the section I point to, SSDD just waves his hands around, yells a bunch, and does whatever is necessary to excuse not looking at it.

Which would be why it's pointless to go into details with this crowd. They are cultists, and they will actively refuse to look outside their cult for data, even when you directly point them at it.


----------



## numan (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Turns out that bark beetles are just one more of the seemingly neverending parade of unintended consequences heaped upon us by do good liberalism.  Seems that bark beetles are a problem because of fire control.  When fire was allowed to be a natural part of the ecology out west, bark beetles were controlled naturally.  Do gooders out to save the trees turn out to have been responsible for tens of thousands of them, and more every year,  being killed by bark beetles.


How sad that your propaganda fails to explain why it is that fire control existed decades before bark beetles became a major problem -- and why it is that the bark beetle problem escalated with measurable and well-recorded increases in temperature in the regions affected -- and that the spread of the beetles is well documented to be into new areas where the temperature has risen.

Better luck misleading people in the future, SSDD !!






.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Do you just shut your brain down when you see the word "model"?



Of course not...but I do pay attention when an author of a model says that there is hardly any information upon which to base his model.  Maybe you should try and key in on important statements like that rather than simply letting them go in one ear and out the other as if there was nothing in between.

Also, considering the abject failure of climate models, anything that incorporates them must be taken with a grain of salt.  So you have a guy with no data on the relationship between beetles and warming incorporating that lack of information with a failing climate model...and you take that seriously?


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here?  Hmmm. . . .
> ...








Yes, I am very familiar with the chronic ignorant enviro-nut issue out here.  TRPA is a bi state compact between CA and NV to try and mitigate Lake Tahoe's clarity issues.  When it was formed it was a good idea (like most are) but then as it's members gained stature in the community they began to flex their muscles and a whole host of problems that we never knew existed suddenly began to rear their ugly head.  

New regs were of course forthcoming and the TRPA became one of the most tyrannical groups I have ever had to deal with.  The entire Tahoe basin is a powder keg waiting to torch off thanks to the TRPA (at the behest of "environmental" groups) and their outright ban on removing downed trees.  

When the fire does come the whole basin will be returned to a moonscape like it was at the turn of the last century.  All because a group of ignorant people think they know better then anyone else.  And their legal fee's they collect too of course...lots and lots of those.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


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



I read it.  I just find it ironic that you complain that the information was no good because it was a statement from one person who happens to be one of the foremost experts in his field and attempt to rebutt it with a statement from one person who doesn't happen to be one of the foremost experts in his field.  

You don't get irony either?


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I don't know anything about infectious diseases and bugs.







Watch the video and learn something then...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

numan said:


> How sad that your propaganda fails to explain why it is that fire control existed decades before bark beetles became a major problem



If you had a clue, you would know that it took a while for the trees which the forest service has been planting (which happen to be at the top of the bark beetle menue) to grow.  Geez guy, you claim to be smart but miss the most obvious things and instead jump immediately to climate change when no real data exists to suppport the claim.



			
				flacalten said:
			
		

> Also exaccerbated by replanting a less diverse selection of trees. Bark beetles have preferences. When the Forest Service and BLM serve up their favorite fast foods in concentrated areas, there is less foraging, less diversity of forest and the beetles have less predation because they don't leave home to travel as much.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;

"It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12)."

See, science.





Fig. 1. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration.





Fig. 2. Sea-surface Temperature.





Fig. 3. Frequency of Hurricanes.





Fig. 4. Extent of Sea Ice.

Evidence for Global Warming


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...








Yep, the cholera BS is especially funny, well at least it would be if it weren't so tragic in its consequences, and so indicative of the deniers outright ignorance of disease and its cause.
Anyone with a brain knows that cholera is a water borne disease and is treated quite easily with clean water.

Hell the worst European and American outbreak was way back in the early 1830's if my memory serves.  Over 100,000 died and guess what they did to fix the problem.....yep, borrowed sewers from the Romans and stopped dumping their shit in the middle of the street.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;
> 
> "It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12)."
> 
> ...



Why do you guys invariably try to inject religion into the issue...I mean, other than your own envirowacko religion.

And as to the evidence for global warming link...the issue isn't whether warming is happening...that happens regularly...the issue is whether there is evidnce that man is the cause.  On that issue, there is no proof or anything like it.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I do. Suffice it to say the cranks are parroting their cult's nonsense again. The independent sources point to warming as the cause of the bark beetle explosion.
> 
> Climate Change and Bark Beetles of the Western United States and Canada: Direct and Indirect Effects
> 
> I thank the cranks for giving me the opportunity to prove my point, with independent sources, yet another time. It's a habit I have, backing up my points with evidence. Pity none of them can do the same. Heck, I can't even get them to do so much as even state a simple point directly, that's how craven that bunch is.






The problem mammy old girl is computer models are really cute when they are used for the movies, but when you try and use them for science, the fiction that they, are becomes plain real quick.  So far your computer models are batting .000, better not try and sell them to a baseball team.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, so far crickets.  Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.
> ...









Nice, very dated paper there mammy.  What exactly are his qualifications to speak on tropical and temperate diseases?  I don't see any qualifications at all.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


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







Wrong again buckwheat, we asked for data.  You presented us with a fictional construct.  Funny how you science deniers seem to think computer fictions are data


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Wrong again buckwheat, we asked for data.  You presented us with a fictional construct.  Funny how you science deniers seem to think computer fictions are data



Amazing how this crowd simply accepts model output as if it were fact.  Makes you wonder if they believe that CG movies like avatar are real also since they mostly come out of a computer.

You would think with the failure rate of models becoming common knowledge they would be embarassed to even mention models, much less present them as primary sources.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;
> ...



I was just doing a search on "documented evidence of climate change effects" and it was the first link I opened that wasn't the NASA or something. So I read it and summarized it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;
> ...



Those regression lines, the straight ones that are the form y=a+bx, those are what they call "models". *They would be simple models. You can do them in Excel. *As simple models go, they predict a continued increase in the four dependent variables based on the continued increase in the independent variable. *He didn't say what the p-value is, so it's hard to say what the confidence level is. *Being he's a PhD, my guess is that the confidence level is like 95%.

So based on his simple model, there is a 95% probability of continued increase in sea surface temp, hurricane frequency and carbon dioxide, along with a decrease in arctic sea surface extent.

The next step would be to do scatter plots of the dependent variables against each other and look for correlation. *Obviously, time is not a causal factor, it is just a measure of the progression of periodic changes.

Then, when a good correlation is found, the next question becomes one of determining the direction of causality. *This can be an issue with feedback systems because factors are intercausal.

Still, temp doesn't increase by itself, so something causes it. *CO2 isn't spontaniously created, so it comes from someplace else (comets?). Temp increase causes ice to melt, not ice melting causes temp to increase, that's an easy one. *Hurricane frequency might be caused my melting ice, I suppose, in some chain of causality, seems kind of awkward.*

Of course, CO2 doesn't cause temp to increase. Thermal energy comes from the sun or is released from burning stuff.*

I think the direct causal links are rising CO2 traps heat that drives temp which drives hurricanes and ice melting. *Then we get into the feedback issue of melting ice causing more released CO2 and methane which in turn furthe drives temp.

That's okay, though, because there is the natural negative feedback from*(II Peter 3:1-12).


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I was just doing a search on "documented evidence of climate change effects" and it was the first link I opened that wasn't the NASA or something. So I read it and summarized it.



But climate change isn't the real issue.  I doubt that you could find anyone who would argue that the climate is changing.  It was warming..then the warming stalled...and now there is a growing concern that we may be in for a period of cooling which if true, we all should be worried about...far more than the result of a degree or two of warming.

The issue is whether or not man is causing the global climate to change.  It is easy to prove that the climate changes...look at the seasons and see the climate change.  It is another matter entirely to try and make the case that there is a human fingerprint on the global climate.  To date, there has been no such fingerprint found and the changes we see are well within the bounds of natural variability.


----------



## numan (Jun 23, 2013)

numan said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Turns out that bark beetles are just one more of the seemingly neverending parade of unintended consequences heaped upon us by do good liberalism.  Seems that bark beetles are a problem because of fire control.  When fire was allowed to be a natural part of the ecology out west, bark beetles were controlled naturally.  Do gooders out to save the trees turn out to have been responsible for tens of thousands of them, and more every year,  being killed by bark beetles.
> ...





SSDD said:


> If you had a clue, you would know that it took a while for the trees which the forest service has been planting (which happen to be at the top of the bark beetle menue) to grow.


And how does the fact that the bark beetle problem became intense in areas which had never been re-planted by anyone fit into your Denialist propaganda, SSDD?

This fact is well known in Canada, where vast tracts of forest had not ever been logged, and yet still fell victim to the bark beetle infestations with rising temperatures.
.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, so far crickets.  Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.
> ...



So your only rebuttal to the video is a political statement by some of the British House of Lords--I don't believe a scientist in their midst?  I have read that whole report as well as the also prepared British document that it was responding to.

So since you provided a link as your only  rebuttal to the video, I'll counter with this, three years later:

Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason' - Telegraph

And will ask you again what your take is on the video's concern re the IPCC report.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So based on his simple model, there is a 95% probability of continued increase in sea surface temp, hurricane frequency and carbon dioxide, along with a decrease in arctic sea surface extent.



Except that the reality of observation is showing us that there is a decrease in hurricane frequency.



itfitzme said:


> Then, when a good correlation is found, the next question becomes one of determining the direction of causality. *This can be an issue with feedback systems because factors are intercausal.



How can anyone in their right mind assume a good corelation when there are fewer and weaker tropical cyclones?




itfitzme said:


> I think the direct causal links are rising CO2 traps heat that drives temp which drives hurricanes and ice melting. *Then we get into the feedback issue of melting ice causing more released CO2 and methane which in turn furthe drives temp.



Except that there are fewer and weaker hurricanes and the ice has melted back some 1000 miles in the past 14,000 years when CO2 levels were "safe".  You can't make a good case for corelation unless you completely ignore present observation and history.  The only corelation to be found is within the fantasy world of computer models.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong again buckwheat, we asked for data.  You presented us with a fictional construct.  Funny how you science deniers seem to think computer fictions are data
> ...



The real part is the facial expressions of the actors. They put little dots all over their faces and the computer uses those as baseline data to then model the output on.  They also have this awesome photographic machine that takes millions of samples of the actors skin under varing light conditions which serves as the input to the model as well.  It is pretty remarkable how accurate and precise those movie models are.  It's almost like they were the real thing.  See how good models can be?

I wonder if you realize every thought you have is a model.  The only question is base you model on real data or just internal feedback.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

numan said:


> This fact is well known in Canada, where vast tracts of forest had not ever been logged, and yet still fell victim to the bark beetle infestations with rising temperatures.
> .



Yep...haven't been logged which is a problem.  Forest management practices designed to limit forest fires have given the beetles an over abundance of mature trees to feed on.  Forestry practices geared towards preventing fire have allowed trees to mature beyond their natural life expectancy.  Older forests are more attractive to the beetles.  By preventing fires, you deny the trees their natural mechanism for procreation as fire is necessary to release the seeds from the pinecones.

In the end, it is human interference in the natural ecology of the forest with all the good intentions in the world that is causing the problem.  A fraction of a degree in the past century is not the reason for an invasion of beetles.

But hey, you will beleive what you choose to believe without regard for the facts.  The canadian forest service acknowledges that measures taken to prevent fire are the primary cause for the damage the beetles are doing.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > So based on his simple model, there is a 95% probability of continued increase in sea surface temp, hurricane frequency and carbon dioxide, along with a decrease in arctic sea surface extent.
> ...



I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation. 

His reference is 
Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The real part is the facial expressions of the actors. They put little dots all over their faces and the computer uses those as baseline data to then model the output on.  They also have this awesome photographic machine that takes millions of samples of the actors skin under varing light conditions which serves as the input to the model as well.  It is pretty remarkable how accurate and precise those movie models are.  It's almost like they were the real thing.  See how good models can be?



Problems arise, however, when you begin to believe the models are reality...or even represent reality...and especially when you begin to ignore reality in favor of what the models say.  And when an entire class of models based upon the same physics and energy budget fail, it is time to consider that the physics and energy budget upon which the models are based are simply wrong and it is time to revisit the hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.
> 
> His reference is
> Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year.



That paper was written in 2006.  There hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the US coast since 2005.  Clearly his thesis is flawed.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > This fact is well known in Canada, where vast tracts of forest had not ever been logged, and yet still fell victim to the bark beetle infestations with rising temperatures.
> ...




Yeah, more trees, more damage. * Burn baby burn! *That's my motto. *Smokey the Bear is such an idiot. And those damn liberal firemen, takers. *

When a tenant complains about cockroaches, I say, "Hey, they keep the kitchen clean." And, if it wasn't for those liberal fireman, the building would have burnt down years ago. *So clearly the cause of cockroaches is those firemen, living of the gov't teet. *

We have to stop interfering with natural processes that limit the natural habitats for cockroaches.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.
> ...



Their computer models are beginning to run into more and more trouble as the 21st century plods along with almost nothing turning out the way their computer models predicted.  So they are now trying to find some way to present new models as somehow superior to those old ones that drove so much of the sociopolitical policy that we're already stuck with.  Or they say, okay we're in a temporary anomally, but global warming will pick up full steam ahead any day now.

They aren't going to give up all that lovely tax payer funded research money without a fight.  And the govrnments that have been able to take away more and more of the people's freedoms and increase their own power and authority aren't likely to question those same models any time soon.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.
> ...



Really, what was the clue?  The co2 and temp data?

Or does it negate the Bible?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Yeah, more trees, more damage. * Burn baby burn! *That's my motto. *Smokey the Bear is such an idiot. And those damn liberal firemen, takers. *



Fire is a natural and necessary part of the ecology of those forests.  It is so much a part of the ecology that the trees evolved to require fire to release the seeds from the pine cones.  When we, with all our good intentions, deny that necessary part of the ecosystem, we cause problems that we can never forsee till they start getting out of hand.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Really, what was the clue?  The co2 and temp data?
> 
> Or does it negate the Bible?



Only people who are good at humor should attempt it unsupervised.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.
> ...



How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?



That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at.  Which one is your favorite?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I was just doing a search on "documented evidence of climate change effects" and it was the first link I opened that wasn't the NASA or something. So I read it and summarized it.
> ...



So this whole linear regression, R^2 values, mean trends, variability, modelling thing*isn't one of your strong suits then.

Basically, you just think the increases CO2 is all natural variability.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?
> ...


The one you have from reading on your back porch.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, more trees, more damage. * Burn baby burn! *That's my motto. *Smokey the Bear is such an idiot. And those damn liberal firemen, takers. *
> ...



Yep, it's natural.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So this whole linear regression, R^2 values, mean trends, variability, modelling thing*isn't one of your strong suits then.
> 
> Basically, you just think the increases CO2 is all natural variability.



One only need look at the past to see that increases in CO2 are the result of natural variability.  Do you know how exceedingly small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is?  Here, take a look at a good graphic representation of what our CO2 looks like in the grand scheme.  We don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variability from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



The one on my back porch says that the temperature here is well within the bounds of natural variability.  My bet is that the one on your back porch says the same.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



You think trees actually evolved to need fire to release the seeds from their pine cones if fire weren't a natural and intergal part of the eco system?  How might that work?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.

So, for you, the real reason that global warming isn't driving beetles is because there isn't any warming. *It's got nothing to do with whether forest fires are natural or not


----------



## SSDD (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.



I didn't say that I don't think that there has been some warming.  I think that there has and now I think that we are going to start to see some cooling...and yes, the temperature record has been falsified...and I don't think so, I know so.  The evidence that the temperature record has been tampered with, and is corrupted with the heat island effect is overwhelming.



itfitzme said:


> So, for you, the real reason that global warming isn't driving beetles is because there isn't any warming. *It's got nothing to do with whether forest fires are natural or not



Have you looked at what the forest services from both the US and Canada say?  They say the beetle problem is due to management practices...and oh, by the way...global warming to.  No evidence to support that claim but tossing global warming into the mix is sure to bring in some extra funding.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.
> ...



Bull shit. *

You said, "That would depend on which altered*surface temperature record you look at."

You have posted on and on and on. *And all of it was disingenuous because beneath it is a more fundamental axiom that the temp record is false. *Ergo, no warming.

You didn't say, "not as extreme because...."

Rather, you simply omit what you know is you underlying premise. No argument that may be presented matters because none addresses you unstated axiom.

See omission is also lying. *It's called lying by ommission.

And there is the root of it. *In your world view, everyone is lying. *You know they are, after all, you are. And, of course you should, because everyone else does.

You said, "That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at."

And it all builds from there.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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









You see, that's the problem you guys have.  You rely on "SIMPLE MODELS", and as we have seen and am seeing ever more frequently...simple models are simply...USELESS.

Here's an analog for you, F1 (high speed auto raceing) use a specific computational modelling system called "Computational Fluid Dynamics".  It is used to model airflow around the body of the car.  They spend over 50 million dollars on teh cumputers and programs used to develop the racecars.

They are looking at ONE SINGLE THING, airflow.  They have spent over 100 times more on their highly complex and sophisticated computer models, *THAT LOOK AT ONE THING*, Than ALL of the climate computer models combined.

And they still fail.  Three years ago Virgin attempted to use CFD exclusively to design their racecar and it was an utter failure.  They designed a car that didn't have a large enough fuel tank to finish a race at full speed.  

Do you understand now, why we look at the climate models that are so simplistic that they can't even recreate that which we KNOW OCCURRED, and laugh when you think they are oh so powerful?  They havn't made a single accurate prediction...EVER.  That is a fact.

And yet you STILL fall all over yourselves posting the results of these fantasies as if they are meaningful.  They aren't.  They are an example of what happens when you let poor scientists loose into a scientific field.  They DESTROY it.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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









According to the warmists it has remained flat since 1998 and a few even say as early as 1996, I suggest you need to read a hell of a lot to get current.  It appears you are at least a decade behind the curve.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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








Forest fires ARE natural (and in the case of many western plants ESSENTIAL to their life cycle, that's how normal they are) and as has been pointed out to you the bark beetle problem is most certainly a man caused one, poor forest management, planting trees not native to the area, planting female trees instead of both sexes (keeps the pollen down don't you know) but warming isn't a problem because as we have seen and the warmists fully admit, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR AT LEAST 15 YEARS.....so it CLEARLY CAN'T BE THE PROXIMAL CAUSE OF THE BARK BEETLE, now can it....


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Apparently you consider a deflection to be any post against denier cult dogma, or any post other than yours, dealing with forum decorum.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

westwall said:


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


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

westwall said:


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



I don't know who warmists are but according to the temperature recod you're wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=glo...F-8&hl=en-US&espv=1#biv=i|1;d|Um0fI12hEusDBM:


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2013)

On Tuesday, President Obama will be outlining administration steps to address global warming.

Obama climate plan finally coming, on Tuesday | Grist
---
1) Crack down on carbon emissions from power plants. Regulations on new plants are already in the works. The next step is regs on existing power plants, which would gradually force coal-fired plants to start shutting down. Considering that electric power plants produce about a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, this is a big deal.

2) Boost renewable energy development on federal land.

3) Increase the energy efficiency of appliances, industrial equipment, and public and private buildings.

4) Prepare for the climate impacts were already seeing.
---

None of that has do with congress. So the GOP congress can do jack, except to sputter out their usual alarmist predictions that will fail just as hard as all their past predictions.

The kooks here will then parrot those hysterics verbatim. After all, they don't want to jeopardize their own perfect record of failure. They'll piss and moan about how the sky is falling and the economy is doomed, rant about "winning", and meanwhile the world simply moves on without them.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > So this whole linear regression, R^2 values, mean trends, variability, modelling thing*isn't one of your strong suits then.
> ...



If there was any doubt in anyone's mind about your scientific disability, this video should remove it completely and unequivocally. To say that there is no AGW because atmospheric CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere is like claiming that viruses cannot create illnesses because they are too small.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> On Tuesday, President Obama will be outlining administration steps to address global warming.
> 
> Obama climate plan finally coming, on Tuesday | Grist
> ---
> ...



I imagine it got noisy on earth while the dinosauers were going extinct too. Nobody can make more noise with less consequence than extreme conservative cult media.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> On Tuesday, President Obama will be outlining administration steps to address global warming.
> 
> Obama climate plan finally coming, on Tuesday | Grist
> ---
> ...



Go nuclear.  Distributed nuclear systems. Dig a hole, drop it in, and away we go.  Won't melt down, just shuts down.






Phys.Org Mobile: Mini Nuclear Power Plants Could Power 20,000 Homes (Update)

Gen4 Energy | Gen4 Energy


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



A theraputic dose of warfrin, a bloodthinner, is 2mg.  For a 70kg adult, that is one part per 35 million.  At that dose, patients have their INR tested regularly.  The maximum dose is one in 14 million. Beyond that, the patient is at risknof hemophelia.

It is amazing how biological systems respond to small amounts of things.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*That's a hypothesis, but we'll have to wait for data.

BTW, el socko, westwall/gslack hasn't noticed yet that I don't respond to his posts or what it means yet?  Kinda slow on the uptake, ain't he.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

I ran across this while searching on ice volume

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/supportingmaterial/SLW_WorkshopReport.pdf


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

Man-made particles lowered hurricane frequency: study

"Higher levels of air pollution reduced the frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes and other tropical storms for most of the 20th century, a study said "








Industrial pollution linked to 'natural' disasters - Met Office

Man-made particles lowered hurricane frequency: study - FRANCE 24


----------



## IanC (Jun 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > _"you've been consumed with proving denial"_
> ...



hahahaha, I feel somewhat insulted that you think I am distainful of the first law but you gave no indication why you said it so I assume it is just a gratuitous _ad hom._

weather and climate have always been changeable, never stable. human civilizations have always had to adapt. there is scant evidence for _extreme weather_ as can be seen in the historical records for such things as hurricanes and tornadoes, droughts and floods, etc. at a very simple level it is easy to see why warm times are more stable. even in ice ages the tropics remain warm but the temperature differential towards the poles is extreme, with violent energy exchange an easy option. right now, with warmer poles, the capacity for violent changes is less. even the Little Ice Age had storms which are unheard of now. 

did I detect a whiff of the real reason you are on the CAGW bandwagon when you mentioned seven billion people? easier to talk about burning fossil fuels than people? hahaha. 

people are here for the forseeable future and they are going to keep mucking up their environment just by being there. dont conflate your fear of overpopulation with your fear of fossil fuel burning putting plant food in the air.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> If there was any doubt in anyone's mind about your scientific disability, this video should remove it completely and unequivocally. To say that there is no AGW because atmospheric CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere is like claiming that viruses cannot create illnesses because they are too small.



I am still waiting for someone...anyone to post some actual evidence that any amount of additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.  Got any?  I believe you posted something earlier but there was nothing there and when you were asked to point out which part of it you believe constituted proof that additional CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm...you couldn't do it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> A theraputic dose of warfrin, a bloodthinner, is 2mg.  For a 70kg adult, that is one part per 35 million.  At that dose, patients have their INR tested regularly.  The maximum dose is one in 14 million. Beyond that, the patient is at risknof hemophelia.
> 
> It is amazing how biological systems respond to small amounts of things.



And there is hard, observed, measured empirical data to support that precaution.  Show me one bit of hard, observed, measured empirical data to support the claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 from 350ppm to 450ppm will cause the global temperature to rise.

The fact that some things are dangerous in small quantities does not mean that all things are dangerous in small quantities...or even in large quantities.  Show me the hard evidence that man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 causes global warming....you might mention how much warming you think man's contribution causes in the grand scheme.

You guys make claim after claim but simply can't back up any of them.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



That's right.  The amount of warming that has happened depends on the record you look at .  Some have been tampered with more than others.  



itfitzme said:


> You have posted on and on and on. *And all of it was disingenuous because beneath it is a more fundamental axiom that the temp record is false. *Ergo, no warming.[/q
> 
> You didn't say, "not as extreme because...."
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



That's right.  The amount of warming that has happened depends on the record you look at .  Some have been tampered with more than others.  



itfitzme said:


> You have posted on and on and on. *And all of it was disingenuous because beneath it is a more fundamental axiom that the temp record is false. *Ergo, no warming.



Who said no warming.  I said that the record has been falsified and tampered with, and corrupted by the heat island effect but I didn't say that there has been no warming.  When the record is tampered with and corrupted, and you acknowledge that there has been some warming...the two things should lead a thinking person to the conclusion that we don't know how much warming has happened.  

Combine that with the fact that the temperature record has been altered to make the past appear cooler and the present warmer, and the heat island effect injects a warm bias into the record and again, a thinking person should lean towards a conclusion that there has been less warming than more.



itfitzme said:


> You didn't say, "not as extreme because...."
> 
> Rather, you simply omit what you know is you underlying premise. No argument that may be presented matters because none addresses you unstated axiom.
> 
> See omission is also lying. *It's called lying by ommission.



Making up things that haven't been said to satisfy your bias is lying.



itfitzme said:


> And there is the root of it. *In your world view, everyone is lying. *You know they are, after all, you are. And, of course you should, because everyone else does.



Again, making up things is lying and you are writing fiction here.  There are some people who are lying and have been caught red handed altering the temperature record.  There are others who take the alterations and use them, and refer to them as fact in thier research.  These people aren't lying, but their data isn't good.  

Climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade.  You may want to look up the term.



itfitzme said:


> You said, "That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at."
> 
> And it all builds from there.



And I meant, which altered temperature record you look at.  Here are some hard examples of the tampering.  We shall see what sort of person you are by your reaction to the following....and let me stress that these are only a few examples...I could go on with them ad nauseum.

This is what the GISS record looked like when published in 1999:





This is what the GISS record looked like when it was published in 2011.  The alterations are blatant and clearly aimed towards making the amount of warming appear larger than it is.













































You may regard this sort of blatant data tampering as business as usual, but I find it disturbing.  The fact is that since 2008 NOAA has warmed a total of 793 months with 571 of those months being post 1959.  In the same period since 2008 they have cooled a total of 754 months with 739 of those months being prior to 1960.

That fact alone should tell you that someone somewhere is up to no good.  The nature of the changes should tell you what sort of no good they are up to.  Can you think of a rational, scientifically sound reason to lower the temperature of 739 months prior to 1960?  What possible reason could there be to make such changes unless your aim is to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened.

The major recorders of the surface record are all guilty of this sort of practice and have all been caught red handed at it. 

So you tell me.  What do you think of the general practice of altering the temperature record to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened?


----------



## gslack (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



LOL,in case you weren't aware. Westwall and I post nothing at all alike.. The same cannot be said for you and a few others.. And your name.. ifitzme.. A little telling don't ya think socko? You're name itself is you stating you are a sock.. You know it, we know it..

You think you're slick, you think you're special, but soon enough your proxy will be added to the blacklist. And when it does you will have to begin again as another ignorant remake. You won't stop because it's your life..


----------



## IanC (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.


----------



## gslack (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Man-made particles lowered hurricane frequency: study
> 
> "Higher levels of air pollution reduced the frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes and other tropical storms for most of the 20th century, a study said "
> 
> ...



Wait a tick... The previous claim was AGW would cause a higher frequency in storms.. Now it's air pollution will lessen the frequency? 

Dude seriously is everything going to effect the frequency of storms? You guys would be a bit more believable if you didn't claim everything is going to happen and all of it is attributable to man... Aren't you even starting to feel it's getting a bit silly now?

No of course not, you're an algorian..silly me..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.



Who cares. The raw data has been available since forever.  SSDDs on the iggy list.  He's been bsing all along, then when he's busted, he pulls this out of his assets..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to
> systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.



Find your own local weather station data.

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

There are, or were, three in my are.  One out by the reservior, one by the airport, and one at what appeared to be someones house in a residential neighborhood.

I used them when I moved in and started a garden, to get a sense of when the season actually started.


----------



## gslack (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.
> ...



Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now? 

The fact is the data is not sound and further any and all attempts to reuse the data in whatever form they choose, is going to be equally suspect. A scientist gets caught being fraudulent with data once, then defends his fraudulent data until there is no doubt, then refuses to admit his error only submits new, is anti-science no matter how you look at it..

If this kind of behavior came from an anti-AGW position you guys would respond the same way we are now if not worse...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Who cares. The raw data has been available since forever.  SSDDs on the iggy list.  He's been bsing all along, then when he's busted, he pulls this out of his assets..



I said that your reaction to the blatant data tampering would reveal a lot about the sort of person you are.  I was right.  You aren't interested in anything that challenges your faith...even hard evidence of fraud on the part of climate scientists.


----------



## westwall (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares. The raw data has been available since forever.  SSDDs on the iggy list.  He's been bsing all along, then when he's busted, he pulls this out of his assets..
> ...









You are correct, of course.  ifitzme is just another in a long line of pseudo people propagated on this forum to show "support" for the inane enviro whackos and collectivists.  They somehow think that burying people with BS will somehow win them over to their side when the opposite is true.

It is fun to watch the contortions they go through to sound "reasonable" though...that is quite hilarious.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

gslack said:


> Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?
> 
> The fact is the data is not sound and further any and all attempts to reuse the data in whatever form they choose, is going to be equally suspect. A scientist gets caught being fraudulent with data once, then defends his fraudulent data until there is no doubt, then refuses to admit his error only submits new, is anti-science no matter how you look at it..
> 
> If this kind of behavior came from an anti-AGW position you guys would respond the same way we are now if not worse...



What these guys don't seem to be able to grasp is that when other scientists use thier fraudulent numbers as fact, without checking up on them, and other scientists use that data and so on and so on, the fraud becomes institutional.  It is part of everything even though only a couple of scientists are actually guilty.  It is called an error cascade and climate science is caught up in one and won't get out of it till it comes crashing to the ground...much like has recently happened in medical research.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.



Does anyone know how to use excel and put up a graph?

Plot those.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?
> ...



Also is the fact that 'peer review' is generally only approval that a method used to arrive at a conclusion was properly scientifically conducted.  It is not necessarily approval of the conclusion itself.  And the fallacy in peer review is that it can be claimed when you use only people who you know will approve your report no matter what is in it.   And then others cite the peer reviewed report over and over without doing the work themselves to uncover how the study or paper was flawed.   That is how an 'error cascade' can happen.

It is magnified like, as Westwall's video--you know, that video the quadruplets won't watch or comment on honestly?--shows how those scientists who initially signed on to the IPCC reports have difficulty getting their names removed when the reports become so flawed the scientists can no longer approve them.

That, plus refusal to report dissenting reports or leaving out critical information that might call the final conclusions into question, makes the whole thing smell really bad to anybody more interested in truth than in promoting falsified 'evidence' for political purposes.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



You're not paying attention then because at least two people did comment on it. *It's idiotic, at least the grains of rice one.


----------



## gslack (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah sure he is socko.. We are all on your "iggy" list.. SO then who exactly are you arguing with now?
> ...



They don't care to realize it. I figure anybody tech savvy enough to use a proxy to post on a simple web forum under various names, should at least be smart enough to understand how bad data is still bad data no matter how many times it's used. But somehow it escapes these socks.. 

They don't want to know, they don't care to know. They aren't here to learn or understand, they're just here to stir the pot and make sure that the last word read is a warmer word. Some are just here push green tech like oldrocks for instance. he just wants to sell us solar panels and equipment. Had several page discussion on AGW with him a while back and no matter what alternative energy was mentioned he went right back to solar and perhaps a little windpower to supplement it.. 

There's not a genuine scientific bone in any of them, they don't care what the science says, they don't care what the people they follow say, they aren't here for anything real..


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 24, 2013)

I have been paying attention and nobody so far has given me one shred of hope that they watched it and for damn sure not one of the quadruplets has commented on the content of it beyond the mosquitos which was not the point of the video and could have been commented on without watching the video.

If you watched it Itfitzme, what was your conclusion re what he said about the IPCC report?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



It's amazing how people that can't do the work think they can be critical of people that can. *I bet you couldn't get through the first page of math in one of those peer review articles.

In fact, I bet you couldn't take that table of temps
posted by SSDD, plot a graph in Excel, and post it on this forum if your life depended on it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 24, 2013)

So what about the IPCC report as related in the video, Itfitzme.   And I can make a graph in Excel which is why I know how easy it is for anybody, for any motive or purpose, can make a graph that will show anything you want to show however dishonest or made up that might be.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 24, 2013)

In highschool chemistry we had to use hyper sensitive scales in an environmentally controlled room to weigh and calculate the atomic weight of a substance.  I can't remember what element I was given to use--we all had different things-- but I do know for whatever reason I simply couldn't get my little bit to weigh properly so that the correct atomic weight could be calculated.  The least bit of perspiration from fingers or whatever can throw it off the numbers at that level.

Solution?   I finally just manipulated the actual weight so that the math worked.  Problem solved.  Dishonest?  Yes. though I justified it that I did understand the method and that was the point of the exercise.

But that was my first lesson in how data can be manipulated.

I went on to work my way through college in part as a research assistant and have been hired as research assistant as well as being hired to do scientific polls etc. since then.   I have not personally skewed any numbers or forced data to fit the desired conclusion, but I have witnessed first hand people who are willing to do that and who are committing what I consider to be bogus research.

Now magnify that thousands of times over when you add millions and millions of dollars to the mix, almost all of it paid by those who WANT and who will PROFIT from a conclusion of anthropogenic global warming and who give big money to those who will consistently support that conclusion.

I think we are all wise to proceed with due caution before we hand over our freedom, options, choices, and opportunities to those who probably don't give a rat's ass whether it is right or not as long as it can push forward their unrelated goals.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.



Actually, it doesn't. The differences are insignificant. He thinks he's found something because some symbols are different.

They are

a) the raw data has been available to anyone that wanted it. It always has been.

c) the real data is month to month, not year to year.

b) if you have a record of it, then it isn't a secret that was "uncovered".

He thinks he's found something new.

He's never actually plotted them and looked at what they really do to the data. *And they don't do anything important. *To much effort trying to prove that someone else lies in order to justify himself, instead of just doing the work.  If he put in as much effort doing the real work, as he puts into trying to prove someone else is lying, he'd discover he's got nothing.  But then, he wouldn't want that because he'd have to face the fact that he's that guy, the one he's so busy complaining about.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

The last time someone fell to threats of "slander" it was someone selling perscription drugs. *Everyone knew that this person was. The landlord knew it. *They just "thought" it was legal because the perscription was hers. Frankly, I wouldn't have cared, except inevitabley, there are ancillary problems. She's got homeless drunk people coming over all pissed because I want nothing to do with it. *And, she was a chronic lier. *It was amazing. *I learned a lot about chronic liars. *They actually believe they are telling the truth. *They manipulate their own memory so that they "remember" exactly what they want to remember. *

And faced with the truth, there it was, "I'm going to sue you for slander," she says. *There is the threat. *Problem is, of it's the truth, it's not slander.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I have been paying attention and nobody so far has given me one shred of hope that they watched it and for damn sure not one of the quadruplets has commented on the content of it beyond the mosquitos which was not the point of the video and could have been commented on without watching the video.
> 
> If you watched it Itfitzme, what was your conclusion re what he said about the IPCC report?



It was some lady showing what a part per million looks like.  And I said, "It's idiotic, at least the grains of rice one". 

And I later pointed out that a theraputic dose of warfrin is like ome part per 35 million, one per like 14 million before the patient is at risk of hemophelia.  It's amazing how little of something will affect a biological system.

Maybe we're talking about different videos.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Actually, it doesn't. The differences are insignificant. He thinks he's found something because some symbols are different.



Funny that you pick that one, while ignoring the series of blatant, and inexcusable examples of data tampering.  You are quickly becoming a joke.  



itfitzme said:


> He thinks he's found something new.



You get goofier all the time.  I don't think I have found something new...I have found something old..back to the earliest days of the AGW hoax.  Data manipulation in climate science isn't new....hansen has been at it for years.



itfitzme said:


> He's never actually plotted them and looked at what they really do to the data. *And they don't do anything important. *To much effort trying to prove that someone else lies in order to justify himself, instead of just doing the work.  If he put in as much effort doing the real work, as he puts into trying to prove someone else is lying, he'd discover he's got nothing.  But then, he wouldn't want that because he'd have to face the fact that he's that guy, the one he's so busy complaining about.



Again, why focus on that particular chart when I provided you with 7 other blatant examples of data tampering?  How much more obvious could you possibly be?  Why not comment on these two?

This is what the GISS record looked like when published in 1999:





This is what the GISS record looked like when it was published in 2011.  The alterations are blatant and clearly aimed towards making the amount of warming appear larger than it is.






This isn't just data tampering...it is deliberate fraud.  Why not comment on those two or the other equally blatant examples you were provided?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> And I later pointed out that a theraputic dose of warfrin is like ome part per 35 million, one per like 14 million before the patient is at risk of hemophelia.  It's amazing how little of something will affect a biological system.
> 
> Maybe we're talking about different videos.



Yes you did...and I pointed out that there was hard, observed, measured data to support the precautions that go along with the drug....then I pointed out that just because one thing in small amounts is dangerous, does not mean that all things in small amounts are dangerous...then I asked for the hard, measured, observable data to support the claim that small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause dangerous warming.

So far, the only response to that question has been the chirping of crickets


----------



## westwall (Jun 24, 2013)

I told you Foxy, he's a troll as well.  I reported his alteration of your post to the proper authorities!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> I told you Foxy, he's a troll as well.  I reported his alteration of your post to the proper authorities!



It probably will not be ruled as a serious offense within the context, but you know and I know how dishonest it was.  I sympathise with SSDD who is sufficiently interested in the topic to want to actually debate it with somebody capable of debating.  Unfortunately, we don't have any active warmers who seem capable of doing that right now.

But yeah.  I'm giving up.  I gave them ample opportunity and made my point that they won't focus on the issues but will continue to dodge, weave, change the subject, and avoid any serious discussion of anything.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I told you Foxy, he's a troll as well.  I reported his alteration of your post to the proper authorities!
> ...



None of these guys are actually capable of debating.  The best you can do is counter their crap for the benefit of those who read, but don't engage the conversation.  If their BS goes unchallenged, then people might get the impression that they are right.  When people see them do their song and dance when confronted with actual fact, they know who the anti science people really are.

There are reasons that public interest in AGW as a topic is dropping through the basement.  People visit these sorts of sites and read and see how badly the argument goes for warmers and make decisions.  Public support doesn't just drop away like it has for AGW for no reason at all.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I hope you're right.  It is a subject that interests me a great deal as almost all phenomenon that affects Planet Earth or the universe we inhabit interests me.  You can't have a left leaning media reporting over and over and over again that 'the scientific consensus supports AGW' without affecting public opinion whether those responding to polls have any education on the the subject whatsoever.

But more and more I am seeing that the polling results are much less favorable for AGW depending on a)  who is asking the questions and b) how the questions are asked.   Ask any group of Americans whether they are worried about global warming from any cause for themselves, and fewer than 50% will say that it worries them much if at all.  Ask the same group if they think it could affect other people or future people, and more will answer in the affirmative but even that is in fewer numbers than it used to be.

And I attribute that to the Westwalls, SSDDs, and Gslacks and others who are doggedly putting out solid information out there and the unwillingness of the AGW crowd to discuss that information and their  almost frantic and obviously organized fervor to detract from it.

There are lots and lots and lots of idiots out there.  But they aren't all idiots.  I figure some are paying attention.


----------



## westwall (Jun 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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








I agree with you Foxy.  8 years ago whenever a story on AGW was run in virtually any paper the split was around 50/50 between supporters and sceptics.  Now, it is overwhelmingly sceptic.  In fact the posts to the UK newspapers and the German papers are derisive at the least.  There is outright mockery of the supporters now.

Whenever one of these libtards posts some BS poll that says they are winning I just laugh because they are so, so far removed from reality.


----------



## gslack (Jun 24, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



Thank you fox, but I don't have the scientific chops of westwall, SSD, or polarbear. I just been an analyst so long it's second nature to study everything I see like I have to submit a recommendation on it to somebody. It's anal retentive, annoys the crap out of my wife sometimes, and makes it really hard for my kids to pull teenage nonsense on me LOL..

I just know BS when I see, hear, read, or smell it.. Occupational hazard I suppose. Oh and I'm a genuine asshole too, that helps on the blunt and upfront side lol


----------



## mamooth (Jun 24, 2013)

We've been encouraged by an admin on the Rubber Room thread to report anyone accusing someone of socking or otherwise blatantly trolling and breaking forum rules.

Congrats! This place has a reputation now. The mods are interested in cleaning it out. I suggest everyone try to not make themselves the one cleaned. All sock accusations, psychostalkings and crazy personal vendettas need to go into the Rubber Room thread ("Time to clean up the environment forum") from now on.

In that thread, fling them out to your little heart's content. Do it in the Environment Folder, it gets reported from now on. There will not be any further warnings. Except to noobs, which is nobody here now.

And as always, if I report someone, everyone will know it was me, because I'll announce it in a thread here. If I didn't announce it, it wasn't me.


----------



## gslack (Jun 24, 2013)

mamooth said:


> We've been encouraged by an admin on the Rubber Room thread to report anyone accusing someone of socking or otherwise blatantly trolling and breaking forum rules.
> 
> Congrats! This place has a reputation now. The mods are interested in cleaning it out. I suggest everyone try to not make themselves the one cleaned. All sock accusations, psychostalkings and crazy personal vendettas need to go into the Rubber Room thread ("Time to clean up the environment forum") from now on.
> 
> ...



Funny admiral but we saw the post here in the thread to.. It has red text easy to spot.. It was a response to your post.. 

Sure ya will admiral just like you were so honest about the PM I sent you... Still waiting on that apology.. Any time no rush...

That thread was you and Saigon's doing, you wanted attention and you got it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD's last graph needs some explaining. the reason for the drop in temps in 2007 was because a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, spending his own time and money found an error in the GISS computer program that had been unnoticed since Y2K. Hansen trotted out a hurried correction that he then managed to systematically bump up to pre-2007 values almost immediately.
> ...



The RAW raw station from GISS is no longer available in the new data sets. Instead, they have CULLED stations and records and purged them from future analysis.. 

You CAN use resources such as the "Internet WayBack Machine" to go capture the GISS book-cooking in action.. Or you can really on already tracked and archived snapshots of the data larceny.. It's so obvious that it doesn't take much to show how phoney some of these changing data preps are.. 

Here -- Dr. Roy Spencer takes a simple data prep of the raw data adjusted for population density and SUBTRACTS it from the OFFICIAL USHCN Temp prep for the US.. 






That huge blip over a period of 2 or 3 years -- is phoney as hell. THe variance in the data is noticeably different from the rest of the record. 

There are examples of this kind of subtraction taking the USHCN data in 2001 and subtracting it from USHCN data in 1996 and the result produces an almost perfect "hockey stick".. 

BTW: Dr. Spencer's "simple prep" of the USHCN database? It matches the satellite record MUCH BETTER than the current "official" USHCN plot...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 25, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Well viva la assholes with good BS detectors.     I too am only an interested observer to the high tech scientific stuff when it comes to some of these guys, but I put a high value on common sense too, as well as an appreciation for self serving political motives.      And it doesn't take a scientific whiz kid to spot double speak, self contradictions, and pure fabrications.  And I also am smart enough to know when a question is answered and when one is intentionally dodged.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> Funny admiral but we saw the post here in the thread to.. It has red text easy to spot.. It was a response to your post..
> 
> Sure ya will admiral just like you were so honest about the PM I sent you... Still waiting on that apology.. Any time no rush...
> 
> That thread was you and Saigon's doing, you wanted attention and you got it.



Reported for trolling (endless personal vendetta.)

Again, such crap belongs only in the Rubber Room thread. Put it here, you get reported.


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Culled is a good word. Global temps surged at the exact same time the number of reporting stations used to calculate it plummeted. Btw flac, the last time I tried to use the wayback machine to retrieve historical GiSS data, it was blocked. Perhaps it was only my own incompetence but some of the GISS website functions were missing as well.

Ifitzme-  of course the temps are monthly, but why would you not use yearly averages in a succinct graph? There is proof that the actual values for past years has been repeatedly changed in s fashion that increases the trend. You can simply believe, or you can discount some of the warming due to seemingly self serving adjustments done to support an increasingly untenable prediction of 0.2C per decade. The fact that a 0.15C mistake sat on the books (USA) for seven years undetecteed should give you pause. A proper accounting firm should be put in charge of removing the many simple mistakes/inconsistencies in the data because GISS seems unwilling to do the grunt work necessary.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Here is access to raw station data

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/find-station

Here is a collection of the raw data

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/download.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/absolute.nc

*But by definition, yearly data has been modified. *If you want to complain about "it's not right", go to the raw*data and do the work.

The variance is different because it varied. *That's why it's called variance.

Be my guest to go station by station and assemble all that data. *You may have to have some sent by mail, no telling what tech they have in parts of Darfur.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Here's another way to look at it. How much money is being invested in the assumption that AGW is real, vs that invested in the assumption that it is false? 

You seem to have this unshakable belief that nature prefers to give you what you want. That you are entitled. That the Grand Wizard of the Flat Earth Society has a special in with God. Nobody is listening to your whining. Nobody cares about your high school science opinions. 

The science is over. It's moved on to business and engineering now. 

Don't worry, the strong will continue to carry the weak as we've always done.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2013)

Prove smoking is harmful.

And do it in a paragraph.

If you can't, you have to admit smoking is harmless.

Naturally, I'm also going to declare any data you do provide is fraudulent, or simply handwave it away as "irrelevant".

This describes the tactic SSDD uses over and over. Which is why he's not taken seriously, at least outside of the cult.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2013)

One of the effects of global warming -- why Miami is doomed. It's already having major problems with flooding, sewage removal and salinization of the water supply, and it's only going to get worse. Can Miami slowly transform itself to Venice, or will the big one eventually arrive and wipe it out?

Why the City of Miami Is Doomed to Drown | Politics News | Rolling Stone
---
South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat topography. Half the area that surrounds Miami is less than five feet above sea level. Its highest natural elevation, a limestone ridge that runs from Palm Beach to just south of the city, averages a scant 12 feet. With just three feet of sea-level rise, more than a third of southern Florida will vanish; at six feet, more than half will be gone; if the seas rise 12 feet, South Florida will be little more than an isolated archipelago surrounded by abandoned buildings and crumbling overpasses. And the waters won't just come in from the east  because the region is so flat, rising seas will come in nearly as fast from the west too, through the Everglades.

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. "Imagine Swiss cheese, and you'll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like," says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily  it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. "Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here," says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas. "Protecting the city, if it is possible, will require innovative solutions."
---


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You seem to have this unshakable belief that nature prefers to give you what you want. That you are entitled. That the Grand Wizard of the Flat Earth Society has a special in with God. Nobody is listening to your whining. Nobody cares about your high school science opinions.



Funny you mention the "Flat Earth Society" since climate models portray the earth as a literal flat disk that does not rotate, does not have night or day and arbitrarily move the sun four times further away from the earth than it actually is.



PMZ said:


> The science is over.



The science never got started insofar as climate science goes as eividenced by your inability to provide even one bit of hard evidence that proves that mankind's CO2 emissions are responsible for any climate change at all...as well as your inability to state how much of the fraction of a degree of warming that has happened in the past 100 years is due to mankind's CO2 emissions.  No actual hard data...nothing more than computer models and wild hanwaving claims of imminent disaster that you don't seem to be able to describe in any sort of detail...and what detail you manage gets shot down as more handwaving as quickly as you post it...like your claim of more tornados when your own source says that the number of tornadoes is way below average.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The variance of a single simple process does NOT collapse SUDDENLY without a cause.. What do you suppose the CAUSE of that collapse was for 1996 to 1998? You're not a very sophisticated of statistics are you?

The raw data is term of art when applied to what you or I have access to. As I told you, it says RIGHT ON THE GISS WEBSITE, that the newest databases have been pruned for various reasons. Especially the historical records. 

And you seem to be completely disinterested in the magnitude of the DIFF between the official GISS US temp record and comparisons to other data preps and satellite.. That's pure deflection.. There are documented comparisons of the GISS data cooking ALL OVER the place.. Showing MANUFACTURED "hockey sticks" in the latter Official Versions.. 

This interests me.. It should interest anyone CLAIMING that there is no bias or selective interpretation of this simple sensor record...


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?

are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?

a while back I googled GISS graph records and found many examples of how the data from even only a few years ago was wildly different than today, often on the order of a degree, either cooling the past, warming the near present, or a combination of both. one especially egregious example was Rej, Iceland. the GISS temps were significantly different, often from month to month. the Iceland Met has complete records of station moves etc, and have already made any necessary adjustments. GISS was unwilling to explain or defend their changes except to point at their website for generic explanations. if a fully documented western country can have their records manhandled like that, what can they do with third world countries where no one gives a damn?

Iceland?s ?Sea Ice Years? Disappear In GHCN Adjustments | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

one of a number of articles concerned with tracking down discrepancies in Icelandic temperature records. a telling quote-



> In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing  and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency.  It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Well, then there is only one solution. Quit wasting time on a forum, get out a thermometer, and start measuring temperatures around the globe. *Take a laptop with you and we'll keep a record.

Because at some point, we either have to trust what someone else wrote down or do the work ourself. *And so far all I read are complaints from the peanut gallery that they don't like the acting.

Like I said, we can always use the temp record from "your" back porch. And you should have plenty because you've had fifty years to collect it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yeah, a few years ago, I followed up on every whiny denialist camplaint I could. I downloaded the data, wrote the program, and ran the regression analysis. And everytime, I found that the complaints were pure unadulterated bs from someone that was clueless as to deal with statistical data and to lazy to learn it and actually do the work themselves.

It's always the same old same old. *"Oh, look at what I found, this number here looks likenit should be here. *Oh look at this guys graph, it's different than this other guys graph. *Oh, they removed outliers. *What's an "outlier". *Oh, if you look at just this last three years, it goes down. Oh, these ten stations have bad readings. Oh, these stations are near a shopping mall. *Oh, these were 0.15 and now they are 0.18. Oh, I wasn't paying attention three years ago and now the file date is dirferent, that's really suspicious." *Same old same old.

And what I never see is someone actually doing the work that they complain was done wrong. *And I'm not surprised because at some point, you have to rely on someone elses work because you can't go measuring the entire globe for fifty years every day, collect, compile, program, average, and then report it. For all you know, thousands of temperature stations have been run by pot smoking, alchoholic meth-heads who just wrote a bunch of numbers down when the boss called asking for their report, interupting a perfectly good booty call.  And you know it's true because you've worked with a guy or two, on the graveyard shift, that was tossing down cold ones, in tha backnof the stock room.  You just can't trust anyone.  Geez


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



If there are real problems, and there are, why are you against fixing them? Iceland is a perfect opportunity to evaluate whether homogenization techniques are working appropriately.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Apparently they've been dickering with the ocean levels too--there has been no significant rise in ocean levels over the last several decades though from what I have read, the ocean levels have been rising for at least the last 10,000 years but certainly less speedily than the previous 10,000 years when the great ice sheets covering most of Europe etc. 20,000 years ago were melting.  One account suggests about 7 inches rise per century, but probably less than that.  Coastal flooding from rising oceans may not be due to ocean levels increasing as much as it is from land masses sinkng--we are all floating on a molten core, yes?

But the pretty graphs at the sites promoting AGW would have you believe that ocean level increases have spiked dramatically recently.  If so, why are the white sand beaches out there along the Florida coast and other places not dramatically shrinking in size or moving inland?

Here are just a few opinions on that:



> Now a story has reported that researchers at the University of Colorado&#8217;s Sea Level Research Group have been caught adding 0.3 millimeters per year (about the thickness of a fingernail) to its actual measurements of sea levels.
> 
> They're manipulating data to manufacture a rise in the ocean!
> 
> ...



Support for the Examiner report:
Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data | Fox News

And needing further research but interesting among the controvery of the 97% consensus for AGW:



> Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking &#8220;no position&#8221; on human-caused global warming. In such instances, they simply pretended the paper did not exist, in regard to their 97 percent claim.
> 
> Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology Cook classifying one of his papers as &#8220;no position&#8221; was &#8220;Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.&#8221;
> Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring ?97 Percent Consensus? Claims | Human Events



The Dr. Morner cited by Human Events was this one:
Sea levels not rising: Swedish scientist - The Hindu


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Yeah, a few years ago, I followed up on every whiny denialist camplaint I could. I downloaded the data, wrote the program, and ran the regression analysis. And everytime, I found that the complaints were pure unadulterated bs from someone that was clueless as to deal with statistical data and to lazy to learn it and actually do the work themselves.
> 
> It's always the same old same old. *"Oh, look at what I found, this number here looks likenit should be here. *Oh look at this guys graph, it's different than this other guys graph. *Oh, they removed outliers. *What's an "outlier". *Oh, if you look at just this last three years, it goes down. Oh, these ten stations have bad readings. Oh, these stations are near a shopping mall. *Oh, I wasn't paying attention three years ago and now the file date is dirferent, that's really suspicious." *Same old same old.  Another year and another selected data points that "just look funny".



Sure ya did.. You ran every one of them.. And MY -- you "ran the regression analysis" too... How damn impressive..* Was there a REASON to run regression on a simple data prep that just requires temporal averaging or filtering?*  Was it LINEAR or Polynomial? Why add predictive lines to a historical record? Do you have the coefficients for a "hockey stick" shaped regression analysis? 

Wow -- you wrote the program too?? What ----  Excel isn't good enough for this simple plotting and prep? Don't have a license to MathCad or SciCad? Is it open source? Can I have it? Might be better than some of Hansen's work.. 

Let's forget about YOUR claimed attempts or somebody else's data prep problem and just LOOK at the official USHCN record from GISS.. Fair ENOUGH? 

Here's the difference that data cooking makes from 1999 to 2012.. You shouldn't have any problem telling which one is recently cooked version..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I'm all for "fixing" stuff. *I found the two temp stations in my area. One is by the airport and one is by the reserviour. *There was one in a residential area, at someones housenor something, but it has been gone since before I moved here.

Have you found the temp stations near you? *I gave you the NOAA link.

Or is what you really mean is that you want someone else to fix it. You find things to complain about and someone else fixes it. *In my experience, that's usually what people do, stand around watching someone else do the work, then complain about it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

Flatulence, I mean, flacaltenn "is on your ignore list". *It's still funny.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Flatulence, I mean, flacaltenn "is on your ignore list". *It's still funny.



Too bad you won't be seeing this piece of valuable advice then.... I just pretty much ripped your claims to shreds.. See -- the only time I use ignore is when I'm DAMN certain the clown I'm ignoring couldn't EVER POSE A THREAT to my credibility or reputation.. 

You made a horrible mistake.. Laugh away ClownBoy....


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




I found local stations, but I did not find historical graphs to compare with current ones. Access to older versions data is always a problem.  How do you know how much something has been adjusted without something to compare it with? I have found lots of random stations with large differences to the present. Why should that be? I suppose we didn't know how to read a thermometer before 2000.


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...








The IPCC states that for the paltry sum of 76 trillion dollars squandered over 40 years we _may_ be able to lower the global temp by one degree...maybe.  That is what they wish to extort from the first world.  How much mitigation do you think 76 trillion bucks would buy?

Below is the actual report.  So you tell us, which would be a better use of all of that money.  Spending in the hope that we can lower the temp by one degree or using that money to mitigate whatever effects DO occur?



http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...







Really?  Show us your work then..


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Flatulence, I mean, flacaltenn "is on your ignore list". *It's still funny.
> ...








Absolutely so.  It is exposed as yet another in an endless train of internet trolls who parrot the exact same talking points as if they can bludgeon their way to victory.  What's fun is the absolutely sure knowledge that the global cooling will become very obvious, very quickly, and these asshats will simply slink away.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Not sure, it's a huge file. *All the individual stations have to be assembled into the one called "absolute".*

The NOAA says there were 6000 which has been reduced to 1,500 as equipment has been improved.

Then relative changes have to be figured out. And shit happens, so outliers are tossed. *Nobody can go through 1500 to 6000 station recording temps three to four times a day over 365 days for over 2 to 8 million data points and individually identify just the ones where a pigeon shit on the sensor or a rat chewed through the wire. *So when something is way outside three standard deviations, or four or whatever someone decides, it gets tossed. *A few were really bad, because the battery didn't get changed. Dozens are just off a litte, because a bird decided to build a nest on it or something. *Somewhere, some idiot just thought it'd be funny to hold a lighter under it, bored and only got paid minimum wage anyways. *Whatever.

It's statistical data. And the magic of statical data is the confidence level of the mean is smaller than the confidence level of the data. Oh, and another awesome thing is that a) systematic errors disappear when using changes and b) random errors average out to zero, on average. *So unless the reading says it's 200 degrees F in the dead of winter in Montana, who cares. *There are 6000 stations, probably another one ten miles away.

And if we know anything from statistics, it is that shit happens, 5%-10% of the time, depending on how tight your shit is. *So in the end, we don't have to worry about a couple here and a couple there. *

Like a theatre performance, it all just works out in the end. *It's magic.

All that really matters is that it's moving that direction and getting bigger. The rest is just noise. Later, we'll install some better ones at key locations.

I found this NOAA description. *They've been nice enough to explain some things simply. *

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

Note this;

"Some of the volunteers have been working with the National Weather Service for as many as 50 years and more, and provide a valuable service to the agency's and the nation's weather record."

Like I said, there was one at some guys house about three miles from where I live. * Think about this.n In 1965, it was a lot of some retired guy, going out to his backyard, or a ranger taking readings on the back porch of the ranger station. *6000 people across the US, reading a thermometer four times a day amd scribbling it on a sheet of paper. *Then it all gets mailed in monthly where someone else hand calculates the changes and averages. *I might suppose that someone's zero looked like a six. *

But at some point, you just gotta trust the volunteers. *And if a few have been dipping the thermometer in their beer first, or some remote mountain station was on the fritz for a few months, before the ranger stopped by, you don't worry about it.  6000 stations, four times a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks year is more than 6000 people.


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...







There were 6500 and the ones that have been dropped are those that are in rural areas (you know the ones that actually conform to siting requirements) the ones being used are overwhelmingly located at airports and in urban environments, you know, those places that benefit from the Urban Island Effect.

But that would a fact and you don't do facts.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

I like this, especially the description of sea temps.  Still for land ones, it's running for decades and has some systematic error. Then it gets upgraded.

Q. What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?

NOAA is deploying a new network of stations called the U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Modernization. These stations maintain the same level of climate science quality measurements as the USCRN, but are spaced more closely and focus solely on temperature and precipitation.


*Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. **For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.*

The most important difference globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures. *In the past, ship measurements were taken by throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck and putting a thermometer in it. *

Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake  this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. *The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference.* This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data does.*


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

How nice is that. Anyone can get the NOAA data for a random station anywhere in the US.  Like I said, I used it to find out what the growing season was, really, not the thing on the back of the seed package.  And with three stations, the odds that two were both off is like 2/3.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



On a much smaller scale, I only have to look at the four or five dozen Wunderground weather reporting stations here in Albuquerque.  Albuquerque is a sprawling city of roughly a half million or so with differing climate zones depending on whether you are on the sandy lava cliffs of the west mesa or near the river in the valley or up where I am in the heights closer to the mountains. and still somewhat different in the neighborhoods right up against the mountain where they get more extreme air flow.

But looking at all the differing reports of temperatures and humidity reports across town, these can vary by as much as 8 to 10 degrees and humidity percentages can vary by as much as 20--far more than can be explained by the terrain of the city.  So many of us questioned this, that an enterprising reporter from one of the radio stations took a day to go visiting all the different reporting stations.  He found instruments measuring air temp and humidity in the darndest places--placed in a narrow space between two buildings, under dryer vents, next to air conditioners, sitting on flagstone patios and decks, sitting on lawns and ceroscaping rocks.  Mystery solved.

And given the ever changing landscape of the U.S. continent and elsewhere in the world, instruments that were once located in cow pastures are now in the city surrounded by buildings, paved streets, block walls, etc.   And we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Dam WestWall -- Now he got my advice for free..  

Oh well.. If he's smart enough to "program his own regressions" no telling what I'm in for now .......


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Yes indeed.  I remember a few years ago my friend and I were driving home from a meeting in Oklahoma and we got stranded in Albuquerque for a night.  It was a blizzard all around the city but a nice rain in the city.  The next morning when we left it was clear till we got about 15 miles from the center of town and the hill going up had a ton of ice on it.  In fact they had to careflight some poor person who was injured when they crashed into the center divide on the other side of the hill.  They were driving a van with a trailer and really did a number on it.

We had snow and ice all the way to Winslow.


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...








Somehow I doubt he will be much of a challenge for you.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Here's a good reason to risk humanity. Someone might have made a mistake. And it might be that lots of people made numerous mistakes all in the same direction. And all of those mistakes created bad data that contradicts what theory says, instead of supporting theory.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yup.  Every highway out of here can be closed due to weather and in Albuquerque the sun might be shining and the streets are dry.  We sit in a big bowl so you have to climb in every direction to leave the city.

But in New Mexico you have Phoenix and Tuscon conditions in the Akela Flats and Carlsbad areas along the southern edge of the state, but a different climate on the caprock just a few miles to the east.  The high desert where we are can be cooler by 15 to 20 degrees on any given summer day than either of those southern areas but we might be warmer than the even more arid high desert conditions to the northwest and west of us along the continental divide.  Temperate mountain conditions to the southwest and east of us will be different from the extreme alpine conditions in the higher mountain terrains.   So depending on where somebody takes their readings could have a huge influence on whether New Mexico is experiencing effects of global warming, even if they vary their location right here in the city.

But somehow I think those promoting global warming probably aren't too picky about being precise about things like that.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> iAnd we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?



You know that the urban stations showed less warming that the rural stations, right?

That's yet another fine denialist conspiracy theory that meets its end when confronted with the data.

Not that it will stop any of them from repeating it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 25, 2013)

> Arctic stations near heat sources show warming over the last century. Arctic stations that are isolated from manmade heat sources show no warming.


Arctic isolated versus ?urban? stations show differing trends | Watts Up With That?

And while I find that there are narrower DTR differences in urban areas than rural areas, every study I've looked at shows wide differences in readings the more urbanized an area becomes while there is little or no difference noted in the surrounding rural areas.  Most studies however show that urbanization and related DTRs have had little or no effect on global warming.



> A 2010 study of Las Vegas UHI DTR (Alex Remar, &#8220;URBAN HEAT ISLAND EXPANSION IN THE GREATER LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN AREA&#8221; [http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=erscsp]) states: &#8220;Las Vegas&#8217; urban minimum temperatures have been increasing at a substantial rate, while minimum temperatures in its rural surroundings have shown no statistically significant changes or trends. &#8230; these unnatural increases in minimum temperatures have reduced the diurnal temperature range of Las Vegas&#8217; urban areas by 3°F more than its rural surroundings.&#8221;


Diurnal Temperature Range


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > iAnd we are supposed to take seriously how much the climate has changed in those locations?
> ...









How about a link there....

This paper demolishes your assertion...



Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (19542008)

Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954?2008)


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

This is what you get from folks that don't known how differences and stats works.  They fight tooth and nail, the whole process, that everyone else has already figured out.  Like no one has thought of any of it before.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

Thankfully, the global mean isn't dependent on Las Vega alone.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

ALVW: Anthropoligical Las Vegas Warming

ALVW >> AGW

Sounds about right.


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

Still waiting for you to show us your work there not so artful dodger....


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it all comes down to who knows and who's just saying that they don't know.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it all comes down to who knows and who's just saying that they don't know.



None of what is known about AGW came from blogs. 

The blog discussions are between those who believe in the capability of science to understand and define problems, vs those who believe that their politics entitles them to have what "right" they prefer. 

That makes all of this a waste of time in terms of solving the problem of the consequences of AGW. And it is. 

This is entertainment. Nothing comes of it. 

The world has moved long ago into solving the problem. Not haphazardly but methodically. Large scale pilot plants of various sustainable technologies.


----------



## gslack (Jun 25, 2013)

ifitzme and pmz, why don't we just call you two one name collectively.. Maybe something ifitzpmz? Sounds good..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> ifitzme and pmz, why don't we just call you two one name collectively.. Maybe something ifitzpmz? Sounds good..



You can do whatever you want because you are irrelevant.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 25, 2013)

Mc7donald said:


> you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not.



You seem to be nearly a singular believer in negative feedbacks. While there is still much to be learned about positive feedbacks the consensus is there are many and they are powerful. 

Leading to this.

What if global warming isn?t as severe as predicted? : Climate Q&A : Blogs


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a most likely value of about 3°C, based upon multiple observational and modelling constraints. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}

The transient climate response is better constrained than the equilibrium climate sensitivity. It is very likely larger than 1°C and very unlikely greater than 3°C. {10.5}

There is a good understanding of the origin of differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity found in different models. Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor. {8.6}

New observational and modelling evidence strongly supports a combined water vapour-lapse rate feedback of a strength comparable to that found in AOGCMs. {8.6}

Key Uncertainties:
Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change. {8.6}"

Anyone know what the numerical value is for "likely" and "very unlikely"?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 25, 2013)

Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain	 > 99% probability of occurrence
Very likely      	 > 90%
Likely 	         > 66%

So what is most likely if it's between two likely values?

And very unlikely less than?  Is that very likely more than?

That seems like better than 90% probability that ECS is greater than 1.5C


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2013)

And, in the real world, the latest ever recorded below zero temp in the Arctic has occurred.  After WEEKS of 24 hour sunlight the temp STILL hasn't cracked 0.  Your mantra is proving false....




COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> funny how UEA admitted that they no longer had the raw data after climategate and the embarrassment of the harry_read_me files. are you saying that they found their missing data? that is news to me, have you got a press release about it?
> 
> are you denying that a significant fraction of the trend is not simply the 'adjustments' to the data, some bon fide, some not so much. the 'raw-ish' data show less warming, do you at least agree with that?
> 
> ...



Interesting how disinterested some people can be over deliberate and blatant scientific fraud if that fraud is in favor of their political agenda, isn't it?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, a few years ago, I followed up on every whiny denialist camplaint I could. I downloaded the data, wrote the program, and ran the regression analysis. And everytime, I found that the complaints were pure unadulterated bs from someone that was clueless as to deal with statistical data and to lazy to learn it and actually do the work themselves.
> ...



Ever hear such a bald faced lie from anyone other than rolling thunder?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> I found local stations, but I did not find historical graphs to compare with current ones. Access to older versions data is always a problem.  How do you know how much something has been adjusted without something to compare it with? I have found lots of random stations with large differences to the present. Why should that be? I suppose we didn't know how to read a thermometer before 2000.



They don't need to "know".  They have the perfect pseudoscientific tool at their fingertips and the whole of climate science uses it lavishly....assumption.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> Really?  Show us your work then..



Fat chance of that.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This is what you get from folks that don't known how differences and stats works.  They fight tooth and nail, the whole process, that everyone else has already figured out.  Like no one has thought of any of it before.



Of course they thought of it before...and spent millions deflecting attention away from it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> Still waiting for you to show us your work there not so artful dodger....



Once more...Fat chance.  He is obviously a liar.  I think that is a requisite of being a warmer.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> And, in the real world, the latest ever recorded below zero temp in the Arctic has occurred.  After WEEKS of 24 hour sunlight the temp STILL hasn't cracked 0.  Your mantra is proving false....



Your link didn't support your claim. You know that, right?

Your link just showed a temps a little behind the mean, which everyone already knew, because of the persistent arctic cyclone. Nothing about your link said or implied "latest ever".

So, did you have any evidence that actually supports the claim you made?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> How about a link there....



Never a problem, for the reason-based community.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

The NOAA takes the data from "good" and "bad" stations, as defined by crank Watts in his surfacestation.org project. There's no difference between the temperature records of the two sets. Myth debunked.

Now, I did make a mistake by saying urban areas had warmed less, when I should have said they warmed identically. If y'all want to salvage some pride by the usual screaming of LIARLIARLIAR, feel free. I'm up for giving y'all those little victories you need to stave off the darkness.



> This paper demolishes your assertion...



No, it doesn't. That paper just says urban areas are warmer. That's a totally different topic than whether urban areas are warming faster than rural areas and causing the perceived temp increase. That crank theory has been conclusively debunked.

See, urban areas are corrected for in the temp record. Always have been. But there's a deliberate misinformation campaign from the denialist camp to claim that's not so, one of their many disinformation campaigns.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
---
The urban adjustment is improved in the current GISS analysis. The urban adjustment of
Hansen et al. [1999] consisted of a two-legged linear adjustment such that the linear trend of temperature before and after 1950 was the same as the mean trend of rural neighboring stations. In the new GISS analysis the hinge year is a variable chosen to be that which allows the adjusted urban record to fit the mean of its neighbors most precisely. The current GISS analysis also uses satellite measurements of nightlights to identify urban areas and remote stations in the United States (and southern Canada and northern Mexico); only unlit stations are used to define homogeneity adjustments.
---


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> ifitzme and pmz, why don't we just call you two one name collectively.. Maybe something ifitzpmz? Sounds good..



You'll want to be putting a lid on the socking accusations real fast.


----------



## gslack (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > ifitzme and pmz, why don't we just call you two one name collectively.. Maybe something ifitzpmz? Sounds good..
> ...



2 threats in 2 threads from you now... I call it as I see it, and you don't make the rules admiral. 

I think you need to take a break before your breakdown goes any further pal.. Now you're threatening me in threads. Seriously get a grip before you go too far...


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about a link there....
> ...





I, for one, was amazed at how little the quality of the temperature stations made to the trend. and we could further discuss what that 'crank's" paper actually shows but I would rather talk about UHI.

Phil Jones foisted a fraudulent UHI paper on the world in 1990 that claimed next-to-zero impact on temps, o.oo5C per decade I believe, and suggested that just adding this amount to the error bars was sufficient correction. I don't use the term fraudulent carelessly. Jones was called to the carpet, his co-author was brought up on scientific fraud charges at Columbia(?), but because this was done at a time when consensus ruled only an unknown grad student in China was held responsible. I am pretty sure I have an old thread with the details.

UHI is real, as anyone who lives in a city can testify to. it cannot be specifically seen in the temp record or picked up by 'homogenation techniques' like Iceland's 1960's cold weather that crippled their economy but has since been sent down the memory hole, at least by GISS. Hansen and Ruedy's UHI adjustments are unusual in that they increase and decrease temps at almost the same rate! you would think that it would be a oneway adjustment down.

other divisions of NASA have investigated and quantified the UHI effect, and one ongoing study has shown that even the presence of a building nearby in a rural setting has a noticeable effect. we are all waiting for an update but it is odd how slow information comes out when it is in the wrong direction.


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Mc7donald said:
> 
> 
> > you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not.
> ...



Nature is a big believer in negative feedbacks, and governor responses that quickly return disruptions to the system to stasis.

climate models are only as good the program and the inputs. the grids are getting smaller and smaller but they are still huge compared to the size of a thundercloud that can pump a month's worth of CO2 blockage in under a minute (just an estimate). radiative effects are of small magnitude but dispersed over large areas and constant. thermal convection and H2O based energy transport is of large magnitude, local, and intermittent. which is not well handled by coarsely defined grids in a model.

some models, and the ideas behind them are a total joke. like the idea that CO2 backradiation of IR is driving heat under 700m deep in the oceans (apparently bypassing the first 700m) when it can be measured that IR doesn't make it past the first millimetre!

equatorial ocean water seldom gets above 29C and never above 31C. there are daily, monthly, yearly, decadal, multi-decadal interlocking mechanisms that shed the heat towards the poles. but somehow CO2 overwhelms them all. righttttttt


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Heck -- you gonna get me to say something NICE about RollingThunder?? That poster really NEVER asserts that he has VERIFIED anything he posts.   So -- that's a lot more ethical than lying about all the independent data wrangling they've done..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Which is why the simplest "population density" adjusted data preps from UAH agree BETTER with satellite than any of the mangled GISS or UEA preps.. Not difficult really. We are talking about thermometers for petes sake.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 26, 2013)

To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out.  But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.

That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out.  But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.
> 
> That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.





I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.


----------



## westwall (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And, in the real world, the latest ever recorded below zero temp in the Arctic has occurred.  After WEEKS of 24 hour sunlight the temp STILL hasn't cracked 0.  Your mantra is proving false....
> ...









  Don't know how to use a web site I see.  Not surprising.  Tell me admiral..or is it General now?  Or maybe it's admiral general?  Ah heck who cares, how exactly does a persistant arctic cyclone keep the temps low?  The lower temps will certainly CREATE the arctic cyclone...that's for sure....but how do always manage to reverse the natural order of things?  


Your system of thought is quite remarkable in its poor quality...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

The temp record is clearly inadequate, and therefor useless, because the thermometer measures only a tiny sample of air out of an enormous volume. *Clearly, just a few miles away, the temperature cam vary. *It is hotter over asphalt and cooler under in the forest. The difference in temperature near fountains than out in the open. *It is colder at night and warmer during the day. *There is just no way that the NOAA can accurately estimate the global temperature. *


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out. *But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.
> ...



Well, that doesn't make sense. *Even if you were right about no AWG, it is as sensical as feeling sorry for AIG execs because the stock market crashed.

Hansen has retired, from the IPCC. *The hundreds of individual researchers, and their studies, that contribute to the IPCC level reports, are mostly independent. Their research generally stands on it's own, regardless of whether IPCC climate models fail. *

Regardless of whether the temp remains flat, or what, over the next decade, they have all moved on.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out.  But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.
> ...



"I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse."

"the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power."

Funny, I feel exactly the same about the deniers. 

In addition, you've never provided any evidence as to the veracity of your tag line but anecdotally it is completely out of synch with my world and experience. Deniers have lost all credibility. 

In my world the debate is over. The solution people have most of what they need from the researchers. It's an engineering and business game now. 

One of us is living in a completely fraudulent world.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out.  But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.
> ...



Here are as good a set of words as I've found describing the world that I'm exposed to.

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To me the most incriminating evidence of dishonesty in the whole AGW schtick is that they rumble along just fine as long as the current climate conditions fit it dogma they are dishing out.  But when the current climate conditions start screwing up their theories and predictions, THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.
> 
> That has now happened so many times now, everybody other than the most brainwashed and/or well paid AGW religionists have to know that smells funny.



Have you ever considered that you only pay attention to sources that tell/show you only what you want to hear/see?


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The temp record is clearly inadequate, and therefor useless, because the thermometer measures only a tiny sample of air out of an enormous volume. *Clearly, just a few miles away, the temperature cam vary. *It is hotter over asphalt and cooler under in the forest. The difference in temperature near fountains than out in the open. *It is colder at night and warmer during the day. *There is just no way that the NOAA can accurately estimate the global temperature. *



a little sarcasm?

obviously we can get a pretty reasonable temperature record with land temp readings as long as we treat them as only a guideline. ranking years by 1/100ths of a degree is somewhat beyond the scope I should think. the other problem is the continuous tinkering with the methodology of calculating the numbers. I don't really care how it is done but let's keep it consistent. the method used in 1990 is different than the one used in 2000, and different again in 2010. every change seems to add to the overall temp, and trend. this leaves people thinking things are much worse when in fact all they are is defined differently. there should be parallel datasets for at least five years everytime the methodology is significantly changed. 

that would leave less opportunity for conspiracy theorists, and more time for competency theorists to evaluate the changes. after all its just 'raw' data being processed by a computer program, right?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

From:   Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes, survey finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk

A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled.

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.

The study described the dissent as a "vanishingly small proportion" of published research.

"Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland, who led the survey.

Public opinion continues to lag behind the science. Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception," Cook said in a statement.


Guardian partners Climate Desk interview John Cook on his new paper
The study blamed strenuous lobbying efforts by industry to undermine the science behind climate change for the gap in perception. The resulting confusion has blocked efforts to act on climate change.

The survey was the most ambitious effort to date to demonstrate the broad agreement on the causes of climate change, covering 20 years of academic publications from 1991-2011.

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, an historian at the University of California, San Diego,surveyed published literature, releasing her results in the journal Science. She too came up with a similar finding that 97% of climate scientists agreed on the causes of climate change.

She wrote of the new survey in an email: "It is a nice, independent confirmation, using a somewhat different methodology than I used, that comes to the same result. It also refutes the claim, sometimes made by contrarians, that the consensus has broken down, much less 'shattered'."

The Cook survey was broader in its scope, deploying volunteers from the SkepticalScience.com website to review scientific abstracts. The volunteers also asked authors to rate their own views on the causes of climate change, in another departure from Oreskes's methods.

The authors said the findings could help close the gap between scientific opinion and the public on the causes of climate change, or anthropogenic global warming, and so create favourable conditions for political action on climate.

"The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW [anthropogenic, ie man-made, global warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy," the study said.


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...





Hansen headed up the GISS temperature dataset division of NASA. I don't recall him ever being involved with the IPCC.

you also seem to be confused about the IPCC doing its own research, they don't. But the head and lead authors do! look for the last rush of papers being cited to be published just after AR5 is released. its easier that way, with no pesky critics to get in the way. remember AR4 and the rebuttal of McIntyre's critique of the Hockey Stick? it never even got published!!! I think the rules have tightened up somewhat but I bet there will still be a scandal or two. (like the inclusion of the Gergis hockey stick graph perhaps?)

you say climate scientists are independent. I say most of them are affiliated with Universities, and they fund pro AGW projects at a much higher rate than the reverse. I can find professors that have been let go, seemingly because of their position on AGW, others that have been publicly criticized, and still others that should have been let go but kept their jobs because it was in the interest of AGW.  oh, and peer review isn't independent either, or haven't you read the climategate emails


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Take for instance, the team running flights along the Alaska Tundra, sniffing for CO2 and methane. *It doesn't matter if AWG is right or wrong. *The technique is the technique. *The data is the data.  They find what they find. And frankly, that their resume says "NASA" is way more significant than the results of their study.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yes that is true, as well as the fact that the universities are conducting their studies mostly with federal grant monies and/or pro-AGW lobby groups.  And good luck getting one of those grants or having one renewed if your study doesn't fit the AGW doctrine.  One particularly highly publicized case last summer was Nicolas Drapela who was summarily fired from Oregon State University despite a shortage of chemistry professors--they were advertising for four more chemistry teachers when they fired him--and despite stellar evaluations from his students.  His offense?  As nearly as anybody can figure out, they found out that he was a skeptic re AGW.

I have a friend, another skeptic, who was applying for a research job and was advised privately by another friend to pretend he was a strong AGW advocate; otherwise he would not be hired.

Anecdotal evidence for sure, but the more I read and watch and listen, the more I believe these two individuals are representative of a much larger systemic organized bias in the process, one that is certain to insure that honest science will be hard to come by.


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





yup, its no coincidence that most of the AGW skeptics in academia are tenured professors that have little to lose. or should I say the ones who are willing to speak publicly.


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...





do you think I am a 'denier'?



as far as my sig-  I will give an example that is widely known, even amongst people who don't follow the climate wars. for the past couple of years skeptics have been saying that warming has stopped. initially the warmers went ballistic and reported that not only was the warming still happening but it was happening at an ever increasing rate. Phil Jones got sandbagged with the question "is it significant", and to his credit he answered "no". but the pitbulls at SkS, Tamino, etc went to ever increasing lengths to torture the data to fit the warming dogma. bit-by-bit they have all started to admit that there is a problem, at least with the models. you would think most reasonable people would be happy that imminent disaster is not tomorrow anyways.

people notice when someone is assuring them that their position is the truth, then get hysterical and defensive when it doesn't work out, then meekly admit that they were wrong. if you are still in the defensive mode that is your right. but you better start planning on how to back down without losing too much face.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> THEN. . . .and every damn time. . . we get revised numbers from their prior data so the current data doesn't contradict them.



Wow. You almost told that giant whopper of a lie with a straight face. Almost.

You know, if all the data disagreed with me, as it does with the denialists, maybe I'd start fabricating an endless array of paranoid conspiracy theories too.

Nah. I wouldn't. I don't have that sort of dishonesty in me. When the data disagrees with me, I change my position to agree with the data. That's how ethical scientists differ from denialists.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2013)

westwall said:


> Tell me admiral..or is it General now?



Westwall, I don't lie about your credentials or call you a fraud. Please have the decency to return that courtesy.



> Ah heck who cares, how exactly does a persistant arctic cyclone keep the temps low?



You're unaware that clouds block sunlight?

Seriously, the fact that clouds block sunlight is actually news to you?

Wow. Just wow.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Which is wierd. Because I've looked back intomit from time to time and this;






looks pretty much the same. *Oddly, if it was some grand conspiracy, it would still be going up, not pausing.

And the deniists still say the same old thing, that the numbers keep being revised. *It's the same story with the CPI, UE, and every abstract measure.

I'd be worried if they weren't making adjustments. *It is cutting edge, current science stuff. *If you want a confidence level of 99.9999999%, you need to be in physics, not messy stuff like climate or economics.

Oh, I know, they inserted a pause to let the real temps catch up. *Soon they will start trending it down so that it matches the real, non-warming world. *That'll be about 30 yeaes out, long enough for them to collect retirement.

Yeah, that's it. *Yeah.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me admiral..or is it General now?
> ...



Not so much now.





Recent ISS photo of Alaska.

Where I live, it's usually warmer when it rains. Something about this area, the clouds come in at the right time to trap the heat in.


----------



## gslack (Jun 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me admiral..or is it General now?
> ...



He didn't make up his credentials admiral, you did that...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



As you spend all of your time trying to find reasons to deny the conclusions of 97% of qualified climate scientists, yes, I think that you are a 'denier'.

I suppose one could apply your logic to all science research. That somebody with deep pockets benefits from virtually every finding, so could be funding those whose conclusions support what benefits them.

I, personally believe that it is much less likely to happen in science than in business where the only rule is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

I'm also trying to figure out how such a massive conspiracy would work in the real world. Scientists from all over the world deciding jointly to fudge the results of their measurements and experiments in such a way that they all lead to the same false conclusion. 

You'd think that among the thousands of researchers involved there would probably be one tattle tail.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I suppose one could apply your logic to all science research. That somebody with deep pockets benefits from virtually every finding, so could be funding those whose conclusions support what benefits them.
> 
> I, personally believe that it is much less likely to happen in science than in business where the only rule is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> ...



From a social science perspective, it doesn't need to be an overt conspiracy. *

There is group-think, which is typical for tightly bound small groups. *It is typical when there is one authoritive leader, like the persident. *Then the tendency is for everyone to agree.

Women, especially teenage women, go by concensus. Reality becomes defined by the concensus of the group.

In economics, Cournot and Nash equilibriums in the market hold prices above the natural equilibrium. *This is how pricing works between gas stations located near each other. *They watch each others prices and share the same goal, higher income. *

People are pack animals, so it's not impossible. *But for every economic and social tendency, there are opposing ones, so it becomes a balance. *Individuals also compete for that top prize.

Problem is, all the same things apply to the denialist camp. And it doesn't matter how much money it is, just that it is more than otherwise. And, more importantly from a sociological standpoint, there is validation, attention.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 26, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 26, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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



Okay, someone explain this persitent arctic cyclone, ice cap, and season thing to me. *Just the basic balance. *Obviously, clouds reflect. *They reflect in the visible range, of course, they are white. And I must conclude they reflect IR as a cloudy night is a *warm night. *The summer season results in more sunlight at the north pole. *But I don't know what happens to the PAC.

Does the PAC change, seasonally?

If so, how has this typically go?

Has any changes resulted in direct changes to the ice and temps?

What's the expected variance off the mean for the 80th parallel?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yeah.. That post had all the fingerprints of literal statistical genius.. 

Say WHAT???


----------



## gslack (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose one could apply your logic to all science research. That somebody with deep pockets benefits from virtually every finding, so could be funding those whose conclusions support what benefits them.
> ...



LOL, dude you are so full of it... What in the hell do economic theories have to do with AGW, or even the first part of your post where you ramble about group-think?

Damn man put the pipe down..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.



Those that can...do.  Those that can't.....well you know the rest.  Or maybe you don't.

Those ivory towers, contrary to your belief are not where the best and brightest reside.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You have to wonder if he bothered to notice the cooling trend clearly indicated at the end of his graph.  The AGW hypothesis is failing so badly that the warmers can't even manage to come up with faked data to support it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.
> ...



OK. So where was Einstein employed?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> OK. So where was Einstein employed?



So are you saying all college professors are Einsteins...or even remotely comparable?  Got any actual data to back that up...never mind....stupid question to ask you.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;



Cooling's coming rocks....how long must the trend continue before it sinks through your thick skull?  How far are you behind the curve...really?


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2013)

Phase change in the AMO and PDO suggest that cooling is plausible for the next decades but why should we claim to know for sure?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2013)

Exactly the same PR crowd that denied smoking causes cancer now works for the AGW denialists. As in the very same people.

Yes, there are professional propagandists out there, and they work for the denialist side. And why wouldn't they? That's where 99% of the money is. You have to take a pay cut to work on the honest side, which is another thing that gives the AGW side credibility.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Exactly the same PR crowd that denied smoking causes cancer now works for the AGW denialists. As in the very same people.
> 
> Yes, there are professional propagandists out there, and they work for the denialist side. And why wouldn't they? That's where 99% of the money is. You have to take a pay cut to work on the honest side, which is another thing that gives the AGW side credibility.





who  is getting rich on the skeptic side? most of the most influential skeptics actually pay out of their own pocket to get their message out. I only wish that guys like Steve McIntyre could have an intern to track down information and do some of the grunt work.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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





its pretty hard to call the place where Einstein finished his time in the US a run of the mill University.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





massive conspiracy? no such thing. group think and herd instinct? definitely. there are procedures in my workplace that I don't agree with but I follow them anyways.

as far as denying.... I agree that there has been warming, I agree that CO2 has had an impact even if the magnitude is unknown, and I agree that climate is changeable just as it always has been. what do I deny? the conclusions of catastrophe that are based on assumptions that are very unlikely to happen. what am I pissed off about? people like Marcott who wrote a sensible PhD paper on interglacial temps, only to be talked into adding incommensurate recent data to it and re-releasing it to public acclaim as the 'next greatest hockey stick'. it was torn to shreds in the open scientific marketplace, as was Marcott's reputation. why did it happen? because co-author Shakur wanted to try again after his own paper on CO2 induced warming was mascerated.

CO2 theory starts with legitimate and reasonable underpinnings but ends with an error cascade of obnoxious declarations of doom that any thinking person should be very dubious about.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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



Are you that surprised when stocks hit "all time highs" consecutively when the DOw is above 15000??? Expect that to happen when the DOw is at 13,000?

Think the Dow hitting monthly "all time highs" is ANY INDICATION of future positive performance? 

I don't care about "3rd warmest on record".. I understand where those numbers are coming from. Apparently you don't...

About those "natural variations".. As I pointed out to Mamooth in another thread --- A rational person would see that if a "natural variation" can swamp the projected increase from GHGas theory,  -- why then --- WHY isn't it a bigger part of the modeling? 

No excuse for finding the temp rise stalled due to well-known and quantified NATURAL variations.. Except maybe sloppy science eh?


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2013)

Old Rocks still thinks the trend is rapidly accelerating. Or have you finally looked up the definitio of 'accelerate' Old Rocks?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.. That post had all the fingerprints of literal statistical genius..*
> ...



*There's no denying it any more. Cat's out of the bag. *Might just as well let everyone in on the secret. *The recent 16 year pause is just made up to let the real temp catch up. 

It's a been a conspiracy by The Queen, The Rothchilds, The Gettys, and Colonol Sanders. *It really is all pretend so we can meet once every five years in Copenhagen for pony rides and ice cream.

Sorry, you weren't invited.

Yeah, that't it, yeah


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> I only wish that guys like Steve McIntyre could have an intern to track down information and do some of the grunt work.



There's your problem. You've sworn allegiance to guru McIntyre, and sworn vengeance on all the evildoers who dare disagree with him. For example, you're pretty much required to declare Tamino and Gavin Schmidt are possessed by Satan.

Trouble is, McIntyre is much better at conspiracy theories than he is at statistics. His dishonest quote mining of the CRU emails was especially contemptible, as was all of his disgraceful behavior during the climategate faux-scandal. That sleaze even topped his previous record for bad behavior, his lie campaign against Keith Briffa.

As far as cash goes, he's board president of a mining company which is very interested in pushing denialism.

Currently, his favorite activity is FOIA-harassing honest scientists, and complaining about a conspiracy of hiding data that he already has.

Oh, when Patrick Michaels was caught red-handed falsifying data about Mann, McIntyre rushed to Michaels' defense. McIntyre loves that data distortion, as long as it's his side doing it. No matter. He's a hero to a movement now, and can do no wrong in their eyes.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I only wish that guys like Steve McIntyre could have an intern to track down information and do some of the grunt work.
> ...











And there's YOUR problem.  Gergis et al went through YOUR peer review, you guys passed it out as A-OK and McIntyre and Co. destroyed it in ten hours.  You're just pissed off that a non climatologist made all of you look like ignorant monkeys.

Just imagine how quickly McIntyre and Co. could disassemble your whole house of cards....if only he had money to do it...

It's a fact that whenever a sceptic takes a look at ANY claim you science deniers make, it falls apart within days if not hours....that's a fact.

If the sceptics were as well funded as you claim you would be out of a job.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

There is the only AWG claim I care about.

It starts here;

Find a Station | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Viewing Met Office Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS) Land and Marine Surface Stations Data (1853-current)

Gets compiled to here, where (T2+ error2)-(T1+error1) = detla_T21+error21 and error21<error2 and error21<error1

Temperature data (HadCRUT4)






Presented more cleanly here;






Then gets run through a prediction filter that produces this;






The rest is just noise.

And as long the long term trend is up, global warming. *When the long term trend isn't up any more, then no warming. *So far, its about 100 years of up. *So it's gonna have to be down a lot for a long time before it is not warmimg.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2013)

Those are computer model generated graphs.  That makes them every bit as useful as a Harry Potter novel.

Congrats, you are so anti-science is that you will accept fiction over factual data.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Those are computer model generated graphs. *That makes them every bit as useful as a Harry Potter novel.
> 
> Congrats, you are so anti-science is that you will accept fiction over factual data.



Your brain creates models that you use as if it was real. *From the very moment signals propogate from the back of your eyeball, down the optic nerve, it's all just a model of the info recieved as light is focused on your two dimensional retina. *And yet, you actually act as if you are perceiving a 3-D world.

That makes your eyes every bit as useful as a Harry Potter novel.

Can someone please tell me where the published callabration numbers are for my eyes RGB cells and eyeball paralax/retina-focus to 3-D perception? *

Can someone please tell me what the noise limit value is for when a stationary signal on my retina gets treated as internal neuron noise instead of external stimulus?

I have to have these numbers or I can't trust my eyes. *I haven't left my room for days because I might bump into something.

It's all so confusing.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.
> ...



Tell, where do the best and brightest reside? Fox News?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;
> ...



Here's, more of the SS. Predictions of the future.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly the same PR crowd that denied smoking causes cancer now works for the AGW denialists. As in the very same people.
> ...



I don't know of a skeptics side. Skepticism is merely the same non-objective denial with a back door.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So you agree with the science behind AGW, but you don't agree that the resulting ice melt will raise sea level, or the less stable atmosphere will redistribute rain fall and cause more extreme weather, and that the unfreezing of tundra won't compound GHG concentrations?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



What are the odds that 97% of the qualified climate scientists in the world are sloppy, and you are not?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



Col Sanders too?????


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

Steve McIntyre loves the attention. *The David Koresh of climate change denial. *It's great to have a following...so validating. *Where can I donate?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is the only AWG claim I care about.
> 
> It starts here;
> 
> ...



The mindset of the climate reactionaries is that for AGW to exist every new molecule of GHG in the atmosphere results in an immediate and perceptible increase in global average temperature.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Those are computer model generated graphs.  That makes them every bit as useful as a Harry Potter novel.
> 
> Congrats, you are so anti-science is that you will accept fiction over factual data.



AGW is a plot by computers against humans.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Yep, puts an addictive substance in his chicken to cause you to crave it fortnightly.

The conspiracy is revealed in the Movie "I Married An Axe Murderer", written by comedian Mike Meyers. The father, Tony Mackenzie, of the main character, Stuart Mackenzie, was patterned after Meyer's real father. Growing up, Mike Meyer's dad clued Mike into it. Mike worked it into the script.

"*Stuart Mackenzie:* Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as the Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.

*Tony Giardino:* So who's in this Pentavirate?

*Stuart Mackenzie:* The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tets-up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

*Charlie Mackenzie:* Dad, how can you hate the Colonel?

*Stuart Mackenzie:* Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartarse!

*Charlie Mackenzie:* Interesting.... Coo-coo."

Apparently, the Pentavirate, also run the Federal Reserve, the BLS, and the BEA. They skew the CPI, GDP and Unemployment rate numbers. You can tell because the numbers get revised within a month of fitst reporting.  See, just like how the IPCC revises it's numbers.  It happens all the time.  That's how you know.

The Pentavirate are into everything, even NASA, the NOAA, MET, IPCC, FBI, NSA, CIA, everything. They control the masses by controlling the media and the banks. It's huge.

If Meyer's hadn't put the secret message in his movie, I'd never have known.

The only news you can really trust are the tabloids, like The National Enquirer, The Sun, and The Star.







So I Married an Axe Murderer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I Married an Axe Murderer - Wikiquote


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > There is the only AWG claim I care about.
> ...



You can't prove which molecules reflect IR. *(or is that absorb and re-emit).

How are they going to prove which ones? *Have they actually seen a CO2 molecule reflecting a photon? *In the atmosphere?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

Off topic, but fun to watch

See physics phenomenon of self siphoning beads - The Feed Blog - CBS News

Try modelling that with a computer.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



How do they even know that it's CO2?  Could be CO3 or CO2.456. It's all a guess.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

If you haven't seen it, you should watch*LIAR, LIAR | Brain Games | National Geographic Channel

Also, Stephan Pinker, "How The Mind Works".

How the Mind Works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The human brain is a biological computer that constructs a model of the world. And the really amazing thing is that there is insufficient imformation to actually solve for a definitive comclusion. *The brain makes assumptions about missing data. It's like having four equations with three unknowns and making assumptions about the missing variable.

From the very basis, we make hundreds of assumptions to get to






And it starts from the very point that light hits our retina. *Frankly, I more trust a linear regression of data than my own eyes. *I just won't wait for someone to input the train velocity as it's speeding towards a broken bridge. *

How much accuracy and precision is needed depends on the consequences of failing to act. *And as I've never personally been in a car accident, I go with the published data and wear a seatbelt.

So far,*






just isn't looking good.

And the published error on this






Made by






On this






is better than I can get out*


----------



## gslack (Jun 27, 2013)

ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

I ran across this, yesterday

Joe Bastardi Calls Manmade CO2 Global Warming ?An Obvious Fraud?

Which presents

















and






Thing is, it breaks it up into two sections, 1905 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. *He doesn't do his PDO and AMO thing on 2000 to 2010. *And the last one, he picks just the last 15 years.

It seems to be always the same, zoom in on the noise. Never do the whole thing.

But, still, I just gotta know.

So I find

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global warming

Which gives






and*

8.4.2 Pacific Decadal Variability - AR4 WGI Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation

Which leads to the following considerations

a) Damned if the zoomed out comparison, just picking up an extra five years on one end, an extra ten on the other, and less smoothing, doesn't look like that R-squared just goes to shits.

and an important point is made. *The physical process of an oscillation cannot add to a long term trend. *

b) The IPCC talks about PDO, so it's not like they haven't thought of it. Nothing new there.

I use to download the data and run my own regressions. *After a dozen of them, this was the pattern. *Zoom in close and pick a short range, I can find anything I'd like. *Use all the data, and suddenly it disappears.

So of all the models I've seen, this one is the best


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;
> ...



Who says it isn't part of the modelling?

How else do you believe they get 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 27, 2013)

gslack said:


> ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..



That's funny coming from the guy who thinks plants need graphite and diamonds to grow because they don't get carbon from carbon dioxide.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..
> ...



One thing that is clear is that Slackerman Limpnoodle III is not a sock. To be one, someone who doesn't have to be him, would choose to be.

How unlikely is that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I ran across this, yesterday
> 
> Joe Bastardi Calls Manmade CO2 Global Warming ?An Obvious Fraud?
> 
> ...



You're such a professional phoney.. Why according to you, regression is the hammer of data analysis. Let's chat Professor Regressive... (now that you appear to monitoring my channel again).



> and an important point is made. *The physical process of an oscillation cannot add to a long term trend. *



THat's NOT what the fellow did when he *combined TWO oscillatory processes *in the AMO and PDO.. And you're "important point" above is SHEER BULLSHIT when you COMBINE "osc9illatory processes...

Ever hear of Fourier Series? You can construct EVERY SIGNAL from a simple sum of sinewaves...  Actually is the basis of your MP3 and other compression schemes as well.

Now all that said --- THE SHAPE of that AMO and PDO wave is very interesting. But I'd be foolish to say THAT'S the answer to anything. 

You really need to go back on your Ritalin.. It's starting to resemble Romper Room and the The Gong Show in here...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 27, 2013)

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."



*Edited for Fair Use link added.*Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2013)

Look at all those pretty graphs that don't bear any relationship to the real world.  Imagine a whole group of people so taken by their religious fervor that they can ignore all real world physical data for the fictions they produce with their cute simplistic models.

Just amazing.  That they can eat and wipe their own butts I mean...


----------



## gslack (Jun 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..
> ...



What's even funnier can you point to where I said that?

No? we know socko, because it's a lie. You got called on your BS CO2 sequestering theory and now you want to make shit up... ROFL, try to tone down the foot stomping socko..


----------



## gslack (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



And you are a sock because someone that is pretending not to be you is obviously being you...You two going to follow one another around kissing each others butts all the time or do you ever plan on manning up?


----------



## gslack (Jun 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
> 'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it
> 
> "Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
> ...



Nice bit of plagiarism socko... no link, no source, no attribution? Way to show your ethical side...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
> 'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it
> 
> "Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
> ...



You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something.  4 Hiroshima bombs per second?  Wow.  And that impresses you? 

I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second.  4 more causes you to quake in your boots?  

Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face.  Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his.  Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.



> Let&#8217;s do the numbers. First, let&#8217;s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn&#8217;t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:
> 
> 1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
> 
> ...



If you beleive the math is wrong, by all means point out any errors.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Look at all those pretty graphs that don't bear any relationship to the real world.  Imagine a whole group of people so taken by their religious fervor that they can ignore all real world physical data for the fictions they produce with their cute simplistic models.
> 
> Just amazing.  That they can eat and wipe their own butts I mean...



Another poster boy for ignorance.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
> ...



Slackerman Limpnoodle III, tell the class what " means. Then explains what adults use Google for.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
> ...



Willis Eschenbach has way too much empty time on his hands.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
> ...



Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.

One is called learning, the other psychosis.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



One virus, that you can't see, measure or weigh can kill you. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Size should be everything. Doesn't seem fair that a few hundred parts per million of CO2 could cause draught and tornadoes and superstorms either. 

What is Mother Nature thinking? Aren't humans entitled?


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...

He has repeatedly posted that and no link or attribution in it. Not even a proper title or author name, or a written statement as to it's source or where he got it. In every sense it is plagiarism, and the fact he gave no author name we can assume his intent was to imply it was his own work...

The fact is it came from the Gaurdian UK just as I said it did, which I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF... He's a plagiarist and that pretty much means you are too..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


> Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...
> 
> He has repeatedly posted that and no link or attribution in it. Not even a proper title or author name, or a written statement as to it's source or where he got it. In every sense it is plagiarism, and the fact he gave no author name we can assume his intent was to imply it was his own work...
> 
> The fact is it came from the Gaurdian UK just as I said it did, which I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF... He's a plagiarist and that pretty much means you are too..



Cuz nothing says, "No climate change" like "You plagiarised."

Does it ever strike you that you have really wierd fixations that have nothing to do with the actual natural processes like temperature, CO2, acidification, drought, huricanes, wildfires, plant and animal extinctions, farming and agriculture, etc.?

Last I checked, NASA and the IPCC don't use PMZ in their climate models. 

It's like how you can tell that a girl likes you because she hits you a lot. Everyone figures that out in grade school.

You may be struggling with latent homosexual feelings.

(As they say, PMZ, he's got a hard@^ for you. You must remind him of his daddy. Yuck!!)

EDIT: Could be an elder sibling or neighbor, you never know with these things


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Willis Eschenbach has way too much empty time on his hands.



Enough to show your hiroshima bomb scare tactic for the idiotic hysterics it actually is.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.



An amount of energy so small that it can't be measured?....if the claim is true in the first place...may be scary to a hysterical old granny like you, but not to rational thinking people.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One virus, that you can't see, measure or weigh can kill you. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Size should be everything. Doesn't seem fair that a few hundred parts per million of CO2 could cause draught and tornadoes and superstorms either.
> 
> What is Mother Nature thinking? Aren't humans entitled?



Your virs analogy doesn't work any better than any of your others.  You suck at analogy.  A virus that can kill you is a fact...proveable via observation and empirical data.  Show me the empirical data proving the claim of AGW.  Show me the empirical data that 0.6 watts is even measurable in the incoming solar flux...much less capable of causing climate change.

Show some actual data besides your incessant unsupported claims.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.
> ...



Yeah, isn't wierd how you can't actuall see grass growing, or the hour hand on the clock moving.  And yet I still have to mow the lawn and and hour later, the hour hand has moved a whole hour.  It's wierd like that.

Are you still waiting for them to identify exactly which CO2 molecules reflect the IR?  Maybe if you get in a hotair balloon, and float on up into the sky, you can catch a glimpse of the exact ones. Nothing like seeing when it comes to believing.  Take a photo multiplier tube with you.  Then you can catch the exact photon.  And if you have enough photomultipler tubes, and move around really fast, you can measure all of them.

I take it calculus isn't one of your strong suits either.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



0.6W/m2 is scary?? Then why isn't 1W/m2 increased radiation from the sun since 18th century scary? 0.6W/m2 is about a single LED per MeterSq. Heck -- that's not even acceptable Christmas lighting.. I've got fireflys on my land brighter than that... 

And THAT'S whats gonna cause apocalyptic disease and bugs and hurricanes?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Yeah, what's a few micrograms of coumadin, in a 170kg person. *Geez. *It's only one part per 60 parts per billion. *That couldn't possibly kill a person.

Yeah, scale is a bit of a problem for you. *Especially in the context of sensitive systems.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Earths climate is far from sensitive you dolt.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



WestWall beat me to this. I'd rep him if I could. But your comment about "sensitive systems" is really the CRUX of the diff between you and me.. See -- (other than SSDD) we KNOW that a doubling of CO2 into the atmos is only gonna result in a 1degC change (without feedbacks). That's accepted science.. The REST of the AGW garbage relies on speculation and conjecture about how the EARTH HANDLES that stimulus.. 

To believe what YOU BELIEVE -- you have to think that the earth is SOOOO Fragile that a 1degC change is gonna AMPLIFY (thru feedbacks) into a 6DegC change over just this century.

That's the whole argument in a nutshell. You see CO2 as the minute hair trigger that explodes the planet.. I don't. You think the earth climate is that fragile.. I don't. Can we quit now? Because that is really the core of the argument.

((And it answers the original OP question as well))


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Are you still waiting for them to identify exactly which CO2 molecules reflect the IR?



CO2 molecules don't "reflect" anything.  They absorb and emit.  Entirely different things.  And absorption and emission does not prove that the molecule can cause warming.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> 0.6W/m2 is scary?? Then why isn't 1W/m2 increased radiation from the sun since 18th century scary? 0.6W/m2 is about a single LED per MeterSq. Heck -- that's not even acceptable Christmas lighting.. I've got fireflys on my land brighter than that...
> 
> And THAT'S whats gonna cause apocalyptic disease and bugs and hurricanes?



In his mind, I am sure that it is terrifying.  Of course you have to be an idiot to be scared of something like that, but I believe that he believes it is scary.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Yeah, what's a few micrograms of coumadin, in a 170kg person. *Geez. *It's only one part per 60 parts per billion. *That couldn't possibly kill a person.
> 
> Yeah, scale is a bit of a problem for you. *Especially in the context of sensitive systems.



Coumadin is proven dangerous via empirical, experimental evidence.  Lets see the empirical experimental evidence that proves that CO2 can even be responsible for the .6 watts per square meter, much less that it is dangerous to all life on earth.

You really suck at analogy.  Just because one thing is dangerous in small amounts does not mean that all things are dangerous in small amounts.  If you can provide some hard evidence that small amounts of CO2 are dangerous, then lets see it.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


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



I think that forum decorum is a good job for you Slackerman. Keeps you out of intelligent discussions where you have no right to be.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...
> ...



I think that Slackerman Limpnoodle III is like a 5' 2" kid who likes basketball. Way out of his element. But, the cult has told him that he's entitled, so let the cult have him.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...
> ...



LOL, who are "they" ? Come on socko we know it's you...LOL

Nothing says "you plagiarized" like getting caught plagiarizing..Which he or you (like it matters) did.... Want to divert? FIne be my guest but I don't think that's gonna work when the mods notice it, but hey you goon ahead anyway. Don't let the board rules stop you in your crusade..

And your childish reference to grade school behavior tells your maturity level socko. Grade school? That was like 2 years ago for you right? yeah we know socko we know..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Willis Eschenbach has way too much empty time on his hands.
> ...



Not mine and not scary.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yes, yes socko, I'm a 5'2" oriental, black guy with the biggest afro you ever saw. I like basketball and slapping forum trolls... Guess which one I prefer right now?? Go on guess...

LOL,in reality I look much like my avatar. I made it myself.. A hobby.. Want to know more? Ask nicely..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One virus, that you can't see, measure or weigh can kill you. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Size should be everything. Doesn't seem fair that a few hundred parts per million of CO2 could cause draught and tornadoes and superstorms either.
> ...



Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Why do you only see negative feedbacks when nobody else can find one that's more than temporary? Why do you ignore positive feedbacks when they abound?

The universe is not yours to define. It is what it is, not what you feel entitled to.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Are you still waiting for them to identify exactly which CO2 molecules reflect the IR?
> ...



To the degree that they do reflect rather than absorb, they are twice as effective as returning energy towards its source. And they certainly do reflect more or less depending on wavelength.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And exactly what other wavelengths effect warming the atmosphere? LOL, dude you get dumber and dumber.. Ya ignorant fool, longwave IR is what does the deed you claim, can't even learn your own theory jesus man..


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, what's a few micrograms of coumadin, in a 170kg person. *Geez. *It's only one part per 60 parts per billion. *That couldn't possibly kill a person.
> ...



You really suck at science. In an atmosphere 100km deep, how many collisions with CO2 molecules at 500ppm do you think that the average photon from earth will encounter?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


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



How many wavelengths exist in the band called longwave IR?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Impossible to tell from an avatar but 5' 2" is a definite possibility.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Just as your scientific expertise is impossible to tell from your posts..IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO
sock


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Yours however is totally obvious.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Why yes it is rather obvious I'm a data analyst isn't it... You really shouldn't try and out "one-line" people here socko.. It's a battle of wits and you're unarmed...


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


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



If you analyze the data accurately you'd know how far behind you are. And falling further behind than irrelevant is, well, irrelevant.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And if you had something better than a home-schooled education, and got out of your house and spoke with real people, perhaps you wouldn't seems like such a babbling idiot..

Two of you (or one of you playing two) together and you can't make a coherent statement, or simply a witty response...

Again you're an unarmed man here socko...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



No one except you suggests the Earth is going to explode. You seem to reason through exageration. *A) "AWG say the Earth will explode" b) "The Earth won't explode." c) "Ergo, there is no global warming"

"If its not freacky scary, it doesn't exist"

It's the difference between gross and fine motor skills. *Chimpanzees have gross motor skills. Humans have fine motor skills.

The thinking by exageration really doesn't work well.


----------



## gslack (Jun 28, 2013)

I think I'll call the IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO sock waterboy from now on...They babble like the waterboy in the Adam Sandler film..

Me: AGW is pseudo-science!

Waterboy(s) : M, m-m-m, my mmmmm-momma says, that alligators is ornery cause they got all them teeth and no, t-toothbrush...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Anyways...

Here is an interesting page that presents some math.

Global Warming Mathematics

They are approximations to the non-linear equations used in finite element analysis models.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.



Get your self a dictionary.  Empirical, as the word is used in science means:

"Relying on or derived from observation or experiment"

My brakes provide empirical evidence that they are going to fail.   Older vehicles have wear indicators that provide an audio feedback (noise) when your brake pads are getting thin.  Newer vehicles have brake pad sensors that tell you that the brake pads are getting thin.  My brake fluid resivor provides empirical evidence as to whether I have sufficient brake fluid in my system, and my brake pedal provides empirical evidence as to the soundness of the system every time I apply the brakes.

So yes, I wait for empirical evidence that my brakes are going before I work on them.  Do you go around spending money on automotive systems that are not showing actual signs of wear and tear?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



They don't reflect at all.  They absorb and emit.  If you believe they reflect, then you really are an idiot.  There aren't many topics that you can google and get next to nothing back on but the "reflective" qualities of CO2 molecules are one of them.  Only a true scientific illiterate would suggest that CO2 molecules "reflect" anything.  Congratulations.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

The Palmer Drought Severity Index seems to be the prefered measure.

Websites generally focus on local climate.

A Wyoming historical graph is


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So why are you exaggerating how frail and "sensitive" the climate system is? You don't think that blowing up 1.1DegC for doubling CO2 to 6degC this century this century isn't exaggeration? You don't think putting Miami under water or Malaria in Kansas isn't exaggeration? Actually -- some of your cohorts are literally WAITING for the explosion.. 

GoldiRocks wakes up daily to see if the Arctic is still cool. and if his frozen GHGas calthrates have thawed yet. He DOES expect the end result to be a gigantic fuel-air bomb going off. Maybe he'll even give you a date..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.
> ...



Well then, here are the wear indicators

TEMPERATURE






SEA LEVEL






ICE VOLUME






CO2






HEAT CONTENT






Now were just watching for the brakes to fail. *Or do we think that the squeeling stopped because the brakes just got better by themselves?

What do you need, a dead horse on your lawn?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.
> ...



In his world he changes brake pads before they show wear, just in case.  He replaces his tail lights once a week because they might go out sometime in the future.  He has the repair shop change the air in his tires because you never can tell when it might be bad.   And he then parks his car because there is a chance he could have an accident if he drives it.  He goes broke and misses out on many of the good things in life, but by golly he is prepared for the worst despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence that doing any of that will help anything at all.

So much of what the warmers demand is just that silly, useless, expensive, restrictive, and counter productive.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

Drought is the potentially costliest impact of global climate change.

Drought damage could top $200 billion

"The current drought pattern may be the costliest U.S. natural disaster of 2012 and 2013, according to experts with Harris-Mann Climatology. The long-range weather, commodity and stock forecasting service released their annual summer outlook last week, and the news wasn&#8217;t good for much of the Corn Belt"

"If the drought pattern continues, its damage estimates could be near $200 billion, making it the country&#8217;s costliest natural disaster of 2012 and 2013&#8211; even more costly than Hurricane Sandy.
&#8220;We&#8217;re still in a pattern of wild weather &#8216;extremes,&#8217; the worst in more than 1,000 years, since the days of Leif Ericsson. For example, 2012 was the warmest year ever for the U.S., but on January 22, 2013, there was a record for the most ice and snow across the Northern Hemisphere continent,&#8221; Harris added."

Thankfully;

"The National Weather Service&#8217;s U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook, updated on May 16, shows drought improving or leaving much of the central Plains and areas east of the Mississippi River."

Unfortunately,

"The National Weather Service Outlook also sees a dry and hot summer, though the Southwest is the target for the driest and hottest forecast of the summer"





*Temperature Outlook*





*Precipitation Outlook*

We can only dream that global warming has stopped. *Unfortunately, a 10-13 year hiatus in rising global mean temperatures doesn't significantly impact the odds from a century long trend.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









If your whole message weren't based purely on hyperbole you might have had a point.  As it's not, you have none.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.
> ...








It is very illustrative that these clowns don't even know the BASICS.  They say we're anti-science when it is them who don't know the first thing about science!  Not even fundamental definitions!   Too funny!


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Limpnoodle, I don't know who convinced you that the uneducated are entitled to the truth, but I'm here to expose that lie for all to see. You had the same chance as the rest of us to learn and you wasted it thinking that you could somehow fake it through life. You've been exposed. Here. You're firing blanks. 

What you've demonstrated is that ignorance can be incurable.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

gslack said:


> I think I'll call the IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO sock waterboy from now on...They babble like the waterboy in the Adam Sandler film..
> 
> Me: AGW is pseudo-science!
> 
> Waterboy(s) : M, m-m-m, my mmmmm-momma says, that alligators is ornery cause they got all them teeth and no, t-toothbrush...



Here's brilliance personified. A monumental contribution to the annals of mankind. Or is it from the anals of mankind.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








The only one exposed here for all to see as an abject fool is....you.   You try and lecture us on scientific matters but you lack the most simple knowledge.  You have no clue about the absolute basics of the scientific method, your scientific vocabulary and acumen is less than most 5th graders I've known.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Anyways...
> 
> Here is an interesting page that presents some math.
> 
> ...



We don't need no stinking finite element analysis. We got catterpiller fur growth that tells us all we need to know.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.
> ...



Yeabut, it's not concrete evidence until you crash. You could be fine doing nothing for awhile.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 28, 2013)

The EPA also present GHG






the yellow and blue lines represent different data sources.

The story is, natural gas production is releasing methane.

Gonna have to keep a watch on*

Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases | Climate Change | US EPA


----------



## gslack (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



LOL,let's see... Your CO2 sequestering theory? I outed and showed it to be nonsense. Everytime you try and post anything remotely scientific westwall or SSD embarrass you and show how little you understand of any of it. And now we see you losing an insult match pitifully, and your defense???

LOL what IS your defense exactly? To deny it happened at all? Circle talk? Babble? What is it socko?

can't handle science, can't handle politics, can't handle common sense, and now you can't handle an insult match...ROFL


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Your preference seems to be to pretend that positive feedbacks don't exist yet you offer no evidence. Is it a Religous thing or something?


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



The climate regressives cult is not allowed to learn. Their minds have been made up for them and what they believe without evidence HAS TO BE RIGHT! There simply is no other possibility. You can lead a horse to water, but, if he choose not to drink, well, McDonalds is always looking for a few good, if deceased, equines.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



"So much of what the warmers demand is just that silly, useless, expensive, restrictive, and counter productive."

The only possible good thing that you can say about it is that it's based on evidence. Which makes it oh so much more likely to be reality. 

Hoping that it's not true, it turns out, is not evidence. It has no impact on probabilities. Even 100s of people hoping their level best has no impact at all on the odds. 

It's like a room full of gambling addicts on slot machines hoping for all their worth that their machine, on this pull, will show them some love. The machines act like they just don't care. 

So goes the universe. No respect at all for mankind. It turns out that we have to do all of the heavy lifting to make this world work for us. We have to think and experiment and theorize and invent and plan and build. 

The good news? Most of us can.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


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



I've always wondered how human beings get trained towards feelings of entitlement. Who told you that entitlement, not education, makes you right? There is no evidence of you being right about AGW. There is no evidence of what you claim of my education being right. 

And yet you are sure that you have a right to be right. That ignorance is knowledge. That you wanting is more powerful than others doing. 

I hate to tell you that there just isn't any evidence of the specialness that you claim. I'm afraid you're going to have to do it the old fashioned way. Earn it. 

A devastating blow to the ego, I know.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Drought is the potentially costliest impact of global climate change.
> 
> Drought damage could top $200 billion
> 
> ...



Draught, schmaught. If you're thirsty, or your dog is, or your land, just turn on the faucet. There's always water there.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 29, 2013)

gslack said:


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



"can't handle science, can't handle politics, can't handle common sense, and now you can't handle an insult match"

I have not seen from you any of the above demonstrated yet. 

Maybe today?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > No one except you suggests the Earth is going to explode. You seem to reason through exageration. *A) "AWG say the Earth will explode" b) "The Earth won't explode." c) "Ergo, there is no global warming"
> ...



"So why are you exaggerating how frail and "sensitive" the climate system is? You don't think that blowing up 1.1DegC for doubling CO2 to 6degC this century this century isn't exaggeration? You don't think putting Miami under water or Malaria in Kansas isn't exaggeration? Actually -- some of your cohorts are literally WAITING for the explosion.. "

There's an exageration. *Yeah, me and my buddy Hansen. Yeah, I was just over at his house this weekend. Yeah, that's it... I hung out with Hansen and then whole Working Group I. *We played pool, drank beer, and swapped stories about CO2... Yeah, that's it. *They're my buddied, compadres,*cohorts. *We like to refer to each other as proxies. *Cuz were all the same...

Beats the hell out of me what the temp/CO2 is.

What does this graph give?






(1+.5)/(380-305)=1.5/75=1/50 degF/CO2ppm

(380-280)/(2010-1940)=1.43CO2/year

So if CO2 is now 400, double to 800, 400/50 = 8

8+1 = 9 deg F

400/1.43 = 280 years

Nope, I get 9 for "doubling CO2" but that'll be 280
years.

It's 2010 and this century is, well it is this century. How about by 2100. *8degF/280y= 1/35 degF/y. *90y/35 y/degF = 2.57 degF. *So now at 1 plus 2.57 and thats *3.57 by 2100, give or take 3 years.

year * CO2 * Temp
2010 *380 * * *1
2013 *400 * * *_
2100 * * * * * *3.57
2293 *800 * * *9

But that's just on a calculator. *It might be better to use PC and better equations. *And I haven't double checked the math.

What's the IPCC get?






What's your best estimate?

Oh, that's right, you can't do math. *All you can do is exaggerate, whine, and complain about your exaggerations.

Oh, btw, carbon dioxide doesn't explode.

The idiot thinks CO2 is explosive.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Get your self a dictionary. *Empirical, as the word is used in science means:
> ...



"So much of what the warmers demand is just that silly, useless, expensive, restrictive, and counter productive."

Based on what, "I don't like it?" *Oh, yeah, that's right, you think the recession was caused by the lightbulb ban and low flush toilets.
*
Cuz the recession was bad. Restrictions are bad. *So low flush toilets are bad. Ergo, low flush toilets are like the recession. *Makes sense.*


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Drought is the potentially costliest impact of global climate change.
> ...



Yeah, and what's up with that NOAA anyways. We don't need them and their satellites. I can turn on the weather channel if I need to find out the weather.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Your math sucks as usual.. CO2 forcing function is logarithmic. We'll save that big word for next week. Each additional contribution of CO2 causes smaller warming factors. 

Already told you that a doubling of CO2 ALONE without feedbacks and imagined monsters under the bed --- from 250ppm to 500ppm would result in 1.1DegC. All those other projections from the IPCC?? Based on WIDELY RANGING and SPECULATIVE theory about climate sensitivity and how much CO2 will be emitted. 

Can't tell who's on first without a program dude. But it's really as simple as that...

BTW:  Thanks for telling everyone how dumb you are about this topic.. Guess the comment about Arctic Calthrates went right thru that void between your ears. The theory there is melting of frozen METHANE under the Arctic shelf. TRILLIONS of sq ft of it. 
It IS a GWGas.. And it DOES explode..

Guess a hundred posts from now -- you might have a passing aquaintance with that theory you support.

 Chilling stupidity.

 Thanks for playing.. Next !!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



There's that whistling sound again. . . .


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Ah yes, the "If I just pretend, it's like it's real."


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Really, where is the math error? *Oh, that's right, you don't do math.

It's fine. It, just a linear extrapolation. *So you must like the IPCC model better then, they have a few lower values.

What's your model? *Oh, yeah, that's right, you don't have one, just whining about everyone elses. But that's the peanut gallery for you, to lazy to do the work themselves, just stand around and complain about everyone else.

Oh, what is your quote? *

"So why are you exaggerating...blowing up ...CO2 to 6degC*...WAITING for the explosion.. "

No methane in there. "blowing up", "CO2", "explosion". *If you're to lazy to be clear, then what you write is what is read.

Oh, I got 3.57. Close to the IPCC value. *So that's two.

So where is your math? *Oh, that's right, you don't have any, just ther word "logarithmic" you read somewhere once.

Parrots can repeat words they heard.

Polly want a cracker?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



So that's really the thing for you. *You believe that complaining about other peoples work IS thinking. *Memorizing and repeating words like "logarithmic", "WIDELY RANGING", "SPECULATIVE" IS thinking. *You exagerate then claim everyone else exagerates.

Oh "Already told you ..." passes for proof because that's what your daddy said, right before he smacked you upside the head.

And if you just say, "You're a dumby dumb dumb," enough times, you will believe it.*

Just close your eyes, Dorothy, and say "I want to go home. I want to go home. I want to go home."


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Now were just watching for the brakes to fail. *Or do we think that the squeeling stopped because the brakes just got better by themselves?
> 
> What do you need, a dead horse on your lawn?



Still don't know what empirical evidence is do you>  You are showing correlation, not empirical evidence that man is causing the climate to change.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Yeabut, it's not concrete evidence until you crash. You could be fine doing nothing for awhile.



Try and learn the difference between empirical evidence and corelation.  Squeaking breaks is empirical evidence that something is going on with my brakes.

A slowing of my reaction time might result in using more distance to stop.  Taking a longer stopping distance as evidence that my brakes are bad is using corelation as if it were empirical evidence.  I could replace my entire brake system based on that evidence and never even come close to the actual reason that I am taking more distance to stop.

Your so called evidence is nothing more than corelation.  It isn't empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.

Again, you suck at analogy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Now were just watching for the brakes to fail. *Or do we think that the squeeling stopped because the brakes just got better by themselves?
> ...



How do you know I am a person?  Maybe I am a dog.  Maybe I am a computer.  Maybe I am a Martian.

How do you know that you need to breath.  Maybe if you stopped breathingong enough, you would discover it isn't actually necessary. You should do that...get a plastic bag... 

Hmmmm.  That causal vs correlation and inference thing sure is a quandry.

Isn't it amazing, the things you can think of when you get stoned.  Poooshhhh!  It's like....mind blowing.


----------



## deltex1 (Jun 29, 2013)

Read this


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/06/05/inority-view-n1611914


Understanding Liberals and Progressives - Walter E. Williams - Page 2


----------



## mamooth (Jun 29, 2013)

Why would anyone waste time reading cult propaganda from TownHall?

If the cultists want to argue their points, they need to summarize them here, instead of just crying "You all must read my cult's website!".


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> Read this
> 
> 
> Understanding Liberals and Progressives - Walter E. Williams - Page 1
> ...



"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."

"That represents the values of some progressives"

Wow, you figured it out...

Shhh.... Don't tell 'em.  They might figure out that drinking DDT is better than Viagra. It doubles sperm count and you can go for days.

Waaa haaaa haaaaa


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

1/50 degF/CO2ppm


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> 1/50 degF/CO2ppm








That's a linear scale.  CO2 operates on a logarithmic scale.  You _really_ don't know anything do you....


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > 1/50 degF/CO2ppm
> ...





I was refering to your IQ.

1/50 degF/CO2ppm is hot air.


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Pretty amusing coming from a robot with _no_ IQ.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're what, like 12?

So you don't actually understand how I even got 1/50 or what a logarithmic scale is, do you?

I'll give you a clue... laughing at yourself doesn't make you funny.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2013)

A better fit






.00922 (deg_c/CO2_ppm)


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2013)

The problem of course is it's wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jun 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> The problem of course is it's wrong.



Its kinda scary that these guys don't have a clue but think that they should be the ones telling everyone else what is supposedly going on.

and anytime you ask them to think about something, they refuse because they consider actually thinking for yourself to be a denialist cult trick that could only lead to trouble.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 30, 2013)

The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House. 

The political line up:

Republican strengths: A popular 24/7/365 propaganda machine through Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Monica Lewinski. 
Republican weaknesses: No qualified candidates. 
Democrat strengths: Clinton's success and popularity. Gore's environmental vision. 
Democrat weaknesses. Clinton's penchant for Monica.

The Republican strategy was simple and obvious. Use the propaganda network to drag Clinton down by his, ahem, weakness. And turn Gore's vision into a sinister plot, both through the manipulation of the public by the propaganda network. In other words, lower the street cred of the strong Democrat team down to below that of the weak Republican team. 

It seemed, at first, destined to fail, and, it did by popular vote. However several Supreme Court justices owed their career to Bush Sr so, in the end, we had our first Supreme Court appointed President. 

As the country spiraled downward by an inept administration, it became necessary for the GOP to double down on their strategy to get, OMG, Bush re-elected. And they did.

But the Cult of Denialism took on a life of its own. For one thing it is the kind of political challange that invites partisanship. It pits business against the people, rich and poor against the middle class, responsible people against irresponsible, industrialized countries against developing countries, past and present against the future, science against politics, states potentially benefitting from either the "new" climate or the energy infrastructure transformation against those negatively impacted.

All in all, quite a free for all. But, in the end, a necessary adaptation by humanity to a new environment. The very definition of evolution. 

All of the real issues now are in the realms of engineering and business and politics in a technological slugfest to determine which solutions fare best in the race up the learning curves. Lots of contenders. Lots of big buck betting. Lots of losers and a few very big winners. The stuff that capitalism thrives on, but government must lead to make sure that it's the big picture that we are pursuing and not just the unstructured whims of the marketplace. 

Exciting times. Defining times. The best and worst of human traits in battle for the future. 

Fossil fuels had their time on stage and we always knew they were of limited supply. Our relentless quest for more for more and more people is largely based on unlimited inexpensive energy and we are entering the times of more and more costly fossil fuels. More costly to extract, transport and process, and more costly to dispose of their waste. 

Times they are a'changing. Relentlessly. Inevitably, progressively. Opportunity and risk abound. Not for the faint hearted.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> The problem of course is it's wrong.



Wouldn't you expect that there be evidence of that?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2013)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The problem of course is it's wrong.
> ...



Everybody is allowed their own stupidity.  Even though it is obvious they don't understand them, and probably haven't even read them, they are allowed to believe that those scientific looking cuts and pastes from various websites make them look smart.   I think everybody else pretty well has the quintuplets pegged for what they are.   I wouldn't even criticize them at all if they were making any effort to understand and debate the cncepts.  But they aren't.  They are just repeating the same tired AGW religious doctrines over and over.  Perhaps hoping that a lie repeated often enough really can become the truth.

But that is their right.

Where I draw the line is when they start telling me how I am supposed to toe the line, believe what they believe, and practice their religion.  And how it is right that the government can force me to do that.

And to protest that loudly and clearly and fight back as best that I can is my right.


----------



## PMZ (Jun 30, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



We all have lots of rights and each one carries with it some responsibilities as well. 

You have a right to whine about anything you want to. 

But, the free will of others gets you a declining audience unless your whining has some purpose other than self serving. 

So, most people choose to understand any situation that causes them to whine, and work to make it constructive. That is, leading to some place that is better for not only themselves, but others.  

"Understand" is a contextual sort of word, meaning different things in different uses, but it's most clear in the area of science. In fact there is an entire sub-topic on how to communicate levels of certainty about any particular understanding of realities within the physical universe. Of course in the context of politics, "understand" has a much less precise meaning. 

Thus AGW has been studied long and hard by the relative handful of folks educated and experienced in the fields that contribute to the scientific understanding of it, and declared to be highly certain by all but a tiny fraction of them. Slightly less certain are the dynamics of it, and even slightly less certain in terms of mathematical modeling of it, are the consequences to our civilization of it. 

Based on that level of certainty and risk, a significant portion of available resources are now being invested in determining the least cost path that gets us through the consequences of AGW and to the place where energy in sufficient quantities to satisfy projected  future demand can be reliably and safely and sustainably provided. 

Given all of that background, I'm trying to understand why you might think that "your whining has some purpose other than self serving"?

As you don't seem to be part of the science or engineering or business or investment or planning or, really, any part of the problem or solution at all, what do you expect to accomplish with your whining? Is there any purpose to it?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> The problem of course is it's wrong.



Which part do you think is wrong? *The real measurements of temperature and CO2? *Or the well defined, and real, statistics of least square fitting in linear regression?

How would you fit a line correlating two sets of data?

Or is "it's wrong" from the "Westwall Handbook of Science for Dummies, by Dummies", axiom number 1?


----------



## gslack (Jun 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The problem of course is it's wrong.
> ...



You're a believer in the sequestered CO2 hypothesis crapped out of your butt, so it's wrong... Ya can't fake knowledge after getting busted faking knowledge so many times fraud..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 30, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So you've got nothing.  Is it the term regression? Least squares?  Data?

Is that axiom number 2?  The "crapped out of your butt" axiom?  You've got a bit of a fixation with butts.  Potty training didn't go so well, eh?


----------



## gslack (Jun 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House.
> 
> The political line up:
> 
> ...



LOL, drag clinton down by his weakness?

You mean his character flaw don't you? You know the type of thing that allows a man in power to abuse his power especially with those in no position to resist? Yeah, that's not a weakness, it's a lack of character.

He got caught being a lech and that's all there was to it. Sorry but I hold presidents to a higher standard and you should too. The fact other politicians used it to their advantage is par for the course. That's what the rats do on both sides.. Like the Swift Boat Captains for truth, and the voting nonsense that goes on in many black communities. Or the Kennedy vs Nixon election where the dead voted in droves. Both sides are dirty and both sides use dirt to their advantage.

You want to forgive his BS because he's one of your own, fine, but don't try and make it seem like nothing, and don't try and make him a victim.

Further what does that have to do with AGW? Nothing... Now try and stop grandstanding and plagiarizing schmuck..


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 30, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House.*
> ...



Yeah, if only he had done something usefull, like reduce the deficit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The problem of course is it's wrong.
> ...



Well I see you finally found a VALID instance to mention regression -- Dr. Regressive... 
((... even a blind squirrel.... ))  Congrats on that.. One out of 21 aint bad.. 

If I tell ya why taking a simple line thru that graph doesn't tell what the CO2/Temp relationship really is -- would ya listen? 

Actually you posted the answer to why you can't do that in some of that IPCC crap you randomly toss up here. YOU just don't know it.. Because you had no idea what you were posting..


----------



## Wroberson (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm sorry.  I'm not a fan of the CO2 theory.  All it took was one Alaskan volcano and a decent meteor strike in Russia to stop summer here north of I-80.  Not only that we have record rain total for the 1st half of 2013.

There was a warm spike, the highest estimated temps within the past 4500 years, in 1100 BC when the Jews were fleeing the Pharohs in Egypt in their Gas guzzling Hummers and high deck U-Hauls.

Then another warm spot when the Romans were in charge between 4BC and 600AD as they were burning oil, gas and other fossil fuels as if there was no tomorrow.

Then the last heat spike around 1300 AD when the Church was burning witches throughout Europe.

Each of these warm shifts were reverse through volcanic eruptions.  From Vesuvius to Krakatoa, to Pinatubo.

This chart shows that throughout the existence of man, the climate goes through cycles driven by volcanic activity and inactivity.  You'll never convince me otherwise.  It's gettin' colder and add the fact that we are about to start heading toward Solar Minimum after a very weak solar maximum, I am telling you to be ready for an even colder than normal decade.

I would put more heat into all the pavement than CO2.

The chart also contains the original author of the comments made above. I was just trying to improve it a little.

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.


----------



## gslack (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



LOL,love that bit of progressive liberal BS..The reality is he cut spending and raised taxes and big shock,he had a surplus of funds. And what did he pay off with that surplus of funds? Did it go to pay down the debt? NO... All it did was give him some kind of BS to feed the ignorant people like yourselves who don't understand the difference between deficit and debt. Debt is how much we owe banks and so forth, deficit is how much we have vs how much we have to pay for. Raising taxes on the upper tier that actually pays taxes, not like you barking moonbats who don't pay shit anyway, and cutting spending by large scale closings of military bases across the board, coupled with the changeover to a reserve strong military instead of a active duty strong one, and we had a surplus of funds. Meaning the amount we had to pay for was lessened and the amount we had coming in from taxes was increased..

It's not rocket science and he's not a genius, he just told you idiots what you wanted to hear and took advantage of the relatively uneventful times... No body took out the twin towers yet, the dot com bubble hadn't burst yet, and the real estate bubble was still strong.. 

Get a grip and drop the liberal talking points already.


----------



## IanC (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.

your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact. 

next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C.    does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.

a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.

I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.

personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned. 

without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.


----------



## gslack (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



What education socko? You just made several nonsensical statements, AGAIN... 

*"There is no evidence of what you claim of my education being right. "*-PMZ sock

Now what in the hell does that mean? Dude you just said basically nothing at all.. I know in your mind you may seem like an intelligent, educated man, but your writing here reads like that of a home-schooled half-wit....

*"That ignorance is knowledge."*-PMZ sock

LOL, really socko? As if your last bit of rambling nonsense wasn't bad enough you have to say something even more asinine... Knowledge the opposite of ignorance.. MORON...

Jesus dude you really need to stop tweaking and pulling these all-night forum spamming sessions.. You get dumber as you get higher...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

Apparently the Denial Cult of the Flat Earth Society has expanded their alternative reality to include denying what's going on in the engineering and business world as well as their traditional denial of what's going on in the world of science. 

Nobody is acting on their wannabe world denying AGW. Billions in both private and public investment in the necessary changes to our energy infrastructure towards sustainable. 

The science is no longer even on the table. Solutions are. 

Because their foundation is politics misusing science, they will remain loud and obnoxious until at least 2016 when the politics will be settled once and for all.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected."

If there was anything substantive about your denial it would be representable by data supporting theory. In the absence of any of that, it's merely what you wish was true.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem"

Our goose would be cooked if there was an immediate critical problem, as there is no immediate solution. Planning is the act of preparing for the projected future in order to minimize the cost of getting and being there. 

What argument could there possibly be against doing exactly that?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Where do you think oil, coal and natural gas came from. The fossil fuel fairy?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> I'm sorry. *I'm not a fan of the CO2 theory. *All it took was one Alaskan volcano and a decent meteor strike in Russia to stop summer here north of I-80. *Not only that we have record rain total for the 1st half of 2013.
> 
> There was a warm spike, the highest estimated temps within the past 4500 years, in 1100 BC when the Jews were fleeing the Pharohs in Egypt in their Gas guzzling Hummers and high deck U-Hauls.
> 
> ...



"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However,* Mankinds activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, *the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the Urban Heat Island Effect, are *making conditions worse and this will ultimately enhance the Earths warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades*."

Link Here: Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

So it's a combination of natural cycles and burning of fossil fuels, at least according to*Cliff Harris and Randy Mann.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



So you complaining about scaling on the graph? *That's meaningless in terms of doing a regression. Scaling simply effects the presentation. *And, the appropriate way of scaling is to have the line extend the full expanse of the graph. Otherwise, it's just wasted space.

Right there says enough to demonstrate that you really don't know. *Anyone with basic and solid understanding of presenting and dealing with data knows the difference between presentation of data and correlation. *Scaling has zero effect of the mathematical correlation.

I'm sure you've seen lots of different treatments of determining the correlation between CO2 and temps. * * * *And, perhaps, beneath the CO2 and temp are additional processes like H2O, methane, etc. *CO2 drives temps which further drive H2O. *Burning of fossil fuel releases both CO2 and methane in some proportion. *That's all fine and dandy. *

But it doesn't change;*

Anom = a*+ b * CO2, it modifies it.

I just eyeballed it and did a basic, and 100% correct, calculation to get about 1/50 deg F/CO2 ppm. *A more refined calculation, done in Excel, is






It gets .00922 degC/CO2.

It is simply a least squares linear regression on the real CO2 measure and real temp anomoly. *Real, real, real.

Oh, and it's not a "computer model simulation".*

I can guarantee that everyone with a PhD, studying climate change, did exactly what I did, first thing. *It's the easy one. *And everything they did afterwards, they compare to that, to check that their more refined theory and calculation were at least as good. *

If some computer model generated logarithmic formulation doesn't yield -3.08*+ 0.00922 * CO2(ppm), over the observed and measured range, then it is wrong. Every theory, formula, model, and simulation must agree with the real observed data.

The reason you are "I realize I am wasting my time talking to you" is because you are ignoring the simple reality, right in front of our face.

In the scatter plot of temp anomoly v CO2, where is the logarithmic relationship? *If it was logarithmic, it would curve. *Does it look like a curve to you?

We don't get to ignore reality and then call it science.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It would be nice if we could keep CO2 concentration constant, or a step function change, for a decade or two in order to see how the dynamics of adaptation look, but I guess we're stuck with a concentration that's not only ever increasing but the rate of increase is continuously increasing too.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

*Perspective*

*Nineteen Arizona firefighters were killed.

Hotshots killed included a father-to-be and sons who followed their dads into firefighting*






"PRESCOTT, Ariz.  Nineteen members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, based in Prescott, Ariz., were killed Sunday evening when a windblown wildfire overcame them north of Phoenix. It was the deadliest single day for U.S. firefighters since Sept. 11. Fourteen of the victims were in their 20s. Here are the stories of some of those who died:

....

 Anthony Rose, 23

 Eric Marsh, 43

 Robert Caldwell, 23

 Clayton Whitted , 28

 Dustin Deford, 24

 Sean Misner, 26

 Garret Zuppiger, 27

 Travis Carter, 31

 GrantMcKee, 21

 Travis Turbyfill, 27

 JesseSteed, 36

 Wade Parker, 22

 Joe Thurston, 32

 John Percin, 24"

Washington Post

LA Times


----------



## gslack (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, now you are expanding your sequestered CO2 theory? So now fossil fuels come from CO2?  ROFL, you're the biggest posturing buffoon on this entire forum..

You pulled a BS theory out of your maladjusted, juvenile head, that has absolutely no basis in reality, your pals know it, yet you keep repeating it and they defend it.. And you wonder why we call you clones?

Tweaker, it's an ignorant and silly claim, not borne out of science but out of your silly head. Please point to ANY scientific paper that supports your make-believe theory..

I'll be here from time to time to see what you can produce...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

gslack said:


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



We like your pencil lead diamonds in fertilizer theory much better. Yeah, that's it. *The carbon comes from diamonds and pencils in the soil.

Brilliant.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

gslack said:


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



If you don't understand the chemistry connecting CO2, the nourishment and growth of biomass, and the transformation of biomass into fossil fuels, you are in no way qualified to post here. That understanding is table stakes. I'm not surprised that that understanding eludes you. I am surprised that you don't even know what you need to know and don't. 

Assuming that you ever went to school here, you represent an indictment of the US education system.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



As we post, he is mulling over the possibility of the fossil fuel fairy. It could explain a lot.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

Perfect!

The Carbon Cycle


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

Here is an interesting factoid. *Since it's publication in 1913, Einstien's landmark paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" has never been cited in a research paper. *It is so fundamental that it needed no citation, so fundamental that it would be cited in every paper. No one bothers because everyone already knew it.  It was simply assumed.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



On positive feedback possibilities.

Global warming may be amplified by feedback loops


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm reminded of the dCON commercial with the giant rat.

Lady: "You disgust me."
Rat: "Prove it."

YouTube


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2013)

And ALL of your precious computer models are still catastrophically WRONG!


----------



## gslack (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



So then you don't have any actual science regarding your sequestered CO2 theory do ya tweaker... Yeah we knew that..LOL,another example of you talking out your butt..

P.S. Please provide a link to your made up quote socko...


----------



## gslack (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Still nothing on your sequestered CO2 nonsense I see. Now your trying to alter your claim? You said CO2 was sequestered silly socko tweaker boy. Carbon is not CO2, and you obviously don't know the difference still despite several people explaining to you..


----------



## gslack (Jul 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Perfect!
> 
> The Carbon Cycle



Yeah it's called a CARBON cycle, not a CO2 cycle numbnuts, I already provided a link for the Carbon Cycle a while back, we all know that one... Now please some science to back up YOUR claim of CO2 sequestering....

See the problem yet dummy? CO2 can be made in many ways on this planet including Volcanic activity,and natural processes within the earth's ecosystems. It is borken down in it's life cycle into it's more basic elements. It isn't stored as CO2, it's broken down into carbon and oxygen, hence it's a carbon cycle and not a CO2 cycle ya moron...

Dude you're not even a decent troll... All you are is annoying, you have no substance, and nothing of real value to add, just your ignorant circle talk and BS.. There is useless and then there is you, the next step beyond useless..


----------



## gslack (Jul 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here is an interesting factoid. *Since it's publication in 1913, Einstien's landmark paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" has never been cited in a research paper. *It is so fundamental that it needed no citation, so fundamental that it would be cited in every paper. No one bothers because everyone already knew it.  It was simply assumed.



Wow, and if you knew what the paper was about you might understand why it's a silly argument to try and use to defend AGW...

Albert Einstein ? History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts



> In the third and most famous article, titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," Einstein confronted the apparent contradiction between two principal theories of physics: Isaac Newton's concepts of absolute space and time and James Clerk Maxwell's idea that the speed of light was a constant. To do this, Einstein introduced his special theory of relativity, which held that the laws of physics are the same even for objects moving in different inertial frames (i.e. at constant speeds relative to each other), and that the speed of light is a constant in all inertial frames. A fourth paper concerned the fundamental relationship between mass and energy, concepts viewed previously as completely separate. Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 (where "c" was the constant speed of light) expressed this relationship.



So his paper has never been cited in a research paper? LOL, really? SO nobody cited special relativity in a science paper? You sure about that socko? Let's check...

The paper was part of the Annus Mirabilis papers Einstein published in 1905...

ah here's one...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/full/438743a.html

oh look another one...

The turning point for Einstein's Annus mirabilis

Mendelian inheritance in Germany between 1900 and 1910. The case of Carl Correns (1864?1933)

and another...

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

more... a list from google....

Annus Mirabilis papers - Google Scholar

We can go on all day socko, but we have established you are full of it again... Pathetic bullshitter...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



"There is a logarithmic relationship between radiative forcing *(which is directly proportional to the change in surface temperature at equilibrium)* and the atmospheric CO2 increase. *Note that *we are not currently at equilibrium as there is a planetary energy imbalance*, and thus further warming 'in the pipeline' from the carbon we've already emitted. *Therefore, estimates of the rate of warming due to CO2 thus far will will be underestimates, unless accounting for this 'warming in the pipeline'."

Because the observed response is






anom=-3.08*+ 0.00922*co2

a measure linear relationship.

So how do we reconcile the observed linear relationship with this published logarithmic relationship? *Can't ignore the measured relationship. *Both scales are linear, so scaling isn't an issue.

The explaination includes "Note that we are not currently at equilibrium as there is a planetary energy imbalance, and*thus further warming 'in the pipeline' from the carbon we've already*emitted. "

So the observed linear response is because we are not at equilibrium? *"*thus further warming 'in the pipeline' from the carbon we've already emitted. "

What is "further warming 'in the pipeline'?

Is it saying that the observed linear responce is due to CO2 increasing ahead of temp, thus driving temp linearly?


----------



## IanC (Jul 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





are you saying that you don't believe that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic? is that scientific?


----------



## IanC (Jul 2, 2013)

does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?



And you can get the same with CPI and population growth.  Doesn't mean anything.  All you have then is you don't know.

Except, obviously, temp isn't a function of CPI or postal prices.  Duh!

Here we have;


More Grumbine Science: Does CO2 correlate with temperature?

"If we simply look over the whole period of temperature data, we see 78% of the temperature variance is explained as a linear response to CO2 changes. Perhaps you don't trust ice core CO2, or older temperature values. The more recent period shows CO2 explaining 82% of all variation. For either the record as a whole, or for the more recent period, temperature shows a very strong correlation to CO2.

Research (see the citations in the IPCC working group 1, 4th report) is showing that it is in the last half century that human-derived CO2 (and others) have been the predominant drivers of climate change. Both the full 158 year record and the recent shorter 50 year record support that -- explaining 78-82% of variance definitely qualifies (at least if it passes statistical significance, which we'll get to in a minute). On the other hand, the same report says that before about 1950, CO2 is not the major driver. Here we see 28% of the temperature variance in that period being from CO2. Consistent with CO2 being a notable component of the system, but not the predominant one in that period.*

Now for the tests of statistical significance, which I'm afraid is more gory in detail than I write up here. But, the result is that all three correlations are significant at better than the 0.0005 level. In more normal language, we'd take 1 and divide by that number. The result is the number of times we'd have to collect data that were just random numbers before we'd find even 1 example with this high a correlation. In this case, at least 2000. Less than a 1 in 2000 chance of just being noise. (My statistical table only goes out this far. If I had better tables, they'd show much, much, higher odds against these correlations being chance.)

The IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 levels (which they took as 550 ppm, see, for example, the technical summary at the above link) is that it is 'likely' (see their definition of the word, it probably isn't what you think) 2 to 4.5 C, with a best estimate of 3 C. Using the highly simple-minded regression above, we get estimates of 2.4 and 2.7 C. Not only does CO2 indeed correlate with temperature, proving false the unreliable sources that started us here, but the sensitivity suggested by that correlation is in the range of what the IPCC arrives at by much more meaningful models of the physics of the climate system. "


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



If you hit your thumb with a hammer five time amd then read an internet blog that says hammers don't hurt when you hit your thumb, do you believe the blog?






That is a pretty big hammer to thumb.

And yes, that is scientific. *Observed data + matching conclusion = scientific. *


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> On positive feedback possibilities.
> 
> Global warming may be amplified by feedback loops



Could, might, maybe....etc.

Don't you think the state of science is such that it could be determined whethere a feedback exists and whether it was positive or negative?  Why promote could, might, and mabye rather than facts?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?


All you'r doing is futzing around with scaling, which is meaninless.

anom= -3.08 + 0.00922 * CO2
or 
anom = 2 * ( -1.54 + 0.00461 * CO2)

are exactly the same thing

The only difference is the choice choice of degC per inch on the page.  Meaningless.  That you have an emotional reaction to degC per inch of page is a personal issue.  You might enjoy "Evaluating Scientific Research", by F. Levitt  [ame]http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1577663454/ref=redir_mdp_mobile[/ame]

The scatter plot, which I present, is the correct method for visualizing correlation. And the image should span the scales on both axis. 

Postal rates and CPI aren't green house gasses.  On the other hand, CO2 is a GHG.  And, there is a real causal effect of population increase and CO2 increase, though not direct.

That is the difference between spurious correlations and causality.  When the two are physically connected, the correlation becomes causal.  The rest is determining what the precise relationship is.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

I asked someone to run both regressions, log and linear.

"The chi square for the ln fit is 0.459 and the chi square for the linear fit is 0.453. So the linear fit is slightly better, but probably within the measurement errors. The climate sensitivity searched to 2.29 away from 3. The linear parameters searched to -3.176 and 0.009468.

The ln function is used because climate sensitivity (s) is defined as the change in temperature when CO2 doubles:

s = dT (ln2/ln(2C/C) = dT."

Unfortunately, I can't present the graph.

Basically, in atmosphere, over the range of CO2 and temp anomolay, the two are indistinguishable, within the bounds of measurement error. *For all practical purposes, the relationship is

anom=-3.176 + CO2 * 0.009468 for the more precise data and*anom=-3.08 + CO2 * 0.00922 for the full data.

As measured IN THE ATMOSPHERE, temp anomoly and CO2 are linearly related within the measurement uncertainty.  Whether this is due to CO2 and other factors being related, in proportion, by some more complex process (i.e. so much methame gets emitted for so much CO2) is irrelevant. If I observe the neighbor's dog take a dumpmon my lawn, 100 days in a row, and I spot him on my lawn on the 101st day, I can be fairly certain he is about to do it again.  I don't need to check if it is correlated with the amount of food left in his dish.

What remains a bit frustrating is that climate science preferes to use 

delta-t=gamma*RF.  That is linear, but it says nothing about the form of gamma and RF, as they relate to CO2.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?



*BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!*

Now that's funny!

Of course, the libturds won't get the joke.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > does the CO2/temp correlation look as menacing in this graph?
> ...



You're assuming they are physically connected.  Everything AGW cult members believe is  based on bogus assumptions.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

An additional, solid regression analysis, is based on this data






Which yields

"I used Microsoft Excel to run the regression. The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Now here we have a nice ln fit of

"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495.

Temp is in hundreds of a degree and CO2 in ppm. "ln CO2 is the natural logarithm of the CO2 level. Radiation physics says the radiative forcing from accumulated carbon dioxide should be related to the log of the level rather than the level itself, so this is what we actually use in the computation."

The thing to do then, is to plot that regression result.

Here is the thing. *The ln function looks like this;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Log.svg






Beyond x=2, the ln(x) is, for all practical purposes, linear. *And, it isn't asymptotic. *It does continue to increase without bound.

Over the range, as measured in the atmosphere, there is no significant difference between the linear and log response. Over that range,*from 290.7 to 383.6, the ln response is simply linear.

This is not uncommon. *In radio and television transmission, the power goes down at 1/r^2 in distance from the source. In the near field, near the transmitting antenna, the power is clearly not linear. *The far field is different because, at a distance from the source, 1/r^2 is linear, for all practical purposes. *The difference between 1/4 and 1/9 is noticable. *The difference between 1/10^2 and 1/11^2, not so much. *The difference between 1/100^2 and 1/101^2 is meaningless.

And over the range of CO2, from ln*290.7 to ln 383.6 is simply linear.

So that reconciles the linear vs log issue.

link -> Temp v CO2 Correlation


----------



## PMZ (Jul 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> An additional, solid regression analysis, is based on this data
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeabut, that doesn't give the answer that Rush promised. 

Yeabut, that implies a problem that requires action and it would be cheaper to not have the problem. 

Yeabut, that would make me wrong!

Yeabut, that would make Al Gore right! 

Yeabut, that would make you right!

Yeabut, that would imply that scientists know more science than laymen do. 

Yeabut, that would imply that liberals are smarter than conservatives. Democrats than Republicans. Left of center vs right of center. 

Yeabut, yeabut, yeabut.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > An additional, solid regression analysis, is based on this data
> ...



IamC's point of the log function was the only one that came off as having some credibility. *So resolving that possibility against the obvious real measures was worth it. *It would have been way easier if I had Excel.

Unfortunately, I think the math and pretty graphs will go over most heads. *The shit's not easy. *It's not Dr. Seuss, a Harlequin romance, or your Sunday funnies. *It takes work to get use to, a couple of college semesters, at least. *If there was more demand at the CC level for it, it would be more common place, show up more often in the news, and we'd all be use to it.

A problem is that there is a huge gap between the basic highschool stuff and the Phd papers. *There is all this college level intro to whatever that just isn't on the web. Reading Wikipedia just doesn't do it.


----------



## gslack (Jul 2, 2013)

LOL you two don't like the debate you get so you have a closed circle debate with each other? LOL you two are the worst AGW trolls I have ever seen.


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > On positive feedback possibilities.
> ...








The language of charlatans the world over.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



They want the answer that they want. You see the same behavior in little kids everywhere. It's called control freakishness. 

Science is a tough love parent. If there was only a way to let it slap only them upside the head we'd be all set. But the consequences are random. So, the best that we can do is to ignore the noise and just pay attention to the signal.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

Everyone is freaking out, even the Florida Keys.

Not exactly Chicken Little's "The sky is falling" *more like Chicken of The Sea, "The ocean is rising"






"A tidal gauge operating since before the Civil War has documented a sea level rise of 9 inches in the last century, and officials expect that to double over the next 50 years. So when building a new Stock Island fire station, county authorities went ahead added a foot and a half over federal flood planning directives that the ground floor be built up 9 feet. "

"It's really easy to see during our spring high tides that the sea level is coming up - for whatever reason - and we have to accommodate for that," said Johnnie Yongue, the on-site technician at the fire station for Monroe County's project management department. "

""We clearly have the most to lose. If sea-level rise is not curtailed by immediate reductions in greenhouse gases, the Florida Keys may eventually become unlivable," according to a March draft of the county's plans. "Planning decisions should take into consideration medium to extreme sea level rise predictions." "

50 years, a half century.  No one is really freaking out. More like watching with morbid curiosity.



Climate change? Florida Keys prepare for sea level rise over the next 50 years


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 2, 2013)

Now they are freaking out in Maine too!






"*The surge in lobster numbers in the Gulf of Maine* has led to oversupply, which last year caused the per-pound price at the pier to dip as low as $2.50 in some areas of the coast. Partly in response, the state launched a new marketing collaborative to expand promotion of Maine lobster to open untapped global markets."

Still, they are freaking out.

"The effects of climate change, including a continuing rise in water temperature and increased acidification in the Gulf of Maine, as well as disease and life cycle changes in lobsters and other shellfish, have raised alarm about the potential damage to the states most lucrative fishery, said environmental advocates from the Natural Resources Council of Maine and marine scientist Rick Wahle, a University of Maine zoologist in the School of Marine Sciences.

They joined with representatives of the Maine Lobster Council, Ready Seafood Co. and the Maine Restaurant Association to launch a public awareness campaign about the economic value of the state's lobster fishery and the challenges it faces.

There is a problem. We are beginning to see the effects of climate change in the Gulf of Maine, said Emmie Theberge, clean-energy outreach coordinator for the NRCM. And the oceans are more sensitive to climate change.

Give em an inch, and they are afraid of losing a tenth. Will they never be happy?!  Warmer waters means pre-cooked.  And who wouldn't
love softer shells?  So much easier to eat.


Maine lobster coalition calls for action to avert climate threats | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





I didnt know which of your replies to respond to but this one will do.

radio/TV antennae couldnt be more off topic. that has to do with a reactive EM field transitioning into a radiative EM field, and is dependent on the wavelength of emission.

CO2 is logarithmic, at least in its atmospheric radiative properties. so in this case it is there is an asymptote, although I dont see any mechanism where you could swap out all the other gasses for CO2.

those are quibbles. what I really wanted to comment on is your understanding of correlations and p values.

correlation does imply causation, especially when there are known mechanisms involved. unfortunately there are at least several mechanisms known. while CO2 should theoretically cause heating at the surface, it is also known that warmer oceans release CO2. what is the standard amount of CO2 that should be in the atmosphere for this temperature? it is very difficult to say just from proxies, it is difficult to measure CO2 even with modern technology, so we have decided to use just one measurement in Hawaii.

what we are really interested in is how much of the extra CO2 is the result of mankind burning fossil fuels, and what impact that has had on surface temperatures. again, very difficult to know. temperature and proxy measured TSI have an r^2 of ~0.7 over the last few thousand years, supposedly meaning that 1/2 the variance is solar related. the 20th century was higher both in solar activity and temperature but do we know what the 'break-even' number is for TSI? I personally think that solar input is more meaningful per watt than atmospheric back radiation because there is entropy to be considered, as well as wavelength variation. but the climate models have it making a ~1% influence on the climate. if solar appeared to account for 1/2 the variance before, doesnt it seem striking that it has almost no influence now?

I applaud you for trying to dig into the math of these complexities, everyone should at least try to understand some science. unfortunately you cannot pull out one simple relationship and prove it runs the whole system. this thread was started to tell konradv the same message.


edit- correlation does imply causation but it doesnt necessarily tell the direction of cause, and often correlation is simply seen between two symptoms of some other causative agent(s).


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

IanC said:
			
		

> "radio/TV antennae couldnt be more off topic. that has to do with a reactive EM field transitioning into a radiative EM field, and is dependent on the wavelength of emission."



Then you completely get lost in the details of your own thoughts and miss the simple mathematical point.

**At large values of x, 1/x^2 and ln x both have curvatures that are tiny and the functions are nearly linear. *There is nothing wavelength dependent in the maximum intensity value of the far field relative to it's near field component. Total transmitted power is spread over a larger area as the emission moves further from the source, regardless of the wavelength. *For a spherical radiation, the intensity falls as 1/r^2. *Just so you don't go off all half cocked, I will add that a line source drops as 1/r, rather than 1/r^2, which does nothing in terms of the point, as 1/r becomes more linear for large values of r.

We can get all detailed about antenna coupling, antenna shape, etc, but that is off topic from the simple point that the function for power becomes effectively linear at large distances.

And like the 1/r and 1/r^2 functions, the ln(CO2) is nearly linear for large values of CO2. *That may not fully explain*






But it knocks off a large piece of it because*

a) that is the reality, in atmosphere, of temp v CO2 and it is a linear relationship. *Over the range of measured CO2, the curvature is flat, and any difference between a linear fit and a ln fit is buried in the residuals of the data. *

and b) any more complex function of anom=a*+ b*ln(CO2[factors]) + c*f[other factors], where CO2[factors] is a function where some secondary factors drive CO2 and f[other factors] is some other environmental influenced function, still has to match the real, in atmosphere, measurement of temp v CO2 as shown in the scatterplot.

Perhaps I should have used the term "inverse square law" instead of near-field and far-field.*

Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then it would have been less confusing as you'd have looked there instead of

Near and far field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop overestimating your own intelligence, it makes conversing with you difficult. I'm really not interested in writing a book every time I post. *You going to have to make some effort to get the point. *


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL you two don't like the debate you get so you have a closed circle debate with each other? LOL you two are the worst AGW trolls I have ever seen.



There is no they....there is one guy talking to himself.  Mental masturbation at its best.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Everyone is freaking out, even the Florida Keys.
> 
> Not exactly Chicken Little's "The sky is falling" *more like Chicken of The Sea, "The ocean is rising"
> 
> ...



More coulds, mights, and maybes.  Never mind that they don't mesh with actual observation or peer reviewed, published studies...



> A recent paper reviewed by CO2 Science finds sea levels have risen over the past 9 years [2002-2011] at a rate of only 1.7 mm/yr, equivalent to 6.7 inches per century. The paper corroborates the NOAA 2012 Sea Level Budget which finds sea levels have risen at only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 7 years from 2005-2012 [less than 5 inches/century], and the paper of Chambers et al finding "sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years." Contrary to alarmist claims, sea level rise decelerated over the 20th century, has also decelerated since 2005, and there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels. Concomitantly, the air's CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!



CO2 Science


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

IanC said:
			
		

> those are quibbles. what I really wanted to comment on is your understanding of correlations and p values.
> 
> correlation does imply causation, especially when there are known mechanisms involved. unfortunately there are at least several mechanisms known. while CO2 should theoretically cause heating at the surface, it is also known that warmer oceans release CO2. what is the standard amount of CO2 that should be in the atmosphere for this temperature? it is very difficult to say just from proxies, it is difficult to measure CO2 even with modern technology, so we have decided to use just one measurement in Hawaii.



Which is why I say, if you want to quibble with the science done by hundreds, if not tens of thousands of professionals (if we include all the techs, assistants, and grad students), then break out excel, download the data, and run the analysis on at least






And study*

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

including the citations. *Then see how far you get in designing the equations, either algebraically or procedurally, and modelling the climate to the level that is presented above.

Because, so far, all I've seen, are the climatology equivalence of arm chair atheletes, who, armed with some new phrase they have read, blurt out "correlation doesn't prove causality" because they mistake argument with intelligent analysis.

The first step in being even modesty intelligent is recognizing how ignorant you really are. *The difference between you and me, and folk that have a professional career as climatologists at NASA is the difference between a gammar school graduate and a college sophmore. That is, if we are at least smart as the college sophmore, in understanding how little we really know. So far as I've seen, the likes of gslack and westwall, are like a ten year old that just learned to read Cat in The Hat and feels they are now capable of critiquing Shakespere.

Perhaps an effort to figure out why they know that they can use Mauna Loa to measure the relative changes in atmospheric CO2, is the proper approach, *intead of starting with the perception that it can't possibly be adequate. *It's not like a thousand climatologists are just to stupid to have considered it's accuracy and precision.

And when we look into it, in depth, we will find that it is reasonably accurate and precise. It is just accurate and precise enough, to serve the purpose that it serves, given the funds and technology available.

And before you are to quick to respond, know why I use a paired term like "accuracy and precision" as well as "measure the relative changes".*

When you do, as with "correlation implies causality", 90% of your constenations will evaporate, like so many million tons of coal.

Then, examine the fundamentals of measurement, what exactly it is. *Figure out that there are no absolute measures of anything. All*measures are "proxies" of one sort or another. *From the calipers that has beem calibrated to a standard reference and the expanding mercury in a liquid thermometer, to the relative proportions of an oxygen isotope or tree rings, all measures are fundamentally proxies for the property being measured. It would be great, if some caveman had a thermometer, stuck it up the ass of a dozen dinosours, and scrawled the measurement of the wall of some cave, but they didn't. *So we are stuck with tree rings.

And when you've accomplished all that, the data analysys, the study of the full body of climatology, and the understanding that there are no absolute measures of anything, you won't feel the need to question my understanding of correlation, significance, or how to devise appropriate mathematical models that represent the signal beneath the noise.*

Cuz' so far, you just seem like gslack with more words. *And points like scaling on graphs are first year freshman issues. *Philosophcal constenations of correlation v causality is an evening among grad students, sharing a joint. *Proxies, accuracy, precision, reference points, relative measures, these are all just secondary freshman topics that get covered in one section of one chapter of introduction to measurements, which is a gimme course that they teach in community college.

"it is very difficult to say just from proxies, it is difficult to measure CO2 even with modern technology, so we have decided to use just one measurement in Hawaii", just doesn't say anything.

"What is the measurement error for CO2 at Mauna Loa?" starts to say something.

co2 hawaii mauna loa measurement error - Google Search starts to say something.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Carbon Cycle Group

and

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/the_mauna_loa_carbon_dioxide_record_2009_sundquist.pdf

begin to say something.

Global Change Master Directory (GCMD)

"Abstract: Daily atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have been*
measured since March 1958 at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. These*
measurements constitute the longest, continuous record of atmospheric*
CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa Observatory*
site (19.5 N, 155.6 W, and elevation of 3400m) is one of the most*
favorable locations for vegetation or human activities on atmospheric*
CO2. This record provides scientific documentation for the degree of*
change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 30 years. The*
Mauna Loa data are extremely useful to modelers attempting to project*
future CO2 concentrations, climate scenarios, and vegetation responses*
to increased levels of CO2. The Mauna Loa record is considered to be*
a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentration of*
atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The steady*
rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration shown by this record has been*
widely interpreted as a global trend.*

Daily, monthly, and annual averages are computed for the Mauna Loa*
data after deletion of contaminated samples and readjustment of the*
data. These averages have shown a steady rise in annual average*
concentration from 316 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in 1959 to*
over 368 ppmv in 1999.*

Since 1958, CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory have been*
obtained using a nondispersive, dual detector, infrared gas*
analyzer. Air samples are obtained from air intakes at the top of four*
7m towers and one 27m tower. Four samples are collected every hour*
from air intakes on the taller tower and from one of the 7m towers.*
Air is sampled from one tower intake for 10 minutes, followed by a*
second tower intake for 10 minutes, and then from a reference gas for*
10 minutes. Air flow through the intakes registers a voltage on the*
infrared gas analyzer which then records the concentrations on a strip*
chart recorder. (The air intakes are operating continuously but the*
air is shunted when not being analyzed by the infrared gas analyzer.)*
Two intakes are used in the sampling to help detect possible*
contamination that would be shown by significant differences in CO2*
concentrations between the two intakes.*

Those involved in the monitoring project have attempted to improve*
sampling techniques, reduce possible contamination sources, and adjust*
data to represent uncontaminated, true conditions throughout the*
twenty-eight year sampling period. The gas analyzer is calibrated by*
standardized CO2-in-nitrogen reference gases twice daily. Flask*
samples are taken twice a month for comparison to the data recorded*
using the infrared gas analyzer. Data are scrutinized daily for*
possible contamination and archived on magnetic tape for further*
scrutiny and adjustment.*

Possible ambient error sources at Mauna Loa include volcanic,*
vegetative, and man-made effects (e.g., vehicular traffic,and*
industry). Daily peaks in measured concentrations occur because of*
complex wind currents. Downslope winds often transport CO2 from*
distant volcanic vents causing elevations in measured CO2*
concentrations. Upslope winds during afternoon hours are often low in*
CO2 because of photosynthetic depletion occurring in sugarcane fields*
and forests. Vehicular traffic problems (since corrected) caused*
exaggerated elevations in 1971. Despite these sources of error and*
contamination, considerable effort has been made to alleviate and*
detect these sources.*

*The imprecision in measuring references gases approaches 0.1 ppmv and*
is rarely greater than 0.2 ppvm. However, agreement differences less*
than 0.5 ppmv between flask and analyzers or between different
analyzers on a short-term basis are difficult to obtain. Monthly*
averages from May 1964 to January 1969 may be in error by as much as*
1.0 ppmv; but since 1970, systematic error probably does not exceed*
0.2 ppmv. The precision of monthly averages is approximately 0.5*
ppmv. In summary, monthly and annual averages of the Mauna Loa data*
are statistically robust and serve as a precise, long-term record of*
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. *

The Mauna Loa CO2 data set has been updated with data through December*
2002 in August 2003. This data set is continuously updated as new data*
becomes available.*

All CDIAC numerical data packages include copies of pertinent*
literature discussing the data, summaries discussing the background,*
source and scope of the data, as well as applications limitations and*
restrictions of the data.*

The NDP-001 data set is located in CDIAC's anonymous FTP in*

ftp://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pub/maunaloa-co2/*

and on the WWW:*
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ndps/ndp001.html*
and*
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001/*
"

That says something!!!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2013)

Well it says that when you fall for a hoax, you really fall hard.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

IanC said:
			
		

> I applaud you for trying to dig into the math of these complexities, everyone should at least try to understand some science. unfortunately you cannot pull out one simple relationship and prove it runs the whole system. this thread was started to tell konradv the same message.



I hardly need your applause or accolades.

And your statement "unfortunately you cannot pull out one simple relationship and prove it runs the whole system." simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of how measurment, modeling and prediction functions.

All you do is present yourself as an armchair athelete, great at watching and critisizing, lacking the ability to get out on the field and hit a ball.

The reality is*






A the linear regression is anom=-3.03+0.00922*CO2

And given the 95% confidence interval, a series of bets on that will yield 95% wins. *So, yes, lacking any other information, I can pull out one relationship and bet on the other being related. *And I don't need to know why. *It is sufficient to demonstrate the utility of moving forward and looking into why they are related.

And whatever that relation should be, it has to fit with

anom=-3.08+0.00922*CO2,*

within the level of error estaished by the least squares analysis.

Because all I've done is restate the reality in a quantifiable manner, in accordance with established scientific procedures.

The difference being, I can say something and all you are saying is that you can't.

So, as it has been pointed out, the world moves forward, while you stand still, yelling at the crowd, "YOU CAN'T GO THAT WAY!!", as it dissappears into the distance.

The science knows, the management listens to them, and you're just standing on the curb, whining that it's the wrong bus.

I'm just standing on the step, pointing at the map. But the bus driver is closing the door.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> ....
> 
> those are quibbles. what I really wanted to comment on is your understanding of correlations and p values.
> 
> ...



Yeah, you're not quite clear on how this measurement and statistics thing works.

I can use gslack as a negatively correlated proxy for climate science. *I don't need to know how it works, just that abnormal psychology and the data demonstrates a 100% correlation that he's worse than random chance at having knowledge. As a control group, I can use a chimpanzee pointing at flashcards.

I could then publish in the Journal of Abnormal Statistics and the Journal of Climate Science Eduction simultaniously. *I'd title it "Evidence From Online Forums of Signals Of Learning To Be*A Moron :A Case Study"


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Now they are freaking out in Maine too!
> 
> 
> 
> ...










It couldn't possibly be related to overharvesting now could it....nope...


----------



## gslack (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



Aww now there you go talking about me to others again... LOL, you sockos never learn do ya..When you idiots do that, it doesn't matter what you type, what you're actually saying is "gslack kicked my ass and now I want to cry"..

ROFL


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse

"&#8220;The link between rising carbon dioxide and pollen is pretty clear,&#8221; says Lewis Ziska, a weed ecologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a top researcher in the field.

His lab tests show that pollen production rises along with carbon dioxide. It doubled from 5 grams to 10 grams per plant when CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1900 to 370 ppm in 2000. He expects it could double again, to 20 grams, by 2075 if carbon emissions continue to climb. The world&#8217;s CO2 concentration is about 400 ppm."

Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse | Grist


----------



## gslack (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse
> 
> "The link between rising carbon dioxide and pollen is pretty clear, says Lewis Ziska, a weed ecologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a top researcher in the field.
> 
> ...



Let's see plants grow faster with CO2, and therefore pollinating plants will occur faster as well... Wow, you guys are real geniuses for that one... Bet they spent billions on research for that... ROFL


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A simple "you're right IanC, TV antennae was a poor choice for an example" would have sufficed. 

While I did admit that a linear approximation is OK for a restricted range of the curve, especially now that it has passed into a relatively flat region, the problem is that you are claiming that the relationship actually is linear. 

Climate is driven by a myriad of factors, each responsible for a certain portion of the variability. If, for example, solar input was reponsiblefor 25 percent and CO2 only 1 per cent then ignoring solar and focusing only on CO2 will give a wildly exaggerated importance to CO2 at the expence of wildly underestimated solar. Even if solar is not changing that does not mean it is unimportant. Even if CO2 is changing that does not necessarily increase its importance to climate.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Why? *Your ignorance doesn't make it a bad example. It just means I have to make things simpler for you.


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2013)

Simpler for me?  By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse
> ...



"Let's see plants grow faster with CO2"

Only if CO2 is the limiting factor. If you expose plants limited by water, or sunshine, or critical nutrients, as examples, giving them more CO2 won't do a thing.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> Simpler for me?  By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?
> 
> I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.



I think that what you keep bumping up against is that "skeptic" is a non-objective perspective. Being skeptical about something that's true just runs you around in circles.


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Simpler for me?  By usinug inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?
> ...



I am a likewarmer actually and all the areas that I contest have lots of room for alternate conclusions. CAGW is built in layers, the first level is reasonable but quickly turns into unsupported and exaggerated conclusions.


----------



## gslack (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, and where did I say to eliminate anything?

ROFL, you get caught being ignorant again and you try and save face with making up my claim for me? 

You got caught buying into another BS scare tactic in the media, you should be used to it by now...


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









Actually, if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere they need less water.  You really need to do some basic research there dude.  Your ignorance is showing yet again...


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Simpler for me?  By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?
> ...










Wrong...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

Clearly those who choose to believe political media over science are reaching the point where there are no defenses to support their choice. They've been able to guess at a few questions that needed tracking down and science has done that. Truth always overwhelms lies in time. 

The Flat Earth Society, at this point in time, merely provides background noise for the doers that are building mankind's future. 

Now that they've reached scientific, engineering, and business irrelevance, more noise merely whittles away at their political relevance. 

And that, is a good thing.


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Clearly those who choose to believe political media over science are reaching the point where there are no defenses to support their choice. They've been able to guess at a few questions that needed tracking down and science has done that. Truth always overwhelms lies in time.
> 
> The Flat Earth Society, at this point in time, merely provides background noise for the doers that are building mankind's future.
> 
> ...










Wrong again....


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Clearly those who choose to believe political media over science are reaching the point where there are no defenses to support their choice. They've been able to guess at a few questions that needed tracking down and science has done that. Truth always overwhelms lies in time.
> 
> The Flat Earth Society, at this point in time, merely provides background noise for the doers that are building mankind's future.
> 
> ...



Haven't you heard? The Flat Earth Society fully backs CAGW! Hahahaha.

Solar wind, etc has failed miserably even with massive subsidies.

Even with draconian cuts to energy use the projected cuts to temperature rise are minuscule. 

And from that you conclude the problem is solved? Luckily there is no serious problem except for the trillions of dollars people like you want to waste.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2013)

westwall said:


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






> Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants.  They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air's CO2 content.  These CO2-induced improvements typically lead to the development of more extensive and active root systems, enabling plants to more thoroughly explore larger volumes of soil in search of the things they need.  Consequently, even in soils lacking sufficient water and nutrients for good growth at today's CO2 concentrations, plants exposed to the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels expected in the future generally show remarkable increases in vegetative productivity, which should enable them to successfully colonize low-rainfall areas that are presently too dry to support more than isolated patches of desert vegetation.
> 
> Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also enable plants to better withstand the growth-retarding effects of various environmental stresses, including soil salinity, air pollution, high and low air temperatures, and air-borne and soil-borne plant pathogens.  In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can actually mean the difference between life and death for vegetation growing in extremely stressful circumstances.  In light of these facts, it is not surprising that Earth's natural and managed ecosystems have already benefited immensely from the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has accompanied the progression of the Industrial Revolution; and they will further prosper from future CO2 increases.
> Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Global Warming Climate Change Facts



Which goes back to arguments made many pages ago.  Some scientists are contemplating the benefits of increased CO2 such as possible reversal of desertification processes and boosts in new plant growth and healthier rain forests.  And while the plants feed on CO2, what do they emit?  Pure oxygen.  In fact, photosynthesis is the ONLY source of breathable oxygen we have on the planet.

These are things the AGW religionists don't want to talk about though.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly those who choose to believe political media over science are reaching the point where there are no defenses to support their choice. They've been able to guess at a few questions that needed tracking down and science has done that. Truth always overwhelms lies in time.
> ...



What I conclude is that the problem is being solved. Despite the efforts of the Flat Earth Society. 

"Being solved" is a big increase in the odds of a sustainable future over doing nothing. 

I don't expect it to follow any more of a no unsuccessful experiments path than any other technology. Learning curves are a fact of engineering. 

We learn valuable things from every unsuccessful experiment, as well as every successful one. 

What we don't learn a thing from is doing nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



The major intellectual differences between climate realists and climate regressives is captured in the phrase "all things are connected".

The consideration of one thing at a time is easy, but inconclusive, and "inconclusive" is the goal of climate regressives. 

Climate regressives root for negative feedbacks and boo positive feedbacks.

Realists accept all things provably true, and reject things provably false, and then investigate how things are connected. 

Nobody that I know believes that AGW won't benefit some of us. Our point is that it will deprive more of us, of what is taken for granted today. 

Perhaps the reason people adapt climate regression is their belief that they, personally, will be among the favored. Or, perhaps more likely, that's what they are told by their cult media.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> Simpler for me? *By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?
> 
> I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.



*You are quite welcome to demonstrate your superior math skills. *I've been trying to engage you, anyone, for that matter.

*But so far, all you've been able to muster are vague and generalize statements that amout to "You're wrong because I said so." The difference this makes is obvious. *

I emailed a couple of people re the apparent linear trend on temp v CO2 and got clear, succinct, and detailed resonces within an hour. *They included complete linear regressions with r^2 and p-values as well as the basic reference to the radiation physics that leads the modelers to utilize the ln function. *Everyone with the full knowledge of fundamentals gets why the in atmosphere measures present themselves as linearly related and makes no quibble re a linear function. *The difference is that of seeing the math and theory as tools or as some authority. *It's all just tools in the toolbox.

To the contrary, you present nothing of substance. *You simply make vague and generalized objections, complaining about things like the accuracy amd precision of Mauna Loa CO2 measures without actually knowing what the precisionmof the measures are. *If you want to claim they aren't good enough, you have to demonstrate with specific value, how they aren't good enough? *But you can't because you can be sure that Keeling went through extra-ordinary effort to assure that the Mauna Loa measurements accurately and precisely represent the global changes in atmospheric CO2.

Quick, in basic terms, what does the derivative and the integral represent? What's the derivative of a*ln(x)? *What is the slope at 350 and 400? *How does the difference between the variation in slope over the range 350 to 400 compare to the range from 1 to 51? *What does this tell us about the regression of temp to CO2 for the range of CO2 as measured in the atmosphere?

*That you can't predict temp anomoly doesn't mean no one else can. Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean everyone else lacks the knowledge. *That you can't only means that you can't.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Simpler for me? *By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?
> ...



Without  any math at all, it seems intuitively obvious that the odds of a photon colliding with a carbon dioxide molecule is directly proportional to the number of them per unit volume. No?

A good pool table analogy?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2013)

I wonder how much the quadruplets are being paid to spam every point in this thread and ensure that no flow of discussion of any issue can take place?


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








Wrong...


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I wonder how much the quadruplets are being paid to spam every point in this thread and ensure that no flow of discussion of any issue can take place?









It says a lot about how effective we have been that the fraudsters are forced to resort to that tactic.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Simpler for me? *By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?
> ...



the slope of the curve is high between 1-50 ppm, with multiple doublings and a large impact on the radiative properties of the atmosphere. the slope of the curve between 351-400 is much flatter, with only a fraction of a doubling, and it has much less impact on radiative properties. the curve at 801-850 is even flatter and less significant. why are you making my point for me? I have already said that using a linear approximation at current levels will give you a reasonable figure, as long as you don't stray too far away from the current value. unfortunately you are claiming that it is a linear function, and also claiming exaggerated precision out to 3 or 4 sig figs. 

I am sorry that I didn't more fully explain about CO2 measurements at Hawaii. I have no particular problem with them using Hawaii, or the precision or accuracy. what I have a problem with is that one 'number' is used as a realistic value for all areas of the earth. the variability of CO2 is much larger than implied, and the effect of CO2 also varies depending on latitude and temperature. it is another 'one size fits all' number like average global temperature, which loses a lot of information by being generic.


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





you have a naïve understanding of how CO2 works. the main radiative component is how certain wavelengths of IR get dispersed rather than escape directly into space. it has been completely dispersed after 10 meters, it cannot get any more dispersed than completely dispersed. that is why it is a logarithmic function rather than linear. while further CO2increases still have ever smaller impacts on the escape of radiation it is the CO2 closest to the surface that has the major impact.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I wonder how much the quadruplets are being paid to spam every point in this thread and ensure that no flow of discussion of any issue can take place?



"Well-known troll is declares everyone else is a troll. Film at 11."


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You'd be right if energy didn't need to be conserved. It doesn't stop existing because it has been "dispersed".


----------



## PMZ (Jul 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how much the quadruplets are being paid to spam every point in this thread and ensure that no flow of discussion of any issue can take place?
> ...



She believes that she is entitled to believe what is provably wrong. Perhaps she is right politically but for sure she is wrong scientifically.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It doesn't matter either way. *The denialist point is that, as it is logarithmic, then the effect falls significantly as CO2 rises. *

The issue is that, this is true for large percentage changes. Over the range from 300 to 380 the effect is nearly linear, which is why







regresses out linearly.

The problem they have is scaling and a lack of familiarity with math in both graphic and algebraic form. *They read "logarithmic" and "doubles" and creates an image in their mind that is unrelated to the actual math or physical data shown above.

Logarithmic can refer to log10, ln, and, in the case of the convenient form for climate forcing, log2. *Log2 gives a nice linearity for doubling, because it is base 2. *Climate forcing is conveniently defined this way. *Log10 is linear for factors of ten. And ln is linear for factors of e. *Again, these are simply a form of scaling, for convenience.

I've got it as s = dT(ln2/ln(2C/C))=dT

I also have dT(tn)=(3/ln(2))*ln(C(tn)/C0), which was a chosen curve fit by a climate guy.

But, that is just as well written as

s = dT(ln(10)/ln(10C/C))=dT

Which would say, when it goes up a factor of ten.

The reality is that it is a natural process where the rate of change is proportional to thrle level. This yields the natural exponent y=e^x. *Alterntatively, as the temperature increases, the rate at which energy is absorbed decreases exponentially, yielding a form like Tn=T_max*(1-e^(-x))

It's this simple, consider taking a cup of water out of the fridge, and putting it on the counter. *At first, the temp increases rapidly. As the temp increases, it slow down the rate. You can do this with a standard kitchen thermometer. *As the temp gets closer and closer to the room temperature, it starts creeping up more slowly. It follows the curve*Tn=T_max*(1-e^(-t)).

The exact nature of this increase is a natural exponent,*y=e^x. *The inverse is x=ln(y). *If we want the difference between y and 2y, it is x2=ln(2*y) and x1=ln(y). *The difference is x2-x1= ln(2*y) - ln(y) = ln(2y/y). *The reciprocal is 1/(x2-x1)=1/ln(2y/y). And, for whatever reason, the guy who came up with radiative physics decided to go with ln(2)/(x2-x1)=ln(2)/ln(2y/y).

And, as with acoustics, the power scale is in dB=10log(2P/P), which give a measure of power that is linear for purposes as the responces to power tend to be exponentially damped. It is scale of convenience because the ear responds logarithmically or exponentially. log, ln, and log2 are simply different scaling of the same thing.

so we get this form of convenience.

*s = dT(ln2/ln(2C/C))=dT

Which is simply because it is a natural process. *And because it is a natural process which follows this*Tn=T_max*(1-e^(-t)) form, like that cup of water, with some futzing about we can derive the radiative physics form.

Basically, we'd start with the temp at some level due to a solar output and C (for CO2). *Then we'd double the C, or 2C. *Guided by this,






we'd subtract one from the other for delta-T, futz around, consider if there is an additional exponential function that results from volume changes, and rearrange so we have a nice ln(2C/C) form.

If its a matter of odds and volume, such that it is exponential, it would ln( 2v^3/v^3)/ln(2)= 3ln(2v/v)/ln(2) *which is the other form provided. *And, again, its just scaling.

The point simply being that nature produces the exponential forms. *The radiative equation conveniently chose "doubling" in defining s. *It could have been on 10, or whatever. *The defining as "double" is simple convenience..And if we really wanted to, we could get to a form s = dT(ln2/ln(2C/C))=dT

Regardless, it's nearly linear for small values. *

But we aren't trying to create a model, just understand what's going on. And because I'm not writing a textbook, this presentation is just as it comes to me. *Why reinvent the wheel?

And you will notice, on the range from 400 to 800, the curve is basically linear. *The curvature is small. *It is negligable for 300 to 400.

The effect is only significant if the change in x is appreciable. *300 to 380 isn't double. So the specific point is mute. And as I'm not interested in creating a climate model, I don't need to care.

I though to add that, on the time domain side, because CO2 has gone up exponentially, it comes out linear, the two cancel each other out. *At the exponential rate of increase, that is the historic precidence, the increase can be expected to continue to be linear with time. *The scatter plot will finally shoe a log relationship, as the qualtity increase is no longer a small increment but gives a nicer range of 300 to 800. *

Question is, over the range of CO2 and time, does the Keeling curve have an exponential fit?






Without doing the regression, it kind looks exponential. *And why shouldn't it be, population has been a bit exponential, as well goes things like energy usage.

We could look at energy consumption and find it to be exponential.






Kinda. It would be nice to see that added together and a reason the Keeling curve is so smooth by comparison. There is one for the conspiracy theory crowd.

We can examine it graphically. The linearity for small changes is most apparent there. *We can examime it algebraicly, the insignificance of the scaling is more apparent there. *The rate of change of temp is log related to CO2. *The CO2 is exponentially related to time because it is directly related to energy usage and population. *Both of those are exponential in time. *They have been, at least. *And unless something changes, they continue to be. *

If nature forces the change, with us ignorant, we are always behind the eight ball. *And it is unpleasant. *If we predict that the changes will occur, we can be ahead of those changes, the pain of which is typically lessened. It doesn't take an exagerated effort, it's not a "freaking out" problem. *

All I care about is whether the evidence reasonably supports anthropogenic warming. *From there I can simply correlate denier statements against that and use them as a negatively correlated proxy. They do the advanced reading, and if they disagree with the IPCC, I know the IPCC is right because deniers are demonatratably wrong. *It makes my work much easier.*

It also sets up the null hypothesis, if I should want to verify something. *Their statement is the null hypothesis.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

The complaint of "proxy measure" is meaningless and arises out of a lack of understanding of what measuring is.

"proxy indicator
Indirect measure or sign that approximates or represents a phenomenon in the absence of a direct measure or sign."

In fact, all measures of temperature are proxy by nature. The accepted theory of temperature is that atoms and molecules vibrate, containing and transfering kinetic energy.*

The original, best practice, method for measuring temperature was the mercury thermometer. A glass tube, with a reservoir at one end, is filled with mercury. As temperature increases, the mercury expands under certain definitive relationship to temperatute and pressure. As the tube is sealed, pressure is constant and small marks identify the temperature for height of the column.

This is a proxy measure as the kinetic energy of the molecules cannot be observed directly. *All temperature measurements are proxy measures.

Time is also measured as a proxy. *Time cannot be measured directly. *Rather, distance is measured as some natural or designed process, with regular feequency, is counted in its number of cycles. *Some device, of standard cycles, stands as a reference for comparing the timing of other events.

Distance is a curious one. *Distance is always the comparison of one distance to some standard reference distance. A meter is defined in reference to some standard, now locked away in a vault. *Calibrated devices carry this standard and serve as a proxy to it.

The question is never one of if it is a proxy measure. The question is one of how well it serves as a proxy measure. *That simply depends on the application and the precision of the proxy. *

I have a number of proxy scales. Depending on the application, I may use a pair of calipers, which were manufactured under standard conditions, and a good proxy to that vaulted reference, to 0.0005". *

Or, I may use my foot, pacing off twelve feet in the backyard, which yields*+/- an inch per foot. *Assuming no systematic error, the overall measure is*+/- a few. *It's good enough for buying rocks.


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2013)

And, back in the real world.  Yet more evidence that says the fraudsters are full of poo....






"Abstract: It is now widely accepted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that the mean world climate has warmed since the beginning of climatologically significant anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. Warming may be accompanied 6, 7, 8 by changes in the rate of extreme weather events such as severe storms and drought. Here we use hourly precipitation data from 13 stations in the 48 contiguous United States to determine trends in the frequency of such events, taking the normalized variance and a renormalized fourth moment of the precipitation measurements, averaged over decades, as objective measures of the frequency and severity of extreme weather. Using data mostly from the period 19401999 but also two longer data series, periods that include the rapid warming that seems to have begun at approximately 1970, we find a significant increase of 6.5±1.3%(1&#963 per decade in the normalized variance at a site on the Olympic Peninsula at which it is low. We place statistical limits on any trend at the remaining 12 sites, where the normalized variance and its uncertainty are larger. At most sites these limits are consistent with the same rate of linear increase as at the Olympic Peninsula site, but exclude the same rate of percentage increase."


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n6/full/nclimate1828.html


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> And, back in the real world. *Yet more evidence that says the fraudsters are full of poo....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What don't you get? *He said, "it rained more."

*Using data mostly from the period 19401999 but also two longer data series, periods that include the rapid warming that seems to have begun at approximately 1970, we find a significant increase of 6.5±1.3%(1&#963 per decade"*

The rest just says that it did even though it varies alot.

Maybe in Dr. Seuss style will work better for you.

Sometimes it rained here and there.
Sometimes it didn't rain anywhere.
Sometimes it rained with a squal.
Sometimes it didn't rain at all.
But as the years went and came.
It did because global warming is to blame.


----------



## gslack (Jul 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I don't think you understand logarithmic...

Your understanding is lacking, and obviously no amount of charts; graphs, or data will help you here..

Your argument is a silly one...

The log of 10, where did you get that? The fact is the AGW theory hasn't been quantified to that level, and any claims regarding that factor are simply fiction. SO I ask you where did you get your log from?

You pulled it off of a web page somewhere or took pieces off a wiki article on logarithm. Nice now please explain how your BS is based on anything real regarding CO2?

LOL, again we see you trying to baffle with Bullshit...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2013)

Here are a couple of items on GHG absorbtion, that starts to bridge the gap between the general and simplified presentation and the s=dT(ln(2)/ln(2C/C))

"Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap
in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases"

"In order to properly understand the greenhouse effect one must take into account the nonlinearity of the effect of increased concentration of greenhouse gases. One must also take into account that different greenhouse gases may have different spectra for the absorption of thermal radiation.

First consider the matter of the nonlinearity. According to the Beer-Lambert Law the proportion of radiation absorbed upon passing through a distance x of a medium is

** * **1 &#8722; e(&#8722;ax)*

where a is a parameter that reflects the concentration of the absorber and its radiative efficiency. The parameter a is the product of two terms. One is the concentration &#961; of the absorber and the other is a characteristic of the absorber &#945;, called its radiative efficiency."

And there is the ubiquitous **1 &#8722; e(&#8722;ax)* form.

"where a is a parameter that reflects the concentration of the absorber and its radiative efficiency. The parameter a is the product of two terms. One is the concentration &#961; of the absorber and the other is a characteristic of the absorber &#945;, called its radiative efficiency.

When there are more than one greenhouse gas the value of a is

a = &#931; &#945;i&#961;i*
*
where &#945;i and &#961;i are the radiative efficiency and linear density of constituent i."

We get that the radiative efficiency goes as*

*1 &#8722; e(&#8722;ax)**

The two htmls, listed below, distinguish between radiative efficiency and radiative forcing.

This paper, *http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/5539/2009/acp-9-5539-2009.pdf has "radiative forcing is, to a reasonable approximation, a logarithmic function of CO2

RF=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref)

Which gets us closer to the*






This Lenton (2000) chart uses the term "radiative effect", * not "efficiency" or "forcing", so I am reluctant to jump to the conclusion it is*

"RF=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref)"

And it's not

*1 &#8722; e(&#8722;ax)**

I'm not getting a solid connection between effect, efficiency and forcing.

But, defining things as "when it doubles, then "RF=beta*ln(CO2/CO2_ref)" becomes*"RF=beta*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref)/ln(2)" which begins to take on the appearance of*s = dT(ln2/ln(2C/C))=dT, refered to as climate sensitivity.

And climate sensitivity is given by

"The two concepts of radiative forcing and global warming potential (GWP) should not be confused with radiative efficiency. Radiative forcing is the change in the energy input to the Earth's climate system over some period of time due to some external change. It is measured in watts per square meter (W/m²). It is a useful concept and leads to the definition of the climate sensitivity parameter &#955;, i.e.,

&#955; = &#916;Ts/&#916;F*
*
where &#916;Ts is the change in the Earth's global mean surface temperature and &#916;F is the radiative forcing."

Radiative forcing was given as*"RF=beta*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref)/ln(2)"

so*

&#955; = &#916;Ts/&#916;F
*= &#916;Ts/(beta*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref)/ln(2))
s = &#916;Ts*ln(2)/(beta*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))

So *&#916;Ts=&#916;F*s

Where s is defined as*

s = &#916;Ts*ln(2)/(beta*ln(2*CO2_ref/CO2_ref))

Clearly tautological, still, the connection is clear, that the effect is related to the typical natural exponent/ramp function where a quantity rate of change is dependent on it's level. It begins with the ubiquitous *1 &#8722; e(&#8722;ax)*. It results in parameters that go as ln and 1/ln.

And within the range of 300 to 400, the effect is nearly linear. *With CO2 increasing exponentially with time, the temporal change in temperature is linear.

----

Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases

Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases

Searching under Lenton 2000 turns up*http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/esmg/papers/Lenton2000.pdf which has some nice graphs on CO2 concentrations and emmissions, but sheds little light on forcing.

I suspect that the info is in the textbook world, not readily available on the net. It's almost like there is this conspiracy among academia. *The overly simplified and some ofnthe advanced material is on the net while the material connecting the two is not there. *I suspect it is the publishers. *It really sucks.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here are a couple of items on GHG absorbtion, that starts to bridge the gap between the general and simplified presentation and the s=dT(ln(2)/ln(2C/C))
> 
> "Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap
> in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases"
> ...



You're actually in theatre right? Prepping for a part  playing a scientist right? Trying to look confident and familiar with big math concepts and lingo.. 

This cut and paste and THEFT of others intellectual property without credits is dishonest and probably illegal.. But moreover -- it looks like you are having a crack induced psychotic episode.. 

Since I felt compassion for your lack of discipline and apparent penchant for wasting your time and the server storage at USMB -- I jotted out an Excel graph for you.. 






You are certainly welcome to approximate log functions over "small changes" in the independent variable as linear. However, with a log function, "small" is not a fixed qty.. The chart shows the slope of the ln() function over several ranges. Note 8 to 16 is doubling and 32 to 64 is also a doubling. But the others are LESS than a doubling. 

Even for the spans LESS than a doubling, there is a significant change in the slope of the curve !! And that's at point considerably far out on the curve.

As for your ramblings about textbook conspiracies.. I have no f-ing idea what that's about. 
I think you're stuck at converting W/m2 radiative forcing to a surface temperature.. 
No conspiracy.. 

You calculate the CO2 forcing and that gets you to Watts/m2 additional power. Then to estimate Temp rise from that WITHOUT A CLIMATE MODEL --- it's a simple trip thru a "Gray" body approximately and the Stephan Boltzmann model. That gets you to what I told you WEEKS AGO.. That the surface temp rise from a doubling of CO2 (span is 1960 to about 2040?) from 280ppm to 560ppm is --- by pure physics ---- 1.1 degC.. Everybody involved knows this and accepts it.. 

Everything else about 6DegC rises in the couple decades is pure speculation and fantasy... 

The IPCC models all use a "climate sensitivity" multiplier instead of the simple physics "grey body".. And that's probably justified ---- IF they had any f-ing idea how to assign ONE "climate sensitivity" for the ENTIRE GLOBE. The Arctic Clim. Sens. doesn't respond like the Tropical one. And climate sensitivity VARY not only by region but by SEASON. 

But ---- they (your AGW heroes) insist on blowing smoke up your ass and arguing whether this number is anywhere between 1.6 and 5.5 or so.. *No joking -- that's the range of uncertainty.* So when you throw us up a mess of yellow squiggly lines and call that a "model".. It means jack shit unless you know what the Clim. Sens. and 100 other variables were assumed to be.. 

What else is bugging you bunky? Is it more serious than crack? How long you got before your show opens on Broadway?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Slackerman teaching science. How's that for a concept? Like G W Bush teaching economics.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Here are a couple of items on GHG absorbtion, that starts to bridge the gap between the general and simplified presentation and the s=dT(ln(2)/ln(2C/C))
> ...



That's nice, except the temp record I have been discussing is*






which is for concentrations of CO2 from 280 to 400. *

So tell us this, what is the slope for dT from 280 to 400?

I've said nothing about the year 2040 or CO2 at 560 ppm.

You are simply a troll, creating arguments where none exists. *The problem you have is that the foundation of science is reality. This includes the reality of the physical world and, if you are to critique the science, the reality of whatever scientific principle was presented. *Making up some image of what has never happened, the arguing that, is just strawman

If you have a beef with the IPCC model, why don't you email the IPCC and argue with them?  Here's a little clue that will help you with reality, no one on this forum works with the IPCC.  

Here is there contact info

Dr. Mary Jean Buerer
Programme Officer

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
c/o WMO, 7bis Avenue de la Paix
Case Postale No 2300, CH-1211 Geneva
Ph: +41 (0)22 730 8521
Email: mburer@wmo.int


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Here is a little test for you.

Simplify or expand the following

a) ln(x)/ln(10)=

b) log(a^y)=

c) log(x)-log(y)=

d) d/dx(log(x))=

e) *if CO2 = e^(year) and Temp = ln( CO2 ), what is the shape of the curve for Temp = f(year)?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

Here's a good summary of global energy demand up until 2035.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The more urgently we work at it, the more of this growing demand can be met in ways that don't require a fuel intermediate and get energy more directly from our one source, the sun. The more energy we get that way, the more carbon we can leave sequestered in the ground. 

The more carbon that we leave sequestered, the lower will be the cost of mitigating the consequences of AGW. Not to mention the cost of extracting, processing, transporting, warring over, and waste disposal for fuel. 

A huge economic opportunity if we're smart enough.

Jobs building long term assets >>jobs recovering from extreme weather and handling obsolete fuels.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Here are a couple of items on GHG absorbtion, that starts to bridge the gap between the general and simplified presentation and the s=dT(ln(2)/ln(2C/C))
> ...



*"This cut and paste and THEFT of others intellectual property without credits is dishonest and probably illegal.. But moreover -- it looks like you are having a crack induced psychotic episode.. "*

Really, what cut and paste? *You are quite welcome to google whatever you like to demonstrate some cut and paste. *Or are you such a moron you think that every expression of "y=log(x)" or "1-e^(-ax)" must include a citation?

Typically, I find that people accuse others of what they are most guilty of themselves. *Liars accuse others of lying, trolls call others trolls, catastrophizers complain that others are exaggerating.

What I see, is lacking the ability to respond intelligently, you demonstrate ignorance by making unsubstantiated accusations.

You remind me of the liar who, when caught, yells "That's libel!!"

You're an idiot. *You're an idiot because your entire knowledge base is built up on trying to prove others are wrong rather than on developing what is right. *All you have is an pile of incoherent arguments.

You on the right track, that you can plot a graph in excel. Now, install the statistcs package, download the temp and co2 data, amd run a linear regression. *Also, do the log tranformation and do that regression. Come back when you have p-values and R^2 values. *Then we will discuss which one is a better predictor and why.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

flatulance said:
			
		

> "Even for the spans LESS than a doubling, there is a significant change in the slope of the curve !! And that's at point considerably far out on the curve."



Well gosh darn, then how come the real measure of temp v CO2 concentration regresses out to a higher R^2 for a+bx than for a+bln(x)? *What's up with that?






Why is it that the history of temp increase, from 1880 to 1950 and from 1960 to the present are clearly both linear *How much you wanna bet that if you regress those two time frames, you'll get better fits to linear than to some ln function? And how come, over the entire range, you'll get a better fit to e^t than linear or ln?






Can't explain, just complain, eh!  And if reality gets in the way, just skip that.  Complaining is so more important.


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flatulance said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








It's called a coincidence.  That's why now that the temps hav'nt followed the increase in CO2 the "theory" of AGW is collapsing.  That's why the scientific axiom "correlation does not equal causation" was coined.  Sadly for you, you guys ignored that very basic axiom and are being educated quickly because of that fact.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

flatulance said:
			
		

> Since I felt comp lack of discipline and apparent penchant for wasting your time and the server storage at USMB



*Yeah, there is an issue... storage space on USMB

Wow, there is no limit to the depths of absurdity that you are willing to dive to in order to whine.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flatulance said:
> ...



Wrong.

Do you think that objects falling is just coincidence? *After all, feathers fall slowly and rocks fall quickly.

Correlation plus a physical mechanism is causation.

Sadly, you have no fundamental education in physics or statistics. *


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...










I have a PhD in geology and know more about physics than you ever will sonny boy.  Correlation NEVER equals causation silly person.  If it were true there would be NO PAUSE in global temp increase.  But, were you anything more than an ignorant fool you would know that.  

However, since you ARE an ignorant fool, the basics fly right over your tiny little head.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 6, 2013)

Here is a liberal reference

the+physics+of+atmospheres+john+houghton+pdf


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 6, 2013)

Yep.  Folks I know who have geology degrees have to take a LOT of physics.  In fact the two fields are so closely interrelated, a lot of students opt for degrees that merge the two into one field:  geophysics.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme is a bizarro-world polar bear. blizzards of graphs and equations, yet he just doesn't understand why his claims are wrong.

he claims that ~75% of the variance in temps is caused by the level of CO2. but that is only because that is the only factor he is looking at. hahahahaha, just the error bars in our understand of water based energy flow is enough to swamp the effect of CO2. roughly 8% of surface radiation is mainly affected by CO2, and the largest portion of that possible effect has already happened, yet somehow he has talked himself into believing that CO2 drives the climate! bad framing of mathematical questions leads to wrong answers just as surely as faulty arithmetic skills, although the person thinks they are clever.


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Yep.  Folks I know who have geology degrees have to take a LOT of physics.  In fact the two fields are so closely interrelated, a lot of students opt for degrees that merge the two into one field:  geophysics.







Yes indeed.  I was heading towards geophysics till I opted for environmental geology.  I still stay current though!


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here is a liberal reference
> 
> the+physics+of+atmospheres+john+houghton+pdf








Science is neither "liberal" or "conservative".    If a paper can be judged to be so, there is a problem.   A HUGE problem.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 6, 2013)

Lots of educational claims not supported by evidence. Lot's of pseudo science not supported by evidence. Merely what people wish was true. Well, bad news. The cult lied. You're not entitled to a thing. The truth is the same for all of us. That for which there is evidence.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Lots of educational claims not supported by evidence. Lot's of pseudo science not supported by evidence. Merely what people wish was true. Well, bad news. The cult lied. You're not entitled to a thing. The truth is the same for all of us. That for which there is evidence.







Excellent description of the AGW cult.  Thanks for that admission!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of educational claims not supported by evidence. Lot's of pseudo science not supported by evidence. Merely what people wish was true. Well, bad news. The cult lied. You're not entitled to a thing. The truth is the same for all of us. That for which there is evidence.
> ...




Troll


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

The basis for AWG

That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,






That's the history is increasing temp and CO2.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The basis for AWG
> 
> That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.
> 
> ...



People educated and interested in science seem typically interested in sharing the insights that their education and experience allow them. And learning more in the process. Natural, I guess. 

Clearly we see among these pages a lot of that going on. Some of it effectively, depending both on the recipient and the scientist. Some of it a waste of everybody's time and effort.

While there are many perspectives from which to approach the extent to which ongoing teaching efforts should be pursued, the most pragmatic is political. 

Politically, the efforts to find the least expensive path to, and the least expensive satisfaction of the demand for, sustainable, benign, and efficient energy to the point of use are underway. Doers are doing. Perhaps not as effectively as could be, but progress is rarely pretty. In typical fashion, the path is bumpy, twisty, with never ending uphills and many fewer compensatory downhills. 

When the customer says "yes" it's best to stop selling. 

Here's one stake in the ground as a record of progress. 

Google "Cresecent Dunes power tower, Tonopah, Nevada".

110 megawatts, with zero fuel costs, zero ongoing emissions, matched to peak demand from Las Vegas, 12 hours per day.

The Flat Earth Society will never go away, but in our democracy they've already been rendered irrelevent. Impotent. 

The action now is in progress, not stasis. The discussion is about engineering and investment, not the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. 

Our past and future will be as different as night and day. We've learned again not to take Mother Nature for granted, and to use our unique intelligence to solve our problems realistically. Not based on what we wish was true. 

Progress.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 7, 2013)

The fourth is over, of course, but the time is always right for a reminder to those who would drag us down. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/v/6TPgJSZf5Vw?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1[/ame]


----------



## gslack (Jul 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The basis for AWG
> ...



LOL, dude you are in love with everything you write. Seriously man you just wrote paragraphs of crap.. Number of angels dancing on the head of a pin?

WTF?

You are tweaking again aren't you troll...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 7, 2013)

PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years.  (Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)

Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else.   So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years.  





History of Energy Use in the United States

It is important to note that the same source goes into some detail to illustrate that burning wood, in order to produce the same amount of energy as coal, is just as dirty as coal so far as CO2 emissions are concerned.  Petroleum, natural gas are cleaner but still produce some CO2.  Wind and solar don't factor in yet as both together still produce less than 1% of the world energy use.

So the population of the Earth in 1830 was 1 billion
1930, 100 years later, 2 billion.
1990 - 5.1 billion
Present roughly 7 billion

All of those people have used some form of CO2 producing energy for all that time while the population was increasing 700%.

And yet the use of all that energy has raised the average temperature of the Earth by less than 2%.

And we are supposed to worry about the fuel people are using rather than worry about the population explosion and how we are going to feed all those people?

Seems to me climate change via fossil fuels is the very least of our worries.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years. *(Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)
> 
> Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else. * So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years. *
> 
> ...





> Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else.



And one would hardly expect you to create your own, or describe the data in the detail that the visual presentation provides when some organization has provided it. That's what we pay taxes for. *It's our data and graphs.*



> So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years. *



Exactly the point. *And I presented it already.

There is no doubt that global mean temperature has increased on CO2 (~76%) and other GHG (~24%). *There is no doubt that population, productivity, consumption, RGDP, and fuel usage are related. *As population and productivity increase, so goes energy usage and GHG.

"Less than 2 degrees" is an accurate algebraic statement regarding the mean global temperature. *

It is meaningless in context of climate, agriculture, biology, weather, as wel as variations across longitudes and latitudes. It is meaningless because it says nothing of the consequences of what "more than 0 degrees" means. *It's like saying, "she's only two days pregnant" or "it's just a small hole in his eye." *"It's just a small oil leak", "a small leak in the plane's fuel line". *"But it was just a small fire"

Human beings have an internally regulated body temperature and an internally regulated home and work environment. *Yeah, what's 2 degrees.

Physics is easy. *It gets far more complex when it is climate. Now add biology to climate, the impact of climate on biological systems.

Agriculture is a biological issue impacted by climate. *Surely you read the biology impact link previously posted.

As the connectivity gets further away from the center, of CO2 and temp, the variables and interactions become more complex. *In one direction, it goes from CO2 to energy to fuel usage to poulation and efficiency of production. *In the other direction it goes to climate, localized weather, and biology.

Any belief in absolute certainty is an illusion of an ignorant mind. Not one individual can guarantee every detail of even the simplest activities, like commuting to work. Not one car is predictable except in that it likely will follow pre-established procedures. *The general trend is predictable, the details are not. *And the further the commute is, the larger the variability in commute time, in general. *It's easy to be generally accurate. Absolute precision is an illusion.

At the core, CO2 causes global temperature increase. *As the system is traced, as impacted by the source driving factors, and as it*impacts the downstream climate and biological systems, it becomes more complex. *And deniers get hung up on the complexity that isn't accounted for to the last 0.000001 joule. *Regardless, it changes nothing of the underlying fact that AWG is simply and unequivically demonstrated as fact. *The rest is simply how fast amd how bad.



> Wind and solar don't factor in yet as both together still produce less than 1% of the world energy use.



They only produce 1% now, globally. *They produce 19% in Sacramento. *13.2% domestically. *That would be the point.

Climate via fossil fuels is the biggest of worries because it is Temp vs CO2 that connects population to environment and agriculture. *And it is guaranteed that population growth will end when agriculture plummets as a result of the impact.

The question isn't if it will. *The questions are, how bad will it be before it ends; how will it end; and who will be impacted. The history of mankind has been one of managing nature or be managed by it. *Nature doesn't care if we know or not. *Nature doesn't care if we thought it might be okay.* 

Nature is the ultimate authority. Nature is absolulte in objectivity. *It caresmnot what we believe. It is unforgiving. It doesn't*care if we say we're sorry.*


----------



## PMZ (Jul 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years.  (Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)
> 
> Okay, I can cut and paste pretty charts and graphs (or make my own) as easily as anybody else.   So here is one showing the use of fossil fuels for the last 238 years.
> 
> ...



To be submitted in evidence as proof of the total lack of science employed by deniers. 

The consequence which will cause expensive mitigation to the human race are changes to weather that impact the land use choices in evidence today. 

Are our cities at peril due to higher sea levels? Are our farms at peril due to a different distribution of rainfall? Do we have population centers at more risk from extreme weather events like tornadoes and hurricanes? Do we have population centers which will require significant transport of water to support their needs?

Whatever climate change that produces those consequences is going to cost us lives and money. 

It doesn't matter at all whether you think that the climatic temperature change that brings about those consequences is a big number or not.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ's pretty cut and pasted charts show roughly a 1.3 degree farenheight increase in global temperature over the last 133 years.  (Anybody who thinks that 1.3 degrees is accurate without question, can we have a discussion re those bridges I have for sale?)
> ...



Maybe it should be expressed as 1300 millidegrees centigrade?


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

Why don't you CO2, IR, doubling effect believers just do the simple and obvious thing?

Take all your internet "science" and fake degrees in whatever it is you're an expert of today, and create something that harnesses this amazing property of CO2?

Make a CO2 oven, or a CO2 heat engine of some sort. It should be simple, you all claim it's a settled science and it's all fact, so just harness this energy resource...

Make something,one thing, that actually confirms the effects you attribute to CO2 and you have all the proof you will ever need.. SO go forth and create this CO2 miracle machine, I'll wait here...


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...





Par for thecourse with respect to your mathematical prowess.

Two extra significant figures that are unwarranted. And a total screw up between Fahrenheit and Celsius.


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2013)

gslack said:


> Why don't you CO2, IR, doubling effect believers just do the simple and obvious thing?
> 
> Take all your internet "science" and fake degrees in whatever it is you're an expert of today, and create something that harnesses this amazing property of CO2?
> 
> ...




And a denizen from the otther extreme starts to chirp.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Jon -
> ...



CO2 isn't a jug of water water, either.


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you CO2, IR, doubling effect believers just do the simple and obvious thing?
> ...



Ian, you are welcome to show this magical property as well.  It's been what now 2 years since I asked you to do this and still nothing...

You can think whatever you want of me, but I am not the one who plays ignorant when he can't defend his claim. Nor am I the one who tries to BS his way through here... Fact is you got caught doing both several times here..

So why don't you create this magical CO2 heat doubling device, make a million and shut us up in the process. Then we wouldn't have to watch you fumble trying to defend spencers work.. Still got your little man-crush for him? Best seek help on that..


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



And you're not a genuine poster, you're sock/troll..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

All of the actual doing going on in the world is in the direction of mitigating, not denying, AGW. So the deniers are mostly talking to themselves. I can't imagine how fooling each other is entertaining.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Bezerk -
> ...



If it's all that you have to breath, it's deadly. Of course, that applies to everything but oxygen. Even water.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



What evidence do you offer other than the voices that only you hear?


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, you just  answered a post to ifitzme socko.. Also you don't seem to care that we mix up your names.. You also seem to post identically.. You're both trying to BS yourselves through this... And frankly how many people are perpetuating the sequestered CO2 theory? Only the two of you, and that's not only one hell of a coincidence, but completely stupid as well.. Add all those together with the habitual tendency you two have of kissing each others asses as well as finishing each others debates, and we can call you a sock..

Now sooner or later you two will screw up, or your proxy will get blacklisted, or your mom will make you get a job, and then we will be rid of your sorry trolling asses..


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> All of the actual doing going on in the world is in the direction of mitigating, not denying, AGW. So the deniers are mostly talking to themselves. I can't imagine how fooling each other is entertaining.



LOL, "doing going on"

Is that a scientific term?  ROFL


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 8, 2013)

I have recently attended a lecture by a local botanist who reported studies showing rapid growth in trees with even a small increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.   CO2 levels around volcanoes are high enough to be toxic to plants and wildlife, but unless CO2 levels rise everywhere enough to kill all trees and wildlife--in which case it will be all over for us humans anyway--it is actually good for the plants and does not harm living creatures.  Our aspen forests from the mountains of New Mexico all the way into Canada are growing faster than ever with the marginal increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 50 years.

Also aquarium managers, with both fresh and salt waters, know that adding CO2 to the water is very beneficial for aquatic plants and does not harm the fish.   Too much and both would die.

But that isn't different from many substances on Earth that are beneficial to us in reasonable amounts, and harmful and sometimes even lethal above a certain level.

All which gives credence to looking more closely at whether we need to control CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we spend our time and resources much more beneficially by learning ways to better utilize that CO2.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

gslack said:


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



How you coming along with your hypothesis that plants need diamomds and pencil lead to grow? *Are you including carbon nano-tubes, fibers and Bucky*balls too?

Got any suppporting evidence yet?**

Like, have you found some of it in your garden? *Here are pictures, so you can identiffy them.











You can see those with the naked eye. You'll need a magnifying glass for these.


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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












Coherence isn't one of your strong points is it!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I have recently attended a lecture by a local botanist who reported studies showing rapid growth in trees with even a small increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. * CO2 levels around volcanoes are high enough to be toxic to plants and wildlife, but unless CO2 levels rise everywhere enough to kill all trees and wildlife--in which case it will be all over for us humans anyway--it is actually good for the plants and does not harm living creatures. *Our aspen forests from the mountains of New Mexico all the way into Canada are growing faster than ever with the marginal increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 50 years.
> 
> Also aquarium managers, with both fresh and salt waters, know that adding CO2 to the water is very beneficial for aquatic plants and does not harm the fish. * Too much and both would die.
> 
> ...



You may have missed this link, which has been kindly provided.

"*In nature (and in agricultural ecosystems) , plant productivity is affected by many things: light, water, temperature, nutrients, CO2, pathogens*.The experiments that show enhanced plant productivity under enriched CO2 are usually conducted under conditions that are ideal for plant growth -- i.e., temperature, water and nutrients are not limiting.* In these circumstances, growth IS CO2-limited. That is, plants may respond with increased productivity to enriched CO2 if something else isn't limiting at current levels. "

*ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF PREDICTED CLIMATE CHANGES*

And that makes sense. Outdoors isn't an equarium.

Currently, the limiting factor in the Sierras is water.*

"SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST, Calif.  In parts of Californias Sierra Nevada, marshy meadows are going dry, wildflowers are blooming earlier and glaciers are melting into ice fields.

Scientists also are predicting the optimal temperature zone for giant sequoias will rise hundreds and hundreds of feet, leaving trees at risk of dying over the next 100 years."

*"SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST:Should giant sequoias be watered? Scientists ponder impacts of climate change across Sierra.*

Biologists point out that the rate of climate change, due to temperature, is shifting faster than the species can adapt. Plants have little mobility and no guarantee that the shifted zone is even habitable. *Insects, birds, and other mobile creatures are forced to shift out of their habitat, of which they depend, and into habitats that are not sustainable for them. *The differential in mobility between species, in a single environment, is forced to spread out, litterally facturing the ecological interdependence.

And while CO2 can increase growth, growth is not dependent on CO2 alone. *There are limiting factors beyond simple CO2 fertilization.

Season length is changed, and plants have developed internal timing mechanisms that assure they develop in sync with their environmemt.

Lastly, and not least is that otherwise habitable areas are subject to extreme drought conditions. Other areas are subject to precipitation in excess of what the organisms have adapted to.

In short, the rate of climate change is faster than the plants amd animals are able to adapt. *On the balance, biologists have determined that the problems are greater than the benefits.

The "We shouldn't do anything" is entirely misdirected. *Climate change is because we are doing something, changing the climate. *We need to stop doing something. *

"We" don't need to look more closely. "We" already have. *And the rate of change is too fast for "We" to wait around for "you".*

And as so many deniers are so big on "we don't know for sure", the biology issue should fit very well with it. Biology is more complex than climate. *So that is definitively where the "We don't know with absolute certainty" logically leads to "Then stop changing the climate."


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I have recently attended a lecture by a local botanist who reported studies showing rapid growth in trees with even a small increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.   CO2 levels around volcanoes are high enough to be toxic to plants and wildlife, but unless CO2 levels rise everywhere enough to kill all trees and wildlife--in which case it will be all over for us humans anyway--it is actually good for the plants and does not harm living creatures.  Our aspen forests from the mountains of New Mexico all the way into Canada are growing faster than ever with the marginal increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 50 years.
> 
> Also aquarium managers, with both fresh and salt waters, know that adding CO2 to the water is very beneficial for aquatic plants and does not harm the fish.   Too much and both would die.
> 
> ...



It's just too bad that it's a greenhouse gas.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > All of the actual doing going on in the world is in the direction of mitigating, not denying, AGW. So the deniers are mostly talking to themselves. I can't imagine how fooling each other is entertaining.
> ...



It's actually a sensible fragment of my sentence in English. That apparently is not your first language.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2013)

Predicting based on what?  Models???   Failing models??

Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

gslack said:


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



You are extraordinarily prone to confusion tonight.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Predicting based on what?  Models???   Failing models??
> 
> Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??



Give us evidence of their failure.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Predicting based on what? *Models??? * Failing models??
> 
> Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??



So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?

_"Predicting based on what? Models???"_ is, by far, one of the *stupidest meaningless utterance* that repeatedly infects this board. All it demonstrates is the ignorance of the person making it. It is slightly less general than saying "stuff" and "things". 

You might just as well say, "Predictions based on what? Stuff?" 

These are models;

*F=&#931;(mi*ai)

yi = a+ b*xi+&#949;i

m*(d^/dx^2)(x(t))=-&#8711;V*x(t)

Profit = (1-tax_rate)((price-unit_cost)*qty-interest)
*

Everytime you get in the car, to drive to the store, you use a mental model to get there.

This is a model,






This is a model;






Every time you turn on the Weather Channel, to find out if it will be hot this comimg week, you are using a model.






And this is the output of a number of complex computer models, based on finite element analysis and physics models, compared to the real world measurents.






And for a model of a system as complex as the global climate, it is exceptional in its accuracy and precision.

Writing that is specific and detailed are intelligent.  

Vague, abstract, and generalized single statements are the result of a lack of intelligent thought. They are the result of a lazy mind or an intent to be misleading by not backing up one's point with proof and specific examples.

Your posts are a model, and miserably poor at that. Everything that represents something else is a model, including your own failed model of climate models. And of all models, I have experienced, your utterances are the worst, vague, inaccurate, and imprecise.



Garage At Post Office Square
CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM Services 2D, 3D, Drafting, Design, Solid Modeling, Design Analysis | Gill Incorporated - Design Solutions
Pinegrove Townhomes | Pinegrove Drive, off Hwy. 15, Myrtle Beach SC 29577
The climate models - HK Climate


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Really socko? You're the one answering posts to ifitzme like you are ifitzme.. Why don't we just call you PMIFITZME... Would it matter? You'd still answer to it obviously, and the two of you are as interchangeable as Saigon and mammoth.


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



Can you show where I made that claim socko? You keep on claiming I said it, yet you can't point to where or when... But we can point to many posts where you claimed life came from CO2..

LOL, carbon based life shit-head. Not CO2-based life. A carbon cycle numbnuts... Fake-ass wannabe scientist troll...ROFL


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 8, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yeah, like carbonite, right?  Carbon, carbonite...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

There is no question that Slackerman is unable to keep up with even novice science discussions. That's all right, there are many in the same boat. The difference between him and others is that he has no idea of how far he is behind in what's required. Not even a hint.


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, everytime you open your mouth you say something stupid..

Carbonite... Which one? The explosive? The inorganic anion? The online backup service? Or the fictitious alloy from Star Wars?

Which one moron? DO you even know? Of course not...

Do you have a carbon footprint or a CO2 footprint? Moron tweaker...

You're problem is you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Understand what that means? It means you would rather repeat your stupid claim, than admit you were high and rambling through one of your many tweaks on here...

You are too damn ignorant or too high to know the difference between CO2 and carbon, and certainly too damn ignorant to understand CO2 is created and broken down on this planet constantly. Natural processes within the earths crust and soil, decomposition, burning of various carbon containing matter, oxidization, and many other things, too numerous to count here, all create CO2 or break it down into it's base elements. The only constants in it are the continuation of the processes,and the base elements, Carbon and Oxygen.

CO2 didn't create life on this planet shithead, here Life was created from Carbon, and that life or processes therein created CO2, just as the planet itself created CO2 and still does. Carbon is the constant here not CO2 which is a product thereof...

Now, if you want to pretend you're a scientist, knock yourself out. But at least put a little bit of time and effort into the tale... This is pathetic...


----------



## gslack (Jul 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no question that Slackerman is unable to keep up with even novice science discussions. That's all right, there are many in the same boat. The difference between him and others is that he has no idea of how far he is behind in what's required. Not even a hint.



And which are you this time? You seem confused as to which character you are on here at any given time.. 

IF you had any scientific ability, you would know how ignorant your pal's claim is, and if you were any kind of man with a spine you would be on his ass for the stupidity of it not to mention the fact it wrecks your BS claim about being scientists...

So, no spine, and no knowledge... Sad...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Predicting based on what? *Models??? * Failing models??
> ...



Science, to folks with inadequate science education, is an enigma. They can't imagine the scientific method, so they assume that it is nothing more than politics. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

Of course we are all missing vast amounts of education. Each of us knows only a tiny percentage of what all of us know. That's a fact of life. 

But it's possible to be aware of areas where each of us are more or less expert in. And to figure out, for those fields we are personally not expert in,  who actually knows more, and who, less.

That's the rub for deniers. They have no concept of credibility. They have no tools to distinguish between scientists and politicians. They believe that whoever claims what they want to be true, is closest to right. 

That really is the best definition of pervasive ignorance. And the reason why it is incurable. Learning requires humility. The admission that others have put themselves in a position of superior knowledge, and therefore have earned the right to teach. 

Ego trumps humility.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You truly are an idiot, in every sense of the word.

So tell us, Slackerman, which form of carbon is it that plants use inthe carbon cycle?  Coal, pencils, diamonds, buckyballs, carbon nanotubes? All of them?  Does Miracle Grow have carbon in it to help plants grow big and strong?  Do explain your new carbon cycle.

 Bet ya squirm away when you can't find it on Wikipedia.


----------



## gslack (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...






A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.
> The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere &#8596; biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]



Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...

ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science



> What is the Carbon Cycle?
> Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).
> 
> Sources and Sinks
> Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.



LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that  doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?

CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..

Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Oh, so now you've changed you mind about it, the carbon comes from the CO2, exactly like you said it didn't.

Brilliant.

So how does the CO2 break down, by magic?  It just breaks up into oxygen and coal, diamomds, and pencil lead?  Is that it?  Soil carbon is diamonds, coal and pencil lead?  

So what is soil carbon, and how does it get there?  The soil doesn't just gobble it up, diphead.

Surly you can find soil carbon on Wikipedia too.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.

He's getting warmer.

I'l give you a hint, Slacknuts.

What is photosynthesis?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?



You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful.  I not only understand what a model is, but can detect whether a model works or it doesn't.  There are, of course, models that work.  They work because they are based on hard, empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world.  Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.



PMZ said:


> These are models;
> 
> *F=&#931;(mi*ai)
> 
> ...



Yep, and can you now describe the hard, empirical evidence upon which they are based?



PMZ said:


> Everytime you get in the car, to drive to the store, you use a mental model to get there.



Yes I do; and it is based on hard, real world empirical proof that the roads will lead to where I intend to go.  The roads I intend to follow do in fact pass by the geographical locations I intend to go and if one. or more is experiencing a blockage due to traffic or maintenance, the alternates are also proven to go where they go based on hard, undeniable, unequivocal, emprical, real world proof that if followed, they will take me where I want to go.

Where is the hard, undeniable, unequivocal, empirical real world proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause global climate change?



PMZ said:


> This is a model;



In the most reudementary, and juvenile sense of the word.  If you believe a drawing to be a model, then it is entirely clear why you are unable to grasp that climate models are failures.  



PMZ said:


> Every time you turn on the Weather Channel, to find out if it will be hot this comimg week, you are using a model.



Yes, and have you ever followed the results of those models from day to day and week to week?  Have you ever actually counted the number of successes vs failures in the projections of those models?  Weather is easy compared to climate and yet, weather models fail on a routine basis.  The failure rate of weather models causes me to take thier predictions with a grain of salt and never make hard plans based on their predictions more than 24 hours out and even then with the knowledge that they may well be wrong.  Therefore, when you make the claim that climate models which are trying to model a far more complex system based on even less actual data, and far more assumption than weather models  are accurate, I simply must laugh in your face.



PMZ said:


> And this is the output of a number of complex computer models, based on finite element analysis and physics models, compared to the real world measurents.



Tell me, if they are all based on finite element analyse and physics models, why is there such a wide variance in their output?  If I model a chemical reaction for example, based on real world chemical properties I will get an output that will match what really happens...and if I write 100 models based on that same set of physics, then they will all give me the same output.  If the climate models are based on real world physics, why is their output so varied?  Real world physics is predictable and repeatable..why then so many answers from so many models if they are based on what happens in the real world?



PMZ said:


> And for a model of a system as complex as the global climate, it is exceptional in its accuracy and precision.



Actually they are a joke and the very fact that their output is so varied is evidence that the modellers do not have a very good grasp of what is actually happening in the global climate.  That being the case, why should model output be taken with anything more than a grain of salt and a knowing smile?



PMZ said:


> Vague, abstract, and generalized single statements are the result of a lack of intelligent thought. They are the result of a lazy mind or an intent to be misleading by not backing up one's point with proof and specific examples.



Precisely your problem.  You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase.  You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples?  You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples.  You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.

I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples.  I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions.  Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.



PMZ said:


> Your posts are a model, and miserably poor at that.



My posts are questions that you can not answer....simple as that.  



PMZ said:


> Science, to folks with inadequate science education, is an enigma. They can't imagine the scientific method, so they assume that it is nothing more than politics. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.



Which is precisely why you are all over the board posting this and that when you could simply provide the proof to support your position if it existed.  How many times have you been asked for one bit of hard data to support the claim that x amount of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration will result in x temperature increase?  Clearly you can't provide that information so you run here and there posting this and that in an obvious attempt to cover the fact that you can't provide the proof that you have been asked for.

I am asking questions that you can not answer and in your frustration at being unable to answer, and your embarassment at being caught out as a fraud, you project your inadequacy on me.  Yes, you have an inadequate science education.  If you had an adequate education, you would be asking the same questions as I am.  You would be asking the very questions that you know your opposition can not answer and wondering why they hold their position when they can't answer those very questions.




PMZ said:


> But it's possible to be aware of areas where each of us are more or less expert in. And to figure out, for those fields we are personally not expert in,  who actually knows more, and who, less.



And it is possible, by asking questions to know which areas others are NOT expert in.  You have provided a great deal of information regarding what you don't know in the questions you have not been able to answer and the gyrations you have engaged in in an attempt to deflect attention from your inabilty to answer those very questions.



PMZ said:


> That's the rub for deniers. They have no concept of credibility. They have no tools to distinguish between scientists and politicians. They believe that whoever claims what they want to be true, is closest to right.



The rub is that you start talking crediblity when you can't answer the specific questions, and requests for proof that have been put to you.  Since you can't answer, your credibility is in question and again, you project your issues onto me.



PMZ said:


> Ego trumps humility.



So why not practice what you preach and admit that you can not answer the specific questions or provide the requested proof?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 9, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?
> ...



First I have no trouble standing behind any of my words but some of those that you attribute to me aren't mine.

Second, SS, on many DDs you show up here asking questions that are the scientific equivalent of "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood"? 

We'll never know the degree to which that stems from limited education vs über loyalty to Rush's Cult of Science Deniers, and it really doesn't matter.

On many of those DDs, others, but especially Itfitzme, takes the time to lay out decades of research and data and theory that clearly shows the evidence supporting the conclusion that it is unaffordable to ignore AGW and the least expensive path to the future is to get away from changing the world's climate rather than pay for the consequences of the present path. 

Doers are betting billions on the research, data and theories that Itfitzme has revealed to you and others. Yet you only continue your efforts on behalf of Rush and the other woodchucks of the world.

His patience with your education greatly exceeds mine. I am pragmatic rather than a dedicated teacher. In my estimation you and the rest of the cult have rendered yourself irrelevent to any further discussion, and there are, therefore, infinitely more useful things to do than pull your string that starts the woodchuck rhyme. 

I personally doubt that you'll ever catch up, but that's merely one opinion. I don't plan on any involvement either way.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> First I have no trouble standing behind any of my words but some of those that you attribute to me aren't mine.



Of course you don't.  Clearly you actually believe them.  You can't however provide any proof to support them.



PMZ said:


> Second, SS, on many DDs you show up here asking questions that are the scientific equivalent of "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood"?



If you are making the claim that woodchucks can chuck wood and their chucking is going to cause a global catastrophe, and you want me to believe it, then you had damned well better be able to prove it...not just give me a bunch of correlational data and claim that it is proof when it is not.



PMZ said:


> We'll never know the degree to which that stems from limited education vs über loyalty to Rush's Cult of Science Deniers, and it really doesn't matter.



I don't listen to rush or any other radio personalities.  In fact, the only radio show I listen to regularly is The Prairie Home Companion.  I am asking questions that neither you, nor any of the other warmists seem to be able to answer.  Questions that would seem very basic if the claimed state of climate science is to be believed.



PMZ said:


> On many of those DDs, others, but especially Itfitzme, takes the time to lay out decades of research and data and theory that clearly shows the evidence supporting the conclusion that it is unaffordable to ignore AGW and the least expensive path to the future is to get away from changing the world's climate rather than pay for the consequences of the present path.



Decades of assumptions, fabrications, parallells, guesses, hunches, postulations, inferences, suspicions, suppositions, model output, etc., but not the proof that I have been asking for.  If your claim is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, then you should be able to actually show some proof that it is happening and state how much warming will result from some specific amount of CO2.  



PMZ said:


> Doers are betting billions on the research, data and theories that Itfitzme has revealed to you and others. Yet you only continue your efforts on behalf of Rush and the other woodchucks of the world.



No, dupes are putting billions into failing climate models and claiming that the output of those models is actual data.  It isn't.



PMZ said:


> His patience with your education greatly exceeds mine. I am pragmatic rather than a dedicated teacher. In my estimation you and the rest of the cult have rendered yourself irrelevent to any further discussion, and there are, therefore, infinitely more useful things to do than pull your string that starts the woodchuck rhyme.



Again, the condesention of iditots doesn't bother me so forgive me if I don't break up over yours.  Since you can't actually offer up any proof that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, or even state how much warming should be expected for X amount of CO2, you have essentially two choices.  You can be a grown up and admit that you can't provide any actual proof to support your position, or you can project your frustration, and inability to actually prove your claims onto me.  As we can see, you have chosen the disfunctional alternative.  Hardly a surprise.



PMZ said:


> I personally doubt that you'll ever catch up, but that's merely one opinion. I don't plan on any involvement either way.



I am wondering how far down the toilet climate science must go before people like you realise how far behind the curve you have been for all this time.  It is you, I am afraid, who is in the position of having to catch up.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

Clearly, your inability to distinguish between myself and PMZ makes my point. Your head is a failed model.



 SSDD said:


> You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful. *I not only understand what a model is, but can detect whether a model works or it doesn't. *There are, of course, models that work. *They work because they are based on hard,i empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. *Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.



Your the one with the vague, generalized, and unqualified point of*



			
				 SSDD said:
			
		

> Predicting based on what? Models??? Failing models??
> 
> Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??"



You say nothing about what model, the precision and accuracy of the models.**You simply assume some unstated context. *And as there are no failed models, then there is no way for anyone to guess what you are talking about.

So, if you are going to make*vague, generalized, and unqualified statement, then you should hardly be surprised when the specific, detailed, and qualified reply isn't to your liking. *

And it isn't particularly surprising, given your propensity for*vague, generalized, and unqualified statements, that you should confuse my reply with PMZ. *Obviously, overgeneralization is one of your characteristics, including being unable to distinguish between individuals. *While you rail against failed precision, you fail to live up to your own expectation. *Unable to perform, yourself, you have to bolster your own damaged ego by desperately tearing others down.

In the typical fashion, you begin your post with another vague and unqualified statememt.



 SSDD said:


> You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful.



Clearly your style. *You would do as well to stand in front of the mirror and repeat, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, gosh darned it, people like me." *First, you have to stroke your own ego rather than just get to the point.

Clearly you have no real experience with models. *



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> There are, of course, models that work. *They work because they are based on hard, empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. *Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.



Because anyone that has spent time doing balistic tests, designing a sensitive circuit, or making temperature measurement knows that;

F=ma,*

which includes such wonders as*

x=x0+v0*x+a0*x^2,*
E=m/(2^v^2), and*
p=mv

as well as

V=&#931;(Ri*Ii)

always miss the mark of absolute precision because of friction and thermal noise. *The history of physics is a history of finding a simpified model, that accurately represents the physical process, then further refining the theory to explain the noise. *

And if you don't know this, do some ballistic calculations for your favorite rifle. Take it to the firing range, mount it, and fire 30 rounds into a target set at the rifle's maximum range. *I guarantee that the target will show a random spread as distance. And that error increases as the distance to the target increases and muzzle velocity decreases. I guarantee you won't be able to predicted the precise location of every round.*By your accounting, not only will the ballistics models be a complete failure, so will every gun you own.

If you were paying attention, this model

yi = a+ b*xi+&#949;i

includes the error term, &#949;i.

The map doesn't include the traffic light timing, the hundreds of other automobiles along the way, or predict that child chasing a ball out into the street. * And if you believe that the map precisely predicts your entire trip, allowing you to precisely determine how long it will take to drive to your destination, then you are to busy talking on your cell phone and not paying attention to your surroundings.

Every model has it's level of precision. *And that level is dependent on numerous factors, including random noise, the trade off between calculation effort and expediency, the compexity of the system under investigation, and the level of precision neccesary to achieve the desired goal. No carpentry uses a precision of*0.001", though the tools are certainly available.

And while the weekly weather forcast is provided as a 70% chance of rain, everyone with half a brain, takes an umbrella even though it has a 30% chance of not raining. *And that it didn't rain isn't a failure of predicting weather. *The precision of the prediction is in the statistical level of confidence, a value not presented, because no one cares. Everyone, except wedding planners, are happy with the confidence level that Accuweather has achieved in their models.

The IPCC published results of prediction for future climate change based on the set of models is remarkable given the complexity of the Earth climate.*

And you're just pissed off because you expect summary agreement with your mindlessly vague statements, and you don't get them.

-----

(gslack is fixated on socks, westwall is apparently one of his socks, and he constantly confuses me with PMZ. So SSDD's similar confusion, seems highly suspicious. Either that or they are all similarly stupid. So, perhaps they should all be referred to you as SSDD/gslack/westwall now. *Funny thing about generalization, you really don't know for sure.)


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

SSDD said:
			
		

> Precisely your problem. You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase. You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples. You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.
> 
> I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples. I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions. Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.



You are not required to do anything. *You seem to have appointed yourself some wierd role.

Nor am I required to do anything, another perception of some wierd role you imagine you have.

I posted the contact number and email address for the IPCC. *If you have some issue with the quality of their work, you can take it up with them. *The contact info for your congressman and for the Whitehouse is also readily available online as well. *

And if you find your failure to achieve the authority figure status that you so desperately desire, you can find the number for a qualified mental health professional, in your area, online.

In the mean time, your lack of ability to accept the obvious fact that temp anomoly correlates to CO2;*the fact that CO2 is demonstated to absorb IR radiation; and that, combined these stand as sufficient evidence to predict that further CO2 increase will result in further temp increase within the boundaries of statistical confidence levels, is your own problem. *No one appointed you as designer of the scientific process. *That is something *you learn from science, or go on your merry way, banging your head against doors.

Especially given the bs level of "*You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? ", which is entirely contrary to facts.

And I've learned that anything you post serves as a negatively correlated predictor of the accuracy and precision of climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Clearly, your inability to distinguish between myself and PMZ makes my point. Your head is a failed model.



You are one in the same as evidenced by the unique (in the history of this board) way in which you describe the absorption and emission properties of CO2.  There are other obvious giveaways, but the very unusual, in fact unique wording that you two use is evidence that you are one in the same.



itfitzme said:


> You say nothing about what model, the precision and accuracy of the models.**You simply assume some unstated context. *And as there are no failed models, then there is no way for anyone to guess what you are talking about.



One would think that on this particular thread, when one says "model" one would simply know that one is talking about climate models.  Guess I was wrong.    That makes you either very obtuse, or very stupid.   My vote is for stupid.  And since there are no successful models, it doesn't matter which climate model I reference..it has failed..

The fact that you are apparently unaware of the abject failure of climate models tells me that you are getting your information from your cult leaders rather than from the peer reviewed, published literature.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Models lead to overly confident climate predictions



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




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 76 trillion dollar computer game



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research in essence reveals climate models are not capable of reproducing the observed climate of the past century, much less the future. According to the paper, "few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940," there are "large differences" in the forcings and feedbacks used in various models and that some of these are "unrealistic." In other words, the key inputs and assumptions of the models are not known with reasonable certainty - ergo GIGO. The paper also finds that predicting the range of "future climate change by weighting these models based on their 20th century [performance] is not possible." Translation: climate models are little more than very expensive computer fantasy games that cannot predict the future nor even replicate the past.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Settled science: New paper finds climate models have a 50% consensus on Arctic sea ice



> A paper published today in Climate of Past finds a 50% consensus by climate models on the response of Arctic sea ice to changes in solar radiation during the mid-Holocene. According to the authors, "Approximately one half of the models simulate a decrease in winter sea-ice extent and one half simulates an increase."




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models



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





THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4



> A paper published in the technical newsletter of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment finds that climate models suppress the negative feedback from low clouds, which serve to cool the Earth by reflection of incoming sunlight. The paper notes that cloud feedbacks in computer models are not only uncertain in magnitude, but even in sign (positive or negative). As climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out, a mere 1 to 2% natural variation in cloud cover can alone account for whether there is global warming or global cooling, despite any alleged effects of CO2.




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds IPCC models fail to simulate the most important natural weather patterns



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



And the list could go on and on.  Practically every shred of "proof" you provide as evidence to support your position is the result of a computer model and the peer reviewed literature is saying that the models are no good.



itfitzme said:


> Clearly you have no real experience with models. *



As in everyhing else, you assume wrong.



itfitzme said:


> Because anyone that has spent time doing balistic tests, designing a sensitive circuit, or making temperature measurement knows that;
> 
> F=ma,*
> 
> ...



Once again, your example indicates that you don't know what you are talking about.  None of the formulas you present above can in any way predict the impact point downrange of a bullet.  Oddly enough, you use ballistics as an example and I, myself am a shooter of some renown.

A model is preciely as good as the physics it is based upon and the data which it is given.  I can load 50 rounds of 168 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip .308 win cartriges and be confident that the muzzle velosity of each round will be within 8 feet per second at the muzzle and within 6 feet per second at 100 yards as mesured by a chronograph.

If you are getting a random spread at the target, then you are either a very bad shot, don't know the first thing about reloading, or are unable to calculate for an impact point...or more likely all three.  

With handloaded ammunition I can manage sub MOA accuracy out to 500 yards with my favorite rifle  (Weatherby Vanguard) if I want to take the time to calculate for wind, altitude, humidity and the coriolis effect.  Sub MOA at 500 yards is not, I repeat, NOT a random spread by anyone's definition.



itfitzme said:


> (gslack is fixated on socks, westwall is apparently one of his socks, and he constantly confuses me with PMZ. So SSDD's similar confusion, seems highly suspicious. Either that or they are all similarly stupid. So, perhaps they should all be referred to you as SSDD/gslack/westwall now. *Funny thing about generalization, you really don't know for sure.)



Nah, we just both know that you are one in the same.  You must be very clever to pretend to be two people and not get caught out by using unique terms, like spelling and grammitical, and punctuation errors.  You aren't that clever.

Now again, can you or can't you provide any sort of proof that X amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in X amount of warming?  And can you state how much warming shoud be expected from X amount of atmospheric CO2 increase?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> In the mean time, your lack of ability to accept the obvious fact that temp anomoly correlates to CO2;*the fact that CO2 is demonstated to absorb IR radiation; and that, combined these stand as sufficient evidence to predict that further CO2 increase will result in further temp increase within the boundaries of statistical confidence levels, is your own problem. *No one appointed you as designer of the scientific process. *That is something *you learn from science, or go on your merry way, banging your head against doors.



The fact that the temp anomoly corelates to CO2 is answered by the fact that warming oceans outgas CO2.  The fact that CO2 absorbs IR and then immediately emits it at a slightly lower wavelength in no way suggests that it can cause the atmosphere to warm.  In fact, it suggests a cooling effect since the non "greenhouse" gasses are unable to transport IR which would leave convection and conduction to carry the entire load, it stands to reason that an atmosphere with no "greenhouse" gasses would be warmer.



itfitzme said:


> And I've learned that anything you post serves as a negatively correlated predictor of the accuracy and precision of climate science.



There is no accuracy or prescion in climate science as evidenced by the fact that you can not state how much warming should occur if atmospheric CO2 raises from x to y.  I could certainly tell you how much warming should occur if a given volume of a given gas were compressed from x psi to y psi...that is because the ideal gas laws are actual physics and predict what will happen in the real world.  

There are no answers for the questions I ask because if climate science actually answered them based on thier assumptions regarding atmospheric physics, they would have to finally admit the hoax when their predictions failed.  They have a great deal of money on the line and it requires an unfalsifable hypothesis.  

Tell me, what woud falsify the AGW hypothesis for you?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The goal of the science denial cult was to slow action towards solutions by keeping the climate science discussion going as long as possible. They were successful for around a decade, and that lost decade will cost the world a fortune, but now it's over. They were successful in saving the current generation some tax money, but the cost to future generations will be much higher than that. 

What we have to do now is the largest project, by far, ever taken on by mankind. It will be pervasive. Nearly everything in our energy infrastructure needs to change 

I believe that key to progress will be the change from a relatively few mega utility scale power plants to a very diverse network of sources designed for very local conditions. Commercial real estate like malls and factories and office buildings will, more and more, include their own sources tailored to the timing of their peak needs, thus reducing distribution capacity. Gas stations will slowly become obsolete, replaced by ubiquitous charging stations. City cars will replace the behemoths that we're used to. Hybrids will be the basis of long distance cars which will more and more become rentals as people move away from owning all purpose vehicles. The last transportation sector to move from fossil fuels will be aircraft. Heavy ground transportation will become CNG powered. Rail will become the favored mode for long distance heavy transport. 

We will learn from Europe and Asia about mass transportation. 

More fossil fuels will be used for feed stock rather than being burned for energy. 

Some people believe that there are viable CO2 sequestration technologies coming for the remaining utility scale fossil fuel plants that will be required. Maybe. 

Ships may return to wind assisted, using rigid airfoil "sails". 

In the end, the productivity of the world will be focused on re-energizing civilization rather than more and more stuff. Lots of jobs. Lots of new technology. 

In addition to all of that work, will be the job of adapting civilization to the weather patterns that the new climate that we are creating and will unavoidably keep changing. Sea walls for cities and substantially different agricultural technology and high wind proofing large segments of current population centers.

The future will not be for the unimaginative nor the faint hearted. Not for those who long for the simple past. Not for the Lone Rangers and loose cannons and mavericks. Their day is done. 

The future is for the dreamers and doers, the renascence of the Industrial Revolution but this time the Energy Revolution.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 9, 2013)

The early 1900's saw an explosion in agricultural efficiency. *The combination of both advancements in mechanization, fuels, and biotechnology has allowed agricultural output and population to increase substantially. *

Year * *%agUSemp * *US pop * * * World pop
1900 * * 36% * * * * *76 million * *1.6 billion
2000 * * *3% * * * * 281 million * *6.1 billion





EPA GHG BY SECTOR

Does the planet and climate have a negative feedback that limits temperature? *You bet.*The big negative feedback mechanism is the effect of fossil fuel dependency affecting the very climate that agriculture is dependent upon.






Like a person with a fever, the Earth's rising temperature will kill the organism that has infected it.

"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus."- Agent Smith - The Matrix






The only question is if the human race is a virus, as Agent Smith suggest. *Personnally, I believe, most people are symbiotic, a smaller percentage are viruses.

The question, you must ask, is; "Which are you?"

Global Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA


----------



## gslack (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No change scumbag, you are lying is all.... Not a shock it's your MO after all...

Notice the carbon in the soil? Of course not you're a liar and a troll..

Thanks for wasting peoples time.. You're a liar, a troll, and a sock, with no intention of anything but trolling...

The fact you dismiss articles from wikki as well as the NOAA as if they don't mean anything, shows not only how dishonest you are, but how you are nothing but a useless troll..


----------



## gslack (Jul 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.
> 
> He's getting warmer.
> 
> ...



It's not helping you attacking people as two seperate names on here when both are this stupid and this bad at lying socko..

You're trolling for effect and socking you will get busted eventually..


----------



## IanC (Jul 10, 2013)

it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.

climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.

CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.


----------



## gslack (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.
> 
> He's getting warmer.
> 
> ...



Stop already idiot... You are trying to claim CO2 created life. When we and all the rest of the world now for a fact CARBON is the basis of life on this planet, not CO2...

Don't like it? Like your theory better? Fine get your theory published and take your shot. The fact that two of (or one as two) and ONLY TWO of you make the claim, and the entire scientific world states it's a carbon cycle and and not a CO2 cycle, should give you a clue to  shut up and stop trying to pretend you're a scientist when you are preaching anti-science..

You and your pal (you let's be real) are busted again being stupid and claiming brilliance, when you clearly are nothing of the kind..

You or your pal got caught talking out your ass again, making a big, bold, and utterly nonsensical and ridiculous claim and I called you on it. Now your defense is to deny the entire scientific world?

ROFL, pathetic.. You're done, you're a nobody playing big on a web forum just like the last several times you tried to play big on here.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

IanC said:


> climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.



If by "useful tool" you mean a means of determining exactly how much we don't know about the mechanisms that control the climate, then I agree with you 100%.  Because climate change is about politics and not science, climate models can provide the forecasts that political hacks need in order to fuel their doom and gloom senarios.  They have put models in a position where they are, indeed, either right or wrong and as we can all see, they are wrong.



IanC said:


> CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.



It is good that you don't think the magic is as powerful as warmist goofs such as found on this boar, but it is unfortunate that you believe in the magic at all.  When the physics used in the present climate models are put to the test on other planets, the output isn't even close which is a pretty good indication that the physics in use in the climate models aren't even close.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.
> ...



He doesn't understand chemistry well enough to grasp that CO2 came after carbon.  It is interesting to watch the mental gymnasitcs and gyrations he will go through in an attempt to defelect attention from the fact that he made a very basic error...one that someone with a clue wouldn't.


----------



## IanC (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.
> ...





Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.


----------



## gslack (Jul 10, 2013)

IanC said:


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



LOL, what's stupid is worshiping a half-ass "scientist" like you do. Spencer the scientist you worship, wastes so much effort trying to defend something that is as scientifically unsound as believing in the tooth fairy, I don't see how he is respected at all any more..

He wants to peddle his own books and his website, and his career has been made on GH theory, so he plays the safe route and condemns the extreme claims yet defends the pseudo-science behind it. He's an opportunistic save-ass..

Whenever you are tested on the theory, you run away or play dumb in that childish way we have all come to know too well on here. The "what do you mean" act, or the sarcastic asshole shtick.. You're a coward on it Ian, and that's been shown time and again. You are literally one-step away from being a warmer. Why not just take the plunge and get it over with? You spend more time defending the warmer position anyway..

Why bother? You are a warmer.. You just lack the balls to say so and come out with it. You don't want to risk anything, can't afford to be wrong so you take the middle ground... Where the cowards live...

Man up Ian, quit pussy-footing around and pick a damn side already.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

IanC said:


> Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.



There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis,  demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look.  He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics.  Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected.  Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals?  Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table.  

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

IanC said:


> it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.
> 
> climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.
> 
> CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.



"climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty."

Their only useful function is predicting the future with adequate certainty so that we can change the costly path that we've put ourselves on. 

The science isn't really the point. The future is. The science is merely the way to test the weather effects of various sustainable energy strategies and technologies to see which gives the most bang for the buck. 

The science has demonstrated, adequately to the vast majority of doers, that doing nothing is unaffordable. Given that, what sequence and strategy of technological solutions gets us out of the Dodge City that we've inadvertently put ourselves in, and on to a sustainable future. 

While the newly created science of climatology will now forever be a key field of study, it's done what is needed for now, and handed over the adequate models to energy engineering.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Their only useful function is predicting the future with adequate certainty so that we can change the costly path that we've put ourselves on.



And in that, they have failed miserably.  Hell they can't even accurately hindcast the past, much less be relied on to predict the future.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

IanC said:


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




"It is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate."

Or, in other words, it's as ridiculous to claim that CO2 has no significant effect on the climate as it is "to claim that CO2 runs the climate".


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Their only useful function is predicting the future with adequate certainty so that we can change the costly path that we've put ourselves on.
> ...



Most of those who do things in order to be part of our future disagree with you. That's why your cult is only part of our past.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.
> ...



"unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting"

You are claiming that the effects of greenhouse gases are not demonstrable in the lab????


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.
> ...



Quantum physics contradicting itself? *It's a wave... no, it's a particle... Oh, wait, it's a wavicle... *No, it is just a particle....

Who could possibly expect quantum physics to contradict itself? *

OMG!!!! *You've uncovered something there, for sure.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.
> ...



As an elective science class, I took one long ago that explored all the different fields of science and gave us rudimentary exposure to each including quantum physics.  Quantum physics is one of those fairly new fields of science--it has been around for only a century or so--that is just beginning to touch on all the possibiities that exist.  

The most the average public ever needs to know about it is that everything in the universe is not an absolute and we cannot depend on what works at global or universal levels to be the same in very limited or microscopic levels and vice versa.   As Einstein put it: "The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks."

But isn't that the case in so many things?   A minute bit of arsenic can be medicine while in larger doses it is poison.  A 'micro' economic system in one homogenous place is disastrous when applied on a much larger scale.   What works for New York City is ridiculous when applied to a Mayberry U.S.A. et al.  A living wage one place is totally inadequate as a living wage another place, etc. etc. etc.

But one thing is for sure.  It is reasonable to believe that climate models using limited data that do not, perhaps cannot, include all the variables that affect the climate of planet Earth or any other planet are piss poor tools to use in establishling global policy and planning global economy.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



"It is reasonable to believe that climate models using limited data that do not, perhaps cannot, include all the variables that affect the climate of planet Earth or any other planet are piss poor tools to use in establishling global policy and planning global economy"

Said in other words, "ignorance is bliss".

Perhaps. Sometimes. 

Fortunately for us, the doers of the world take a different stand akin to, don't wait for perfection or absolute understanding. The money/improvement potential business is risky. Don't be the first or last to act on probability. 

As I pointed out earlier, there are some folks who have waited 2400 years to be certain our earth is spheroidal. It's a good thing that nobody counts on them for anything. 

Similarly, nobody counts on science deniers in other fields for anything. We expect them to be carried across the finish line on the backs of doers. As has always happened. 

Perfectly safe is sorry.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



However the wave/particle duality is merely useful. It works, and much progress has been with no more rigorous knowledge. Someday, probably, we'll make the leap in knowledge that reveals to us something more rigorous. How exciting. In the meantime, we make maximum progress based on what is a satisfactory model of what's yet to be fully understood.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Yes I am.  When I ask for hard proof, experimental evidence would fall within that purview.  Here is your big chance to go out and get something that you believe constitutes  "evidence" and further prove that you don't have a grasp of the science.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



In what bizarro world is a ate of failing models satisfactory


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








No, it's a simple fact.  Using your methods, the State of California has had thousands of fresh water wells polluted because you decided to fire before you aimed.  Do you really want to do the same thing again?

Are you so determined to do something, anything, that the potentially destructive impacts of your policies don't matter to you?  Do you simply not care that your policies have already been proven to be harmful to the environment and you still wish to continue with your provably faulty methods?

Is that it?  Destroy the current petrol based economies of the world and after the bodies have been buried try and pick up the pieces?


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Only in the corporate world of the climate fraud.  Just take a look at who's pushing it.  Big Oil is behind it as are the insurance companies.  They get to make loads of cash for nothing.  No risk, no cost to the Big Oil companies they get to pass whatever government costs there are on to us and they get to shave a little bit off of the top.  It's the perfect scam.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Take a container transparent To IR.
Fill it with greenhouse gas.
Shine an IR laser through it.
Measure the light reflected and transmitted. What's left will be the light absorbed. 
Ask a physicist what happens when materials absorb energy.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



How does big oil and big insurance make money from less demand for fossil fuels?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them. 

That's why smart people learn about the natural world from scientists and morons learn about the natural world from political pundits.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Tell us about the connection between GHGs and fresh water wells in California?


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







Insurance companies get to make money for nothing based on the climate fraud.  Look at all those disasters that have been attributed to a non entity.  They get to charge you money for your premiums and they have zero risk.  It's an insurance mans wet dream.

Big Oil is heavily invested in the green tech.  I thought you were up on these things?  Big Oil has been pumping money into the various wind and solar companies and getting a nice tax break from the various governments...paid for by the little guy rate payers mind you.  The demand for oil will never abate.  If the EV technology gets to the point where it can supplant fossil fuels then the oil will be used for the manufacture of plastics and other more useful things like that.

It is a shame that a commodity like oil is used to power our vehicles.  It truly is.  It has so many more useful uses.  Unfortunately it is STILL the most efficient method of powering our economy.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







There is none.  Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California.  MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists.  You're not very good at this are you...


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Untrue.  A good model yes, the problem is there is not one good climate computer model.  Not one.  They are all simplistic trying to model exceptionally complex systems.  They were doomed to fail and have done nothing but fail since they were created.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

To Westwall, a good climate model would be one that demonstrates that the guess that was made a couple of decades ago by political entertainers, based on zero knowledge, had turned out to be correct. 

To date, no climate theories or models or data support what he wants to be true, in order for him to not look ignorant, so they have failed him.

I agree that they have failed him. 

Who they haven't failed is, pretty much, the rest of the world. The theories and models and data show that there is a big price to be paid for our unrestrained use of fossil fuels. Deaths and damage from extreme weather made more likely by energy imbalance in the atmosphere that warms the earth. 

So, with that knowledge, we can make good decisions to minimize the real cost of our future energy. 

Good for us. Bad for him. Intolerable to those who feel entitled. 

I think that the proper name for such unproductive noise is whining. 

So, this conflict between the doers and whiners, between those who work at progress and those who feel entitled, will go on.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



What contaminated the groundwater was our addiction to fossil fuel fired traveling McMansions. 

One of the choices required by that ridiculousness was between lead, and MTBE and ethanol. 

The solution is well designed hybrids for now going to electrics.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



I have had insurance on my stuff since long before AGW was proven. 

I have a Prius. It's available because auto engineers ignored people like you and payed attention to climate science. The bottom line? Big oil is losing money on people like me. I hope to soon put our military out of the business of defending our oil supplies. The new CAFE standards will give many more people the chance to save on transportation costs.

All because nobody is paying attention any more to your incessant whining.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Vague bs.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



So what is the unacceptable level of MTBEs in ground water and how did it get there?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



If I ask a physicist what happens when materials absorb energy, a good physicist before answering will first ask how much of the energy that was absorbed gets emitted.  If the answer is all of it, then the physicist will tell me that nothing happens.  You are a know nothing idiot.  Look at the emission spectra of CO2.  It is the opposite of the absorption spectra which indicates that it doesn't hold on to any of what it absorbs.

Professor Woods disproved that quaint bit of 19th century pseudoscience  shortly after it was introduced.   Feel free to try again.  There is a certain entertainment value in your public exhibition of ignorance.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



You are still having difficulty with that absorbed/re-emitted and reflected/transmitted thing.  This is why you can't be a Wikipedia scientist.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them.
> 
> That's why smart people learn about the natural world from scientists and morons learn about the natural world from political pundits.



The fact remains that climate models have failed miserably.  That is due to the fact that they are not based on real world physics.  They are based in wishful thinking, assumptions, fabrications and outright fraud.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> [
> 
> Vague bs.



Only to a know nothing idiot.  To those who actually take the time to learn something, a factual statement.  How much more peer reviewed material do you need stating explicitly that climate models are failures?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You are still having difficulty with that absorbed/re-emitted and reflected/transmitted thing.  This is why you can't be a Wikipedia scientist.



Sorry, but it is you who is having problems.  CO2 immediately emits the IR it absorbs.  It does not have the capacity to hold on to even the smallest amount of IR.  Feel free to keep trying.  Like I said, very intertaining.  

By the way, your idiot experiment is done in a closed system.   You will see a temperature rise in your container, but it is due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...look it up.  

If you put an outlet valve on top of your container so that the pressure within doesn't increase as you add IR, you will not see a temperature rise.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> To Westwall, a good climate model would be one that demonstrates that the guess that was made a couple of decades ago by political entertainers, based on zero knowledge, had turned out to be correct.
> 
> To date, no climate theories or models or data support what he wants to be true, in order for him to not look ignorant, so they have failed him.
> 
> ...







Unfortunately for you not one of your computer models has ever predicted anything.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



The absorption of energy puts the molecule at a higher energy state. What happens after that depends on the environment the molecule finds itself in. In a typical atmospheric environment, the energy does get re-emitted in all directions, half of it down. That's why the earth has to go to an elevated temperature to rebalance incoming solar energy. No matter how hard you try to sell the opposite, energy is conserved. 

I don't know Professor Woods, but he doesn't sound any smarter than you do.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Provably wrong.  Lead was removed years before MTBE was ever added to the gasoline.  Ethanol is a fucking joke.  MORE CO2 is created in its manufacture than is the result of oil cracking and fuel and other POL consumption.  You are simply, catastrophically wrong.

A TDI gets better fuel mileage than a hybrid.  By a lot.  It is also far less damaging to the environment to manufacture.  Provably so.

You're batting .000.  Time to get a pinch hitter 'cause you suck.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > To Westwall, a good climate model would be one that demonstrates that the guess that was made a couple of decades ago by political entertainers, based on zero knowledge, had turned out to be correct.
> ...



They predicted what's been measured. They didn't predict what you wish was true so that you might be mistaken for informed. Nothing has predicted, measured, or theorized that except for you and your homies.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








  You and your clones are here incessantly trying to bury what I and the others have to say.  You want a whiner?  Look in the mirror Tojo!


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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








Yes.  I am amazed that AGW supporters have been able to thrive for as long as they have with the vague BS they have been spouting for years.  That's why you and your clones are here trying to bury what we have to say.



*You will fail.*


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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







Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous.  And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good.  You idiots are all alike.  Ready, Fire, Aim.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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






No, they havn't.  In fact they have been so catastrophically wrong that the last 15 year period of no rise in temps has completely flustered your High Priests.  It seems they are not very good at their job and had to resort to lying.  Unfortunately for them they got caught....because..........well you see they aren't that smart.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



From Wkipedia on tetra ethyl lead:

"In most industrialised countries, a phaseout of TEL from motor fuels was completed by the early 2000s because of concerns over air and soil lead levels and the accumulative neurotoxicity of lead. Leaded fuel also spoils catalytic converters, which were introduced in the 1970s to meet tightening emissions regulations. The need for TEL was lessened by several advances in automotive engineering and petroleum chemistry. Safer methods for making higher octane blending stocks such as reformate and iso-octane reduced the need to rely on TEL, as did other antiknock additives of varying toxicity including metallic compounds such as MMT; oxygenates including MTBE, TAME, and ETBE."

 A TDI gets better gas mileage than a hybrid except in an actual car driven on a real road. The higher cost in the US of diesel fuel negates any advantage it has over even non-hybrids. 

Keep swinging hotshot. Statistics dictate that you'll connect by accident someday.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them.
> ...



They have failed you miserably because you have failed miserably understanding science. They have supported qualified scientists and visa versa.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

So this assembler asks me a question, and I tell him the answer. *He is stunned. *"I just asked the design engineer the same question," he says, "and he said exactly what you said." *"Of course he did," I replied, "That's because it's science and engineering. *There is only one answer, the right one, and we both studied engineering."

It's not a matter of opinion, dude. *Your task is to learn the science, the correct science, not some made up bs you found on some conspiracy theory website. This is why colleges have to be accredited. *So people don't waste their precious time and money learning some crackpot bs.*  And so when some exec hires a couple of degreed engineers, he knows they didn't study some crackpot bs.

Would you want your doctor getting his medical degree from some crackpot university and perscribing you eye of newt for your herpies?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



How much, exactly, in ppm.  A number, numbnuts.  And detail the mechanism by which it got there.  Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The absorption of energy puts the molecule at a higher energy state. What happens after that depends on the environment the molecule finds itself in. In a typical atmospheric environment, the energy does get re-emitted in all directions, half of it down. That's why the earth has to go to an elevated temperature to rebalance incoming solar energy. No matter how hard you try to sell the opposite, energy is conserved.



What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about energy moving from a higher entropy  state (the atmosphere) to a lower entropy state (the surface of the earth)?

If you don't understand that question then what does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about energy moving from a low temperature area (the atmosphere) to a higher temperature area (the surface of the earth)?



PMZ said:


> I don't know Professor Woods, but he doesn't sound any smarter than you do.



Of course you don't.  They don't give out such information over at skeptical science.  Wouldn't want to be tempting the faithful.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> They have failed you miserably because you have failed miserably understanding science. They have supported qualified scientists and visa versa.



The more the hoax breaks down, the more we see who the real deniers are.  

Here are the models vs reality:  As you can see, they have completely diverged from reality.  Only a true denier would attempt to defend the obvious failure of climate models in favor of direct observation.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



You have difficulty with the concepts of accuracy, precision, statistcal significance, and confidence level.  You really need to stay away from science.

I'd recommend that you avoid the fields of insurance, economics, and finance as well.  Avoid the casinos, that'll drive you nuts.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Which part of "ANY" is it that you don't understand?  You seem to have a perpetual problem with the meanings of words.  Here, have a definition....on the house.

any - adj. - in whatever quantity or number, great or small


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You have difficulty with the concepts of accuracy, precision, statistcal significance, and confidence level.  You really need to stay away from science.



Clearly and undeniably it is you who has problems with those concepts since you are still trying to defend climate models when they have diverged completely away from observation for more than 8 years even with constant tweaking.






You are laughable...and pitiful.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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









Sure thing Tojo.  I see your understanding of cars is as poor as your scientific acumen.


53/46 Toyota Prius c  
51/48 Toyota Prius Liftback  
47/47 Ford C-Max Hybrid  
44/44 Honda Civic Hybrid  
43/40 Lexus CT200h  
42/48 Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid  
41/36 Ford Fusion Hybrid  
35/40 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 




"58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI

Herndon, VA  The most fuel efficient car across North America is not a hybrid. Its a diesel. A Volkswagen Jetta TDI Clean Diesel, to be exact. Making its way across the nation and into a world records, a Jetta TDI recently achieved 58.82 MPG during a successful 9,419 mile bid for the lowest fuel consumption across the Continental United States. Despite being officially rated at just 30 MPG city and 41 MPG highway by the EPA, the Jetta TDI managed a whopping 14 percent improvement over the previous record of 51.58 MPG.

Set under real world conditions with a completely stocked Jetta TDI, the record attempt began on September 5, 2008, in Washington D.C., and passed through (take a deep breath): New York, NY; Rutland, VT; Toledo, OH; Des Moines, IA; Spearfish, SD; Missoula, MT; Winnemucca, NV; Santa Monica, CA; Durango, CO; Oklahoma City, OK; Mount Vernon, IL; and Ponchatoula, LA; before finishing up 20 days later and 11.04 tanks of fuel lighter in Beckley, WV. The world record was achieved using simple driving techniques that maximized the already exceptionally efficient TDI engine. Despite the less than ideal weather conditions, varied terrain and frequent traffic congestion, the entire journeys fuel cost came in at a paltry $653, with the Jetta TDI Clean Diesels average consumption costing just 6.9 cents per mile.



58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI - TDI Truth & Dare - VW.com - Think Blue - VW.com


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > They have failed you miserably because you have failed miserably understanding science. They have supported qualified scientists and visa versa.
> ...



Problem is you have to lie to demonstrate anything.

A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature « Roy Spencer, PhD

"A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature

And, yes, you can try this at home.

I put together a simple surface energy balance model in an Excel spreadsheet so people can play around with the inputs. It computes the time changing surface temperature for any combination of: *

1) absorbed sunlight (nominally 161 W/m2)
2) ocean mixed layer depth (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
3) initial temperature of the ocean mixed layer (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
4) atmospheric IR transmittance (yes, you can set it to 1 if you are carrying your sky dragon slayer [SDS] ID card)
5) effective temperature of downwelling sky radiation (nominally 283 K, but in effect becomes zero if transmittance=1)
6) surface convective heat loss (nominally 97 W/m2)"

And the output is;






So even your Dr. Roy Spencer has a model, not a good one though.

The BS you put up isn't a comparison of global mean temps to global measured data. *It is balloon data and selected satellite data.  And who knows what the other shit is.  It sure isn't what is published, by the IPCC, as their model output.

This is the IPCC model outputs compared to the real data.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > You have difficulty with the concepts of accuracy, precision, statistcal significance, and confidence level.  You really need to stay away from science.
> ...




Problem is you have to lie to demonstrate anything.

A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature « Roy Spencer, PhD

"A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature

And, yes, you can try this at home.

I put together a simple surface energy balance model in an Excel spreadsheet so people can play around with the inputs. It computes the time changing surface temperature for any combination of: *

1) absorbed sunlight (nominally 161 W/m2)
2) ocean mixed layer depth (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
3) initial temperature of the ocean mixed layer (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
4) atmospheric IR transmittance (yes, you can set it to 1 if you are carrying your sky dragon slayer [SDS] ID card)
5) effective temperature of downwelling sky radiation (nominally 283 K, but in effect becomes zero if transmittance=1)
6) surface convective heat loss (nominally 97 W/m2)"

And the output is;






So even your Dr. Roy Spencer has a model, not a good one though.

The BS you put up isn't a comparison of global mean temps to global measured data. *It is balloon data.

This is the IPCC model outputs compared to the real data.






I shouldn't accuse younof lying. Perhaps you are just to stupid to know how to read a graph.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2013)

Roy's model failed just like all the rest.  It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.

The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...






Ohhhhh, so NOW you want specific numbers eh numbskull  Well here you go and it is in parts per BILLION, not million....idjit.


5. Three-quarters of Californias surface water reservoirs have no detectable or less than 5ppb MTBE. About 10% are above 14ppb. The California State standard is 35ppb maximum but will be reduced to 5ppb.

The mechanism was it was added to fuel.  It was burned in cars.  It ate its way through underground fuel tanks, it was washed into the storm drains, it was, in other words, a full out assault by you idjits on the water supply of California...


Fuels and Society i. MTBE in Water


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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







Yes, I do have a problem with your methods, because you HAVE NO STANDARDS.  For a scientist that is a *HUGE* issue.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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








The new AGW mantra should be Simple Equals WRONG.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Roy's model failed just like all the rest.  It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.
> 
> The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.







Actually it become more evident he is a mindless, unthinking drone.  He couldn't figure out 2+2 without a calculator.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Just want to be clear. *So 300ppm or 400ppm would be to much than...

You might want to review

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

because, according to you, it's just a little bit.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Roy's model failed just like all the rest.  It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.
> 
> The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.



Then why are you posting bs models from Dr Roy's website?

*http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png*






That is from Dr. Roy's website... It's his graph, selected balloon and selected satellite data, from Dr, Roy.

You can just keep on pretending all you want.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > You are still having difficulty with that absorbed/re-emitted and reflected/transmitted thing.  This is why you can't be a Wikipedia scientist.
> ...



You are laughably inept on the ideal gas law. Try Wikipedia.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Are you aware that this is not 2008?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yes, dipshit, a part per BILLION is LESS than a part per MILLION.

1/1,000,000,000 is less than 1/1,000,000.

So you are clear;

1/1,000,000,000=0.000000001

1/1,000,000 =0.000001

0.000000001<0.000001

See how that works?

Now, review

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

because, according to you, it's just a little bit.

It is less than a little bit. It is 1,000 times less.

This is why you need to leave the science to people that

*Know how to do math*

and can spell, "idjit".


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The absorption of energy puts the molecule at a higher energy state. What happens after that depends on the environment the molecule finds itself in. In a typical atmospheric environment, the energy does get re-emitted in all directions, half of it down. That's why the earth has to go to an elevated temperature to rebalance incoming solar energy. No matter how hard you try to sell the opposite, energy is conserved.
> ...



Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in. 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals in net heat flow. 

You've potentially learned a lot today. We'll see how much of it is still there tomorrow.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



it's a carcinogen only in large quantities.

From Wikipedia.

"As of 2007, researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingestion of MTBE. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that available data are inadequate to quantify health risks of MTBE at low exposure levels in drinking water, but that the data support the conclusion that MTBE is a potential human carcinogen at high doses.[13]"


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Next, please teach him his letters.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Yes, I am.  Hybrids have stayed stagnant and now VW has a TDI with an 80 mpg rating.

I suggest you get a copy of Top Gear magazine and take a look at the vehicle stats they publish at the back of every issue!


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...







Ohhhh, did da poor wittle troll get it feewings hurt?   I said ANY amount of MTBE was too much nimrod.  What part of ANY can't you understand?  You and PMZ are absolute hoots!  A better pair of idjits for us to humiliate would be hard to imagine...and for that we THANK YOU!


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









They havn't tested it enough to know.

"CONTACT: Bill Walker, (510) 444-0973 x301; EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 11, 2005
 WASHINGTON, July 11  A EPA draft risk assessment says MTBE, the gasoline additive that has contaminated drinking water in at least 29 states, is a "likely" human carcinogen, according to agency sources.

 An EPA official who reviewed an earlier version of the document told Environmental Working Group (EWG) that the risk assessment's most notable finding for the first time links MTBE to cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, with toxicological endpoints similar to known carcinogens such as benzene and butadiene. Previously, EPA had classified MTBE as a "possible" cause of cancer, and concerns about contamination centered on the fact that in small doses its foul stench renders water undrinkable.

 The EPA official said the document's authors completed their draft more than a year ago. It has been circulating within the agency for review and has already been approved by the Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Assessment. Once all EPA divisions have signed off on it, it must still go through external review."


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I TYPED LOUD SO YOU COULD HEAR IT OVER THE NOISE IN YOUR HEAD.

Give it up dude, we all know you are an idiot that thinks ppb is more than ppm.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 10, 2013)

westwall said:


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



First of all hybrids haven't stayed stagnant and second of all the VW TDI that you bring up is one that they plan to make some day.

Volkswagen prepares to build the world's most fuel efficient production car


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 10, 2013)

Walleyed thinks ppb is more than ppm.
Slacksack thinks plants need coal in the soil to grow.
SSaDhD uses Dr. Roy balloon graphs and plays them off as IPCC models.
Oddballsack was all for Dr. Roy till I pointed out that Dr. Roy uses models. The best he's got is repeating "It's stupid."
And Flatulance is busy cherrypicking data because he is clueless how stats works.

They are just a desperate bunch without a coherent idea between them.

And they can't tell the weather outside their sldoor


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Sure thing Bozo....Not too current are ya!


"84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI

John and Helen Taylor really know how to stretch a tank of gas. The couple squeezed 1,626 miles out of one tank of diesel fuel in a Volkswagen Passat TDI, breaking previous records.

During a three-day trip, the couple set out to beat the previous record for the most miles covered on a single tank of diesel: 1,526.6 by a VW Passat diesel in Europe.

The Taylors left Houston on May 3 in a 2012 Passat TDI with a manual transmission and ran out of fuel three days and nine states later in Sterling, Va.

Before the drive, the speedometer and odometer were calibrated by a state-certified testing facility. The Houston Police Department oversaw the initial fuel fill-up and sealed the gas tank at the beginning of the drive. At the end, a Loudoun County, Va., sheriff's deputy verified the ending mileage and removed the fuel-tank seal. The result was a whopping 84.1 mpg; the Passat TDI is EPA-rated at 31/43 mpg city/highway.

According to Volkswagen, the couple aimed to simulate real-world driving conditions and loaded the car with 120 pounds of luggage, drove in daytime traffic, took turns at the wheel and didnt spend more than 14 hours on the road each day.

But the Taylors aren't strangers to mileage challenges: They've made a career out of driving efficiently and conducting workshops on fuel-efficient driving techniques. They hold more than 90 world fuel-economy and vehicle-related records."



84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI - KickingTires


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Walleyed thinks ppb is more than ppm.
> Slacksack thinks plants need coal in the soil to grow.
> SSaDhD uses Dr. Roy balloon graphs and plays them off as IPCC models.
> Oddballsack was all for Dr. Roy till I pointed out that Dr. Roy uses models. The best he's got is repeating "It's stupid."
> ...










Poor poor trollingblunderfraud.  I know it hurts when you make such a complete ass of yourself.  Buck up boy.  We need you to entertain us some more!


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2013)

gslack said:


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





thanks for proving my point in #1780


> it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.



I already did 'man up'. I choose the truth, to the best I can determine it by the available evidence, not by affiliation to any group or mindset.

Feynman is the only scientist that I 'worship'. Spencer has been handing the Slayers their asses for years. equilibrium temperature is a function of (input) minus (output). change either side and you change the temp, it's as simple as that.

unfortunately there are too many boneheads like you around that shit the bed for the real skeptics. CO2 affects the radiative properties of the atmosphere. to paraphrase Lindzen, "trivially true but highly exaggerated". most, but not all, of the IR radiation choked off by the extra CO2 in the lower atmosphere finds other pathways to escape. some goes into raising surface temperature, otherwise that energy would already have been taking alternate paths, equilibriums change flow rates and not necessarily in a linear fashion.

deniers like you are not as dangerous as the exaggerators who want to wreck the world economy by making foolish and expensive decisions that have no hope of working, but you certainly make the honest skeptic's job harder by being such an easy target for scorn. that is why I spend as much time criticizing idiot extremists on your fringe as the idiot extremists on the warmer fringe. real skeptics point out the weakness in CO2 theory, they dont concoct their own bizarre theories that taint the believability and reputation of others on their side.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.
> ...



I am all for supporting new advancements in technology but that means putting money into the hand of people who are capable of using it for developement. the govt seems to invariably find charlatans who are more than happy to take their slice and let the project go bankcrupt.

a lot of warmer policies are akin to buying a thousand dollars worth of insurance for two thousand dollars. expensive and futile.


----------



## gslack (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No Ian you have never manned-up. You fear being wrong. Like spencer and any number of other "scientists" who would rather spread a scientific mystery as explained fact, rather than appear lacking or unknowing. 

The truth is they don't really know what happens at the sub-atomic and atomic levels. They are guessing based on what they can figure out using theoretical mathematics. That's it. They think that some of the energy must flow back to it's source because mathematically it shows it must. They can't prove it, they can't observe the phenomenon well enough to be sure, all they know is according to their current level of understanding and math, it's should be correct.

The theory has not been quantified, yet these idiots push it has fact anyway because their careers depend on it.

If you accept that EM radiation shows properties of BOTH a wave and a particle, the theory falls flat. A wave as shown in many experiments, cannot flow back to it's greater source. It can interfere with it, but cannot fully oppose or flow back against it. A particle on the other hand allows for some lee way in that. And when you add in frequency variance, or phases, you can even make the argument for very limited two-way energy flow. BUT you have to negate the wave-like properties to make the case. 

Even the argument the sock brigade made about "net heat" flow, will not change the issue. Whether you call it "net heat flow" and assume some flows back to it's source, or not the greater heat is still going out, meaning at best the net heat is diffused and not warming the source.

We have been over this time and again, and every time you have to come to the point that you cannot logically argue the theory well enough, so you play dumb and become a sarcastic ass or run away.. Why do you think that is? Why is it when you take the argument as far as you can, you always end up at the same stalemates?

Simple, your theory has holes in it and it's incomplete at best, if not completely false.. Too many unknowns, too many unproven and unverified processes, to even consider it a fact yet..


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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





there is basically zero chance of teaching SSDD anything about the SLoT. he has his Slayer talking points and refuses to discuss anything else. he wont talk about whether the earth/atmosphere is an open or closed system. he wont talk about whether the atomic scale has different rules than the macroscopic scale (actually that is wrong, he believes in Maxwell's Daemon forbidding certain interactions). just try to get an answer out of him to the question of whether or not objects still radiate energy if they are the same temperature as their surroundings. to SSDD photons are just a theory with no evidence, or some such thing.

I wish SSDD wasnt nominally on the skeptics side because he is an embarrassment when he talks about the science, Slayer science.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...





yes, we have been over it a hundred times. equilibrium temperature is based on input (mostly from the sun, temperature invariant) minus output (radiation, convection, latent, which are all temperature dependent). choking off the output warms the surface, not by the energy returning from the atmosphere, but by the radiation that fails to escape in a timely fashion. the same stable input from the sun can result in a wide range of surface temperatures depending on the conditions that affect the output of energy into space. it is a simple concept but totally beyond your ken.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Roy's model failed just like all the rest.  It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.
> ...



Are you really this stupid?  Here is some more peer reviewed material pointing out the dismal failure of the climate models.  I have provided you plenty of peer reviewed papers explicitly stating that climate models are failing spectacularly and you continue to whine and claim that they are accurate.  How slow must you be?

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New article in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models



> An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now:
> 
> "The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive."
> "It's fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested, [modeller] Smith says. We don't really understand at the moment why that is. 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



You suck so badly at this that it has stopped being funny.  You want to compare MTBE to CO2 now.  Once more, volumes of hard, repeatable, observed, data support the danger of MTBE to human beings in ANY quantity.  Lets see one piece of hard, repeatable observed data that supports the same claim of mankinds miniscule contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Again try and learn something.  Once again, the topic is heat of compression.  Must I post a link for you?


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


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





yup, climate models show little skill at predicting the future.

an interesting paper is being discuss over at J Curry's blog-



> Abstract. During a development stage global climate models have their properties adjusted or tuned in various ways to best match the known state of the Earths climate system. These desired properties are observables, such as the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, the global mean temperature, sea ice, clouds and wind fields. The tuning is typically performed by adjusting uncertain, or even non-observable, parameters related to processes not explicitly represented at the model grid resolution. The practice of climate model tuning has seen an increasing level of attention because key model properties, such as climate sensitivity, have been shown to depend on frequently used tuning parameters. Here we provide insights into how climate model tuning is practically done in the case of closing the radiation balance and adjusting the global mean temperature for the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPIESM). We demonstrate that considerable ambiguity exists in the choice of parameters, and present and compare three alternatively tuned, yet plausible configurations of the climate model. The impacts of parameter tuning on climate sensitivity was less than anticipated.


Climate model tuning | Climate Etc.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


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





an interesting perspective, especially if you turn it about. how much does the atmosphere 'puff out' during the day as it absorbs heat from the sun, only to lose it during the night. the virial theorum that describes how kinetic and potential energy are adjusted to have maximum efficiency is an underutilized resource in atmospheric climatology.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.



I asked you a simple question and you apparently find yourself unable to answer.  When someone asks you what the Second Law has to say on the topic of energy moving from one region to another region, the correct response is to state what the second law has to say regarding the movement of energy from one region to another region.  Here, let me help you out....this from the highly respected University of Georgia Physics Department:

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. 

Now, let me ask you an even easier question that doesn't involve you having to actually look up complicated stuff like physical laws.  

What do you think phrases like "not possible" and "will not" mean?  If you need help, with such complex phrases just let me know and I will help you out.



PMZ said:


> The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals in net heat flow.



So you (and a lot of other warmers) say but I have looked and can't find a single credible reference that says that the second law doesn't mean exactly what it says.  It is written in absolute terms...not possible...will not.  

The second law is all about entropy and it states explicitly that energy won't move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy.  Energy in the atmosphere is at a higher state of entropy than energy in the surface of the earth.  Now once again, what does the second law say about the movement of energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

If you like, by all means provide a single repeatable laboratory experiment that demonstrates a two way energy flow in definance of the statement of the Second Law.

And this statement by you is pure sophistry:



> Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.



What does knowing have to do with anything?  Do you think a stone dropped from your hand needs to know which way to move or do the forces of nature simply dictate to it which way it will move and the stone itself is only along for the ride?

Do you think a marble placed on an incline needs to know which way to move when it is released, or do you think the forces of nature simply don't give it any choice in which way to move?

How about water in a stream bed?  Do you think it needs to know which way is downhill?

How about electricity moving down a line?  Do you think those electrons need to know which direction is a higher entropy state or do you think that the forces of nature simply move them along whether the "know" any thing or not?



PMZ said:


> You've potentially learned a lot today. We'll see how much of it is still there tomorrow.



You really are a laugh.  I have asked you simple questions that you can't answer and you claim that there is something that I can learn?  I have learned that you are an idiot...I have learned that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on the topic because you don't have the slightest grasp of the topic.  You will not discuss the topic because it is so far over your head that you don't even know where, or how to begin.  You will pick random phrases that you have read and attempt to fit them into a conversation and end up looking even more foolish than you already do.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> there is basically zero chance of teaching SSDD anything about the SLoT. he has his Slayer talking points and refuses to discuss anything else. he wont talk about whether the earth/atmosphere is an open or closed system. he wont talk about whether the atomic scale has different rules than the macroscopic scale (actually that is wrong, he believes in Maxwell's Daemon forbidding certain interactions). just try to get an answer out of him to the question of whether or not objects still radiate energy if they are the same temperature as their surroundings. to SSDD photons are just a theory with no evidence, or some such thing.



Why tell that lie Ian?  Are you reall not above such dishonesty?  I don't have any slayer statements?  I simply have the second law itself.  What does it say?  Is there a credible reference that makes the statement of the second law in terms of net flow?  Is there a single repeatable experiment that demonstrates net energy flow?  Or does every possible experiment only prove that energy only moves from a low energy state to a higher energy state?

And the earth is an open system.  When have I ever said otherwise or refused to discuss the topic?  You apparently only seem to think that the laws of nature operate in certain systems but we both know that isn't true.

It isn't difficult to find materials that discuss the second law in open systems as well as closed systems.

What is difficult, in fact, impossible, is to find any actual evidence to support your belief in two way energy flow.  Net flow is a matter of faith, not actual evidence.



PMZ said:


> I wish SSDD wasnt nominally on the skeptics side because he is an embarrassment when he talks about the science, Slayer science.



When have I ever talked about slayer science?  I recently suggested you visit Johnson's site to review some of the very fundamental problems with QM although I doubt that you did and when you asked for a more realistic energy budget than trenberth's I pointed you toward Postma's and asked why you objected to it.  You claimed that he didn't provide any nubers but of course he did and you simply drifted away rather than actually say why you prefer trenberth's cartoon to postma's realistic model.  We both know why but lets not say it in public.

As far as my position on an atmospheric thermal effect, that comes from N&Z who to the best of my knowledge, aren't slayers and even if they were, their model still predicts the temperatures of every known planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while trenberth's can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an ad hoc greenhouse effect.

There is no reason to be a liar Ian, so why do it?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> yup, climate models show little skill at predicting the future.
> 
> an interesting paper is being discuss over at J Curry's blog-
> 
> ...



I have been following that one over at her site.  To much truth for folks like ifitzme, pmz, rocks and thunder.  A fundamental truth there Ian, is that the models are wrong because the physics upon which they are based are wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> an interesting perspective, especially if you turn it about. how much does the atmosphere 'puff out' during the day as it absorbs heat from the sun, only to lose it during the night. the virial theorum that describes how kinetic and potential energy are adjusted to have maximum efficiency is an underutilized resource in atmospheric climatology.



Not among those who have gone on past the unfalsifiable, and failed greenhouse hypothesis.  There are actual lab experiments being done that solidly support the work of N&Z and the topic is there, in some depth.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > there is basically zero chance of teaching SSDD anything about the SLoT. he has his Slayer talking points and refuses to discuss anything else. he wont talk about whether the earth/atmosphere is an open or closed system. he wont talk about whether the atomic scale has different rules than the macroscopic scale (actually that is wrong, he believes in Maxwell's Daemon forbidding certain interactions). just try to get an answer out of him to the question of whether or not objects still radiate energy if they are the same temperature as their surroundings. to SSDD photons are just a theory with no evidence, or some such thing.
> ...





the laws of thermodynamics were formulated before we had an understanding of what was going on at the atomic level. they are perfectly correct for systems of large numbers of particles because the laws are statistical in nature. for a single particle they have no meaning. a single particle has no 'temperature'. you also confuse the packets of energy emitted as photons with the properties of particles of mass. photons, once emitted, exist until they interact with a bit of matter, they dont cancel out, they dont have a problem being in the same space as another photon. marbles down inclines, water down river banks, electrons through wires, etc are particles of matter which cannot exist in the same piece of space with other particles. the impact of this difference in properties between photons and mass is that there is two way flow of photons but not two way flow of matter. two objects of the same temp are continuously radiating at each other and absorbing the other's radiation so that there is no _net_ exchange of energy. 

there are other pieces to the thermodynamic laws, such as entropy, but until you come to grips with the basic properties of radiation there is no point in adding more complexity.


Im sorry you are offended by my clumping N&Z together with the Slayers. they are both fringe players in my book and add little to overall understanding because they 'dont play well with others'. especially with actual physicists.


----------



## gslack (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I bolded the backpeddling part..

WTF Ian? You are now claiming that back-radiation doesn't exist? Or is it just more of your waffling? If you are now stating that, wtf was all of your BS before? We stated time and again the extra "warming" claimed in AGW theory does not come from back-radiation from the atmosphere to it's warmer source (the surface warmed by the sun), and that was what set you off every time.. You spent post after post trying to defend backradiation, yet here you are denying it's existence now...

Dude do you even know what you believe on this? Unfreaking believable man.. ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


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



the bolded part...

And they are known as laws now, meaning they have been found correct time and again, and accepted as basic truths... UNLIKE Q&M, string theory, and any number of other theoretical concepts regarding atomic and subatomic behavior and interactions.

Again you mention particles and do not mention waves. Duality, it's part and parcel with QM. There are many examples of QM not gelling with classical physics, yet it's overlooked because it's the best we have right now. Doesn't make it correct in all things and certainly doesn't make it a law. On that basis alone, we can question GH theory, yet not you..LOL How is that? How is it that GH theory is considered fact in the media and by you, when the very theory it relies on isn't a fact?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

Here is a simple two page presentation of planet earth, surrounded by nothing, considering that only radiant energy can come into the closed system, and only radiant energy can leave. And if the two are not equal, there must be dynamics at play which will ultimately result in them being equal. 

Just to set a benchmark, is there anybody who disagrees with this level of detail?

Earth's Energy Budget


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Team Achieves 110 MPG Average In Prius : TreeHugger


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



"most, but not all, of the IR radiation choked off by the extra CO2 in the lower atmosphere finds other pathways to escape."

Long term there is only one way to escape. Be radiated out into space. There is only one way for that to happen. Higher global system temperature. 

"exaggerators who want to wreck the world economy by making foolish and expensive decisions"

What evidence do you have that doing nothing isn't the most expensive alternative?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



"a lot of warmer policies are akin to buying a thousand dollars worth of insurance for two thousand dollars. expensive and futile"

What the heck is a warmer policy?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



The "heat of compression" is an observable consequence of the ideal gas law. As is expansion cooling. As is your little example of letting gas out of a closed container


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


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



It's easy to measure the height of the waves on top of the atmosphere caused by what you call "puffing out". Use a barometer. 

Processes that move energy around the closed system don't change the energy balance and therefore the global average temperature.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.
> ...



The day that I worry about you making me look foolish, I hope is the day that they're planting me in the ground.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> the laws of thermodynamics were formulated before we had an understanding of what was going on at the atomic level.



You say that like you believe that we actually know and fully or even really partialy understand what is going on at the atomic level. That is as silly a statement as ifitzpmz's claim that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature. At this stage in our understanding of what happens at the atomic level, Ian, we are like a bunch of blind men trying to describe what an elephant is.  At the atomic and sub atomic level, we are picking up random bits of glass and trying to describe what they came from.

You put entirely to much faith in the descriptions of those unknowns.  Quantum physics will be rewritten a dozen times in the next century and a half and those decendents of ours will look back on our quaint beliefs with some humor.



IanC said:


> they are perfectly correct for systems of large numbers of particles because the laws are statistical in nature. for a single particle they have no meaning. a single particle has no 'temperature'. you also confuse the packets of energy emitted as photons with the properties of particles of mass. photons, once emitted, exist until they interact with a bit of matter, they dont cancel out, they dont have a problem being in the same space as another photon. marbles down inclines, water down river banks, electrons through wires, etc are particles of matter which cannot exist in the same piece of space with other particles. the impact of this difference in properties between photons and mass is that there is two way flow of photons but not two way flow of matter. two objects of the same temp are continuously radiating at each other and absorbing the other's radiation so that there is no _net_ exchange of energy.



You say those things like they are an article of your faith.  The fact is that you are just guessing since there doesn't exist a single solitary bit of hard, observable, repeatable, experimental evidence to support any of them.  They are the output of computer models written by people who know even less about what is really going on at the atomic level than we know about what drives the climate.  You mistake faith for science...you mistake guesses for facts.



IanC said:


> there are other pieces to the thermodynamic laws, such as entropy, but until you come to grips with the basic properties of radiation there is no point in adding more complexity.



The second law is all about entropy.  Energy doesn't move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.

I will ask you the same question I asked the village idiot....hopefully you can answer.

What does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another?  What does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one temperature region to another?  A statement of the Second Law will suffice which should end the disagreement unless you can provide a statement of the Second Law from a credible reference that supports your beliefs.



IanC said:


> Im sorry you are offended by my clumping N&Z together with the Slayers. they are both fringe players in my book and add little to overall understanding because they 'dont play well with others'. especially with actual physicists.



It is difficult to play well with others when they are in the wrong and you know it and why they are wrong...and being actual physicists they are certainly in a position to look down on climate pseudoscientists.  Then there is the fact that their model works without a greenhouse effect which, at the heart of the matter, is why you despise them.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

gslack said:


> Again you mention particles and do not mention waves. Duality, it's part and parcel with QM. There are many examples of QM not gelling with classical physics, yet it's overlooked because it's the best we have right now. Doesn't make it correct in all things and certainly doesn't make it a law. On that basis alone, we can question GH theory, yet not you..LOL How is that? How is it that GH theory is considered fact in the media and by you, when the very theory it relies on isn't a fact?



He doesn't seem to grasp that duality, and particles and waves for that matter are nothing more than ad hoc constructs that have been devised in an attempt to explain something that at this point in our discovery, we simply don't understand and for which we have no factual explanation.

Till a law is overturned by new knowledge..new facts, and most importantly, new proof, it remains the law.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here is a simple two page presentation of planet earth, surrounded by nothing, considering that only radiant energy can come into the closed system, and only radiant energy can leave. And if the two are not equal, there must be dynamics at play which will ultimately result in them being equal.
> 
> Just to set a benchmark, is there anybody who disagrees with this level of detail?
> 
> Earth's Energy Budget



What you have there is a cartoon which does not, in fact reflect the reality of earth's energy budget any more than Tom and Jerry reflect the reality of the relationship between cats and mice.  You have a crayon drawing of something that vaguely resembles reality....nothing more.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The day that I worry about you making me look foolish, I hope is the day that they're planting me in the ground.



Fools never suspect how foolish they look.  That's part of what makes them fools.

Once again.  What does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another entropy state?  Surely you can answer the question.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Not exactly the same now is it.  Your boys ran over the same flat 15 mile stretch of highway and averaged 29 MPH, over, and over, and over, and over, and over (get it) while the couple in the TDI DROVE the car all over the damned place at normal traffic speeds.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a simple two page presentation of planet earth, surrounded by nothing, considering that only radiant energy can come into the closed system, and only radiant energy can leave. And if the two are not equal, there must be dynamics at play which will ultimately result in them being equal.
> ...



To know that is wrong, you must know that something that contradicts it is more correct. What is it that you believe more accurately reflects the energy flow into and out of system earth!


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


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



So, you believe that one day, a car rated for mid 30s fuel economy, driven by people known  to set mpg records, under normal travel conditions, just happened to get nearly 3X normal mileage? 

Have you always been the easiest guy in any room to fool?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Do you really believe that climate models determine how the earth works instead of vice versa?


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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










Please take a look at what you wrote....NORMAL TRAVEL CONDITIONS.  Yes, they are experts at getting better mileage from a vehicle.  However we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated.  The point is the TDI was driven _*normally*_ and the hybrid WASN'T.

Have you always been this gullible or did you land on your head after a fall?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.
> ...



Here's an idea that I've learned from smart people.

When faced with a question, even if you think that you're right, do some research. 

For instance you could Google keywords like, "radiation from a cool body to a warm body". 

If you did, here is one of the millions of responses that you'd get. 

http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/IRThermometer.pdf

Hmmmmm. "physics.colostate.edu". They ought to know. 

Try some other credible sites. 

And learn. 

Cool stuff.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Do you think that they were just extraordinarily lucky that day?

I have had two Priuses. Both got nearly exactly the EPA mileage. So why would I believe "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated"?

If you use caps when typing "know" does that make your assertions more true?

When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, first, stop digging.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> That is as silly a statement as ifitzpmz's claim that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature.



I never made any such claim. I never even implied such a thing. *That is your own strawman bs, where you want to say that because it isn't all accounted for then it is wrong.

I have said that a linear regression of CO2 to temp anomoly yields

anom=-3.08 + 0.00922 CO2, to a nearly zero p-value and an R^2 of about 76%, for the data set I presented with it.

I have said that the models account for CO2, volcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfates, solar radiation, whatever the following graphic says, and probably other things that we don't even know about.

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields






But we do know that there is inadequate measures of deep ocean and CARVE is currently working on permafrost thawing.

Nowhere have I ever said, "that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature.", or even implied it.

You keep making shit up.  It's a memory issue, apparently. *You can't seem to remember what you read.  You remember what you want to have read.  I doubt that you even recall what you've written, which goes a long ways towards explaining why you're so confused.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That is as silly a statement as ifitzpmz's claim that the models have covered every possible factor that can effect temperature.
> ...



I think reading is the problem. And he admits to getting all confused by colored graphs. Short words and simple sentences seem to be the limit.


----------



## gslack (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Your linked PDF doesn't state any such thing. It's a PDF that asks and answers a question regarding clear or cloudy nights and temperature.

An insulator does not create additional warming. It slows heat loss hence the articles premise... Jesus you guys get dumber and dumber..


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







No, they are just skilled.  You put up some cute hybrid where the guys averaged 29 mph over a flat 15 mile stretch of highway and thought that was the same as a real couple driving a real car on real roads at real speeds.


"I measured Olga's fuel economy in three tests: combined city/highway driving with a normal driving style; combined city/highway driving with an economy-minded driving style; and highway only.

Both combined city/highway tests included an even mix of urban, suburban and interstate trips. In the first, I drove with no regard for economy, operating the vehicle as I do in typical driving and enjoying the occasional acceleration sprint. In the second, I accelerated softly and kept speed down, but otherwise did not employ "hypermiling" techniques. In the highway segment, I kept up with traffic, running the Jetta at 5 to 10 mph above the speed limit, which ranged from 55 mph to 70 mph on my stretch.

Combined, normal driving: EPA Estimate - 34 mpg; Jetta computer display - 34.9 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 36.5 mpg, 7% greater than EPA estimate
Combined, efficient driving: EPA Estimate - 34 mpg; Jetta computer display - 41.7 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 43.7 mpg, 29% greater than EPA estimate
Highway, normal driving: EPA Estimate - 42 mpg; Jetta computer display - 48.0 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 47.5 mpg, 13% greater than EPA estimate
These results are significantly better than the EPA estimates. Plus, the numbers show that economy-minded driving can return nearly ten extra miles for every gallon of diesel fuel, compared with the EPA's estimate."

2011 VW Jetta TDI Test: Real-World Fuel Economy - AutoTrader.com


We bought our Camry Hybrid last year and love the car. However we do not get good city gas mileage. City mileage averages 24 mpg. Highway mileage averages 36 mpg. We baby the car during starts and stops. We have taken the car back to the dealership and they claim everything is working correctly and with additional mileage on the car the mpg will improve. After 7 months it is still exactly the same city mileage.

 Any ideas? 

Low City Mileage - GreenHybrid - Hybrid Cars

Gas Mileage of Hybrid Vehicles

Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid AliceZ January 2010 edited November -1 in Repair and Maintenance Well not really low... but lower than than advertised. My 2008 Civic Hybrid, which I've had for about 4 months, is averaging 35 mpg. I got a tune-up a few weeks ago and since then it's averaged 32 mpg! The service dept. at the dealer can tell me nothing. It's supposed to get 40-45. Anyone know why or, better yet, how it could be improved? I do keep the tires well inflated and I drive pretty cautiously, slow acceleration, etc, to try and maximize mileage, but it doesn't seem to be helping. - See more at: Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid - Car Talk

Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid - Car Talk


Stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life PMZ.  I hope you and your clones get help.    I really do.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> To know that is wrong, you must know that something that contradicts it is more correct. What is it that you believe more accurately reflects the energy flow into and out of system earth!



To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is.

A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude.  A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again.

In short, the models you believe so fervently in are literally models of a flat earth and any model that represents an earth closer to reality would be an improvement.  Are you saying that you really didn't know that the present crop of climate models depict the earth as a flat disk that receives the same amount of solar energy across its entire surface 24 hours a day from a sun that is 4 times further away from the earth than we know it to be?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Do you really believe that climate models determine how the earth works instead of vice versa?



Climate models don't accurately depict how the earth works...that is why they are failing.  The are based on flawed physics...they don't take into account the multitude of factors that drive the climate and they assume that CO2 is the control knob....that is why they are failing.  If they accurately depicted the earth and its systems, then they would not be failing.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's an idea that I've learned from smart people.
> 
> When faced with a question, even if you think that you're right, do some research.
> 
> ...



Interesting as a deflection from the question I asked you, but it doesn't answer it at all.  Let me repeat.

What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics have to say about the movement from one entropy state to another or one temperature region to another.  It isn't that hard, surely you can answer.  You have to be at least that smart....don't you?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

Has Slacksack figured out photosynthesis yet?

I am still looking through the IPCC site for this statement where they say they use 4-5 as a parameter for total global mean radiative forcing in the forward looking predictions.

So far, it comes up as more bullshit.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Has Slacksack figured out photosynthesis yet?
> 
> I am still looking through the IPCC site for this statement where they say they use 4-5 as a parameter for total global mean radiative forcing in the forward looking predictions.
> 
> So far, it comes up as more bullshit.



Why are you dodging so?  Do you really not know what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one entropy state to another?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

gslack said:


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



It answered the question do colder objects radiate energy to warmer objects but, not surprisingly, that went right over your head. 

I have revised my assessment of the human race thanks to you. I now believe that no matter how it's explained, a certain portion of the human race are incapable of understanding AGW. 

The only good news? That's not a problem in doing what has to be done.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


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



I don't know anyone with a Prius who doesn't get the EPA mileage. Based on that, what would be stupid and ignorant of me is to fall for your statement "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated".


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > It hasn't "taken a pause". *It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. *What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2. *
> ...



That's the whole point, that CO2 is the major factor in containing the radiative balance between incoming and outgoing heat. *Otherwise, we'd be living on a big snowball.

And while you are simply saying that you can make up any damn number you like, the IPCC says,







Which assigns a probability distribution to both individual and combined anthropogenic values.

Figure TS.5 - AR4 WGI Technical Summary

It specifically says, " (a) Global mean radiative forcings (RF) and their 90% confidence intervals in 2005 for various agents and mechanisms. "

Because, obviously, a) it is a big globe, b) they change with time as the amount of each component has changed over time, c) few things, in this world, are known with absolute precision, especially when they vary according to instantaneous quantity.

And while they do shorten it from "anthropegenic global mean radiative forcing" to simply "global mean radiative forcing", they explicitly state "The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. Best estimates and uncertainty ranges *can not be obtained by direct addition of individual terms* due to the asymmetric uncertainty ranges for some factors;"

And, if we read the glossary of terms, referenced below, they define it as net ... retative to 1750, which makes hardly the absolute value that you would like to use. *There is nothing wrong with your approach, or the words you are using, it just isn't what the IPCC is using.

The difference is that where they, the IPCC, actually puts numbers to individual components, including a 90% confidence level, you simply hide behind vague generalities and completely misrepresent their models.

So, if you are so sure that it is all accounted for by solar variance, then put some numbers where your mouth is. *Come up with a function for temp vs time with a stable radiative forcing factor, one that accounts for the time varing components, that produces*






from






or whatever more recent data you can come up with.

No one doubts that the global mean temperature is primarily driven by solar irradiation. That is where the energy comes from. *It doesn't come from geothermal energy. This is obvious, and not the issue.

**The issue is that the Earth isn't a snowball in space because the atmosphere holds the heat in. *This is apparent for no other reason than the fact that an overcast night stays warmer than a clear and starry night. (clouds, another contribution not fully accounted for).*And, the temperature has risen more than just TSI can account for. *And that increase is due to increasing CO2, offset and added to by other lesser factors, all of which yields the unmistakable conclusion of AWG.

The question is one of accurately determining why the Earth has a reasonably stable temperature and accurately determining how it varies with solar output, CO2, volcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfates, and whatever other causal factors can be determined so we get a prediction as accurate and precise as






And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;






instead of some vauge statememts of;

" the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5"

Because you may be just pulling 4-5 out of your ass, but the IPCC has a specifically determined value of *"TSI is estimated to be 0.3+/-0.2 Wm-2 for the period of 1750 to the present"*. Unsuprisingly, it has varied over the century, so their generalized summary value simply reports a range, a range that says nothing about, what exact value they use, at what particular time, in which of a dozen individual models, that combinen to produce an overall estmate of the future climate.

"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to *very high confidence* that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been *a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m2*"

and*

" *The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m2*, which is the dominant radiative forcing term and has the highest level of scientific understanding. **In contrast, the total direct aerosol, cloud albedo and surface albedo effects that contribute negative forcings are less well understood and have larger uncertainties.*"

And while they do say,*

"In the TAR, *no estimate of the total combined RF from all anthropogenic forcing agents was given because: a) some of the forcing agents did not have central or best estimates; b) a degree of subjectivity was included in the error estimates; and c) uncertainties associated with the linear additivity assumption and efficacy had not been evaluated.* Some of these limitations still apply. However, methods for objectively adding the RF of individual species have been developed (e.g., Schwartz and Andreae, 1996; Boucher and Haywood, 2001). In addition, as efficacies are now better understood and quantified (see Section 2.8.5), and as the linear additivity assumption has been more thoroughly tested (see Section 2.8.4), it becomes scientifically justifiable for RFs from different mechanisms to be combined, with certain exceptions as noted below. Adding together the anthropogenic RF values shown in panel (A) of Figure 2.20 and combining their individual uncertainties gives the probability density functions (PDFs) of RF that are shown in panel (B)."

Which yields,






and with some effort I may be able to find a qualified value of 4-5 with a pdf and confidence interval, it isn't the same as the 4-5, a number that you apparently pulled out of your ass, because unlike the IPCC, you do exactly what you claim everyone else does, make shit up. *You are the only one pulling shit out of your ass.

And on any given day, the IPCC's "*less well understood and have larger uncertainties*" is a hell of alot more accurate then your supposed *"exact same horseship "*.

And I'm not defending my "AGW heroes". *I couldn't give a crap about whomever they are. I'm simply telling you that you are clueless about how science works. *And, when you finally do the work, and get a clue, you will simply end up doing exactly the same thing as the IPCC because they are using the science that I am "defending".

What I am saying is that any value for total radiative forcing is a backward looking metric that changes constantly due to changes in the compsition of the atmosphere. The IPCC models do not use some overall, constant, number of 4-5. *And any value that might be used, as a first order approximation, to get a general idea idea of things, would be in the form of a pdf. *So you might consider studying the hundred pages, or so, of science behind this 4-5 number that someone else pulled out of their ass.

And while I am certainly ready to entertain the idea of an estimate of global mean radiative forcing pdf, I can find no reference, on the IPCC website, that suggests they use such an animal in their models.

Rather, I get the sense that, instead of reading what the IPCC actually publishes, you bought into some second hand bs that someone else claims the IPCC does, or simply misinterpreted what you read. Because there is simply no scientific case to be made for a single global mean radiative forcing value that can be used for every moment of time over a century of global climate. At best, a mean value for radiative forcing is a backward looking, instantaneous, and over simplified parameter that isn't used in the models.

So I will tell you before hand, that if you manage to find a published IPCC value for instantaneous global mean radiative forcing, unless you show the actual code for the models, my answer will be it isn't what they actually use in the models and they don't use a single overall value.

TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potentials and Patterns of Forcing - AR4 WGI Technical Summary

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.pdf

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > To know that is wrong, you must know that something that contradicts it is more correct. What is it that you believe more accurately reflects the energy flow into and out of system earth!
> ...



"To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is."

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source. 

"A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude.  A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again."

One problem is to understand the earths overall energy budget. Watts coming in and watts going out. It only requires a simple model and only predicts whether the earth needs to cool or warm overall to achieve energy balance. The only inputs required are solar shortwave energy in vs reflected long wave radiation out from the TOA. Such models conclude implicitly requiring warming to compensate for higher concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.

More complicated models add to that sure knowledge the dynamics. How energy in all of earths systems reacts and interacts in order to finally achieve the required energy balance. In short they are long term weather models. 

Then there are the short term weather models for the military, government and professions like fire people. Finally the weather models that feed the 11 o'clock news. 

In short, you have so much to learn if you want to. Or not, if you prefer that. It matters to nobody but yourself.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Has Slacksack figured out photosynthesis yet?
> ...



What are you talking about?  I have had no discussion about thermodynamics laws. You obviously can no more separate one person from another than you can websites, models, or organizations.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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










Those who live in bubbles are doomed to ignorance.  Enjoy your bubble.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



He's an idiot. *He things the cartoon graphics, used to simplify it for his level of comprehension, is the model that the IPCC use.

I am also beginning to suspect that he is also another Slacksack sock. *SSaDhD=Flatulance*=SlackSack *And I'm beginning to suspect*Walleyed as a*Flatulance sock as well. *

IanC seems to be the only one that actually has original thought.  Though I do feel  a little bad about suggesting anyone might be as stupid as SlackSack, with his coal cycle theory of photosynthesis.  Still, none of themnhave corrected him on it either.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



I think thay've been told that they are owed a very simple model that anyone can understand that takes into account all of the complexities and dynamics and concludes that nothing costing money has to be done. 

They are entitled, don't you know.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

Here is the issue;

This is solar irradiance against temperature anomoly






which is also included in






Which also contains;






And if you do the linear regression on solar irradiation, that huge divergence guarantees that the R^2 will be less than for CO2.*

Obviously, CO2 is the gas responsible for holding the *suns heat in. So a regression against CO2 yields a higher R^2 because it accounts for the majority suns heat. If there were no sun, CO2 would yield nothing. *If there were no CO2, the Earth would be substantially colder. *CO2 and the sun yields multiple times more temperature. The CO2 multiplies the suns influence. *

It would be nice if someone had Excel, with stat pack installed.  Then we could do a proper regression analysis.  I am not sure if Excel will do a multivariate analysis. That might require SSPS or some other stat package.

The Solar Cycle and Global Warming ? Starts With A Bang


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Anyone that take the time to read The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources description of the history of  climate modeling would know that the climate models are far more sophisticated than the simple cartoon graphic depicts.  I am aware that those who have never graduated from college are clueless with regard to the length and complexity that even the simple senior year projects achieve.  The professional climate models are far beyond my personal grasp, except that they are deeply complex, finite element analysis, multi-dimensional models that require a super computer to run.  To call them 3-D, spherical models doesn't do them justice. And I can only gauge their likely complexity as on an exponential scale, at some factor of 10^(4+) better than anything I can even concieve of.  We go from doing "mad minutes" in grammer school, to single page word problems in highschool geometry, single page essays in grammer school to ten page essays in highschool.  I can only imagine the tome that a senior college lit major writes.  And engineering homework problems were often ten pages of just calculations.  Senior projects are a year long efforts.  Grad school is worse. And that two year PhD thesis is just one two year project. The IPCC cycle is six years, 2013-2007. (five?)  And that is four working groups, all feeding into the final product. 

The first model to produce something even remotely close to a GCM was a cylinder.  The next leap was a layered globe. They ran into issues, and rightfully so, where the elements converged at the poles.  I can't begin to imagine what they have now.

It isn't the flat earth model any more. That is just a gross over simplification for us layman.  It is the Dr. Suess version.  The "See Spot run. Run Spot run" version."  It't is like comparing The Cat In The Hat to the works of Shakespeare.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









Sure they are.  Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are.  Enjoy the read.  1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right?  Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within *5 to 50! years* they may be..

In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.


"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-*that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate*. 
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....


"Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18&#8201;° C (2&#8211;130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5&#8211;15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3&#8211;5% for diurnal range and 1&#8211;2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5&#8211;30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30&#8211;50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies."


House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Flawed Global Warming Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred - Investors.com

Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models Vs. Observations | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience


----------



## PMZ (Jul 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When I read the legitimate of your references what I think that they imply is indisputable. Climate and weather models are useful today and will be continuously improved forever. Who would possibly think otherwise?

But doers are betting billions on them today. 

And science deniers deny science regardless of where it is in terms of continuous improvement. 

This really does boil down to just one thing. The continual string of better and better models have not changed their conclusion. Our climate, due to the waste that we dump into our atmosphere, will change as a result, and that will have significant and costly consequences to the civilization that we've built around a climate that is changing around us. 

It would be better for mankind if that wasn't true. 

That has no impact on the fact that it is true.


----------



## westwall (Jul 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









No, they're bribing government to pass laws that allow them to fleece the population.  But you already knew that.


----------



## gslack (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



No it didn't socko. what it did was try and explain the thermodynamics and insulating properties of cloud cover especially at night... You don't know what an insulator is? LOL, not surprising...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Sure they are. *Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are. *Enjoy the read. *1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right? *Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within *5 to 50! years* they may be..
> 
> In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.
> 
> ...



As usual, you are confused because you can't tell one model from another. *Apparently, to you, they are all "models". *Like you group people into categories and all people in a category are identical.

A key term is "regional temperature simulations", the word "regional" being particularly important. *I am not surprised that short term and regional models are still in their infancy.

The only model I am interested in is the final combined output of the global model. The issue has been that is has repeatedly under estimated the rise in temperature and sea level rise.

I have explained to you, in detail, that the word "model" is a general term that applies to everything which provides a description of how something will be, everything from Earnings=Revenues-costs to E=mc^2 to a roadmap to a weather prediction in your local area to the flight path of the Space Shuttle (now retired) to a general circulation model.

Your inability to distinguish specific models that attempt to predict local precipitation patterns for agriculture from the models used to predict AGW just demonstrates your continued ignorance and desperate attempt to prove something that simply isn't correct.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

gslack said:


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




You need to work on your own homework. *What is photosynthesis? *What is soil carbon? *And why don't plants need coal, pencil lead and diamonds in the soil to grow?

Come back when you have finished those homework problems.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...





I have explained this dozens of times, in a variety of ways, to you and your ilk. I cannot help but think that you are too dense to just pick it up easily and too obstinate to actually read for comprehension. 

over and over and over again I have said that it is the sun that warms the surface, with atnospheric conditions adjusting the final equilibrium temperature. the net flow of energy and heat is always outwards towards space.

there are two types of backradiation. the first is temperature dependent blackbody radiation that would be present even without greenhouse gases. the second is GHG dependent by which certain wavelengths of surface IR radiation are stopped from exiting directly into outer space because they are absorbed and re-emitted in random directions, dispersing the energy into the atmosphere where it returns to the surface/finally escapes to space/or is added to the temperature of the atmosphere where it simply becomes part of the blackbody radiation. is that simple enough for you gslack? the atmosphere will always send backradiation to the surface because it is warm and gives off blackbody radiation. GHGs just add to that existing backradiation.

the surface gives off blackbody radiation according to its temperature. if there was no atmosphere it would simply exit into space, relative to (Tsur^4 - Tspa^4), where Tsur is surface temp and Tspa is space temp. if there is an atmosphere in place then the surface would give off radiation relative to (Tsur^4 - Tatm^4). because Tatm >> Tspa the power dissapated is much less. that difference is taken up into the heat sinks of the surface and atmosphere until the energy flowing out again matches the solar input but the surface is now at a higher equilibrium temperature. 






planck curves somewhat representative of surface and atmosphere temperatures. the surface is emitting more radiation and at a slightly higher energy wavelengths. when it absorbs the radiation from the lower curve, the area between the two curves is the energy available to go through the atmosphere and exit into space. it is a visual explanation of the second law of thermodynamics, it shows why heat always goes from warm to cool. there is more radiation from the warmer body to the cooler body.

is this a complete or even a good model? not really, especially if the atmosphere was only N2 and O2. the surface radiation would mostly escape, but a significant amount of heat would still be passed to the atmosphere by conduction, which would be spread by convection. it is only when GHGs are added that surface radiation starts being dispersed and substantially removed from radiation loss. water is the main GHG but it also adds a new method of transporting latent heat above the near surface bottleneck by increasing convection as heat pipes (humid air is ligher and therefore rises, until it is cool enough for the water to change phase releasing heat which can now escape). CO2 takes another bite out of the planck curve, dissapating 15 micron IR and returning some to the surface.

it does not matter that the surface and especially the atmosphere are not true blackbodies.  we are concerned only with disturbances to the equilibrium, the equilibrium that has already been in place using heat sinks, convection, conduction, latent heat, and radiation.

with no atmosphere heat transport and energy loss is 100% radiation driven. as you add an atmosphere conduction and convection become increasingly important in heat transport. when you add GHGs the ratios between conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation change again. the radiation blocked by doubling CO2 does not necessarily all go into raising the surface equilibrium temperature, it is likely that much of it is just diverted into other transport mechanisms to get it high enough to escape. Trenberth's cartoon already shows that the minority of low altitude energy escapes as radiation, especially if you take out the 10micron atmospheric window. only 26W/m2 pinball through the lower atmosphere now, closing it down even further is not making a huge change.

just to be specific about gslack's statement that I am backpedalling on back radiation....all the radiation from the atmosphere directed at, and reaching, the surface is absorbed and used to offset the outward radiation from the surface, _a la_ planck curves. because the net radiation is almost always towards the atmosphere, the movement of heat is away from the surface. the surface temperature may rise incrementally with addition of GHGs but that is only because the solar input is not being fully balanced by surface output reaching outer space. like I have said dozens of times but gslack never seems to be able to comprehend the idea of equilibriums being being based not only on inputs but outputs as well. that is why he and SSDD and others have so much trouble understanding why solar input is only 160W but surface output via heat sink is 400W (surface output not top of the atmosphere output, which is in balance with solar input).


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Damned right. Those scientists with their trillions of dollars in ill gotten gains are bribing the government to pass laws while the execs at Mobile-Exxon can barely afford one meal a day. Yessirree, Walleyes, you have it down pat.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.



Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display.  All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

I am surprised that you are unaware of the earth portrayed in climate models.  Even the crop of crazies that we had here before you and your sock showed up were aware that the models didn't represent the earth as a rotating sphere and that they arbitrarily put the sun 4x further away than it actually is.

Do a bit of research into what is actually meant by P/4


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



Of course you haven't.  You have made a great public display of your avoidance of the topic dodging every time a question on the fundamental laws of nature has been put to you.  You have demonstrated admirably that you are not up to any such conversation and run like a vampire exposed to daylight at the very mention of them.

Since it is so entertaining to watch you run in fear from actual science that isn't open to twisting, mangling, and misrepresentation I will ask you again...and continue to ask you....

What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics have to say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another entropy state?  And lets get a bit more complex...how does what the Second Law says about that energy movement apply to the greenhouse hypothesis?

Run child.... run.  Actual science is pursuing you.  Real since, the science that lies under the fabricated fraud, and the media sideshow...the science that, in the end, won't be denied.  Run child....run.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> He's an idiot. *He things the cartoon graphics, used to simplify it for his level of comprehension, is the model that the IPCC use.
> 
> I am also beginning to suspect that he is also another Slacksack sock. *SSaDhD=Flatulance*=SlackSack *And I'm beginning to suspect*Walleyed as a*Flatulance sock as well. *
> 
> IanC seems to be the only one that actually has original thought.  Though I do feel  a little bad about suggesting anyone might be as stupid as SlackSack, with his coal cycle theory of photosynthesis.  Still, none of themnhave corrected him on it either.



Maybe the left hand...or are you the right hand would like to try and answer the question of what the Second Law of Thermodynamics has to say regarding the movement of energy from a high entropy state to a low entropy state and how that statement applies to the greenhouse hypothesis.  Will you run like the left hand did?...or is ititzme the right hand?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> No, they're bribing government to pass laws that allow them to fleece the population.  But you already knew that.



Have you ever seen anyone quite as stupid as him and his sock....or that sock and his handler?  Hard to keep them separated since neither one is really distinguishable from a puppet.

Watching him/them speak is like watching a very slimy defense lawyer trying to portray a mob hitman as an alter boy scout leader saint.  No subject is beyond lying about and no lie is to big to tell.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the laws of thermodynamics were formulated before we had an understanding of what was going on at the atomic level.
> ...



Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve towards equilibrium.



Statistical mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.
> 
> Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.




Second law of thermodynamics - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The second law is only applicable to macroscopic systems. The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain. For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.[1]




from the first two entries on a search for SLoT. can you find a definition of the SLoT that specifically mentions microscopic systems and/or this unknown (to all but you and wirebender) physical law that prohibits the emission of photons in certain directions? or are you simply going to make an incorrect analogy of a marble running down an incline again?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> As usual, you are confused because you can't tell one model from another. *Apparently, to you, they are all "models". *Like you group people into categories and all people in a category are identical.



So do tell, which model(s) by name and organization of origin, are producing accurate useable output that reasonably could be considered by rational people making trillion dollar decisions regarding the economic future of entire nations.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC said:


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


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a simple two page presentation of planet earth, surrounded by nothing, considering that only radiant energy can come into the closed system, and only radiant energy can leave. And if the two are not equal, there must be dynamics at play which will ultimately result in them being equal.
> ...



SSDD- when you posted up Joe's pdf manifesto it did not give any of the usual information like solar input. I would like to see if his calculations were different, and in what direction, than more well known diagrams like Trenberth's. it is all well and good for someone to have different ideas but when you cannot compare them to anybody else's then they are next to useless. like I said, "doesnt play well with others". Joe and the rest of the slayers refuse, or just are unable to answer straight forward questions from reputable physicists and that is why they are considered cranks.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


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


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I have invited you before to offer up some repeatable experimental proof that the statement of the second law is wrong and explain why that statement has not been rewritten to express the new proof that it has been wrong for all these long years but you don't seem to be able to do that...and still, you hold to the belief that it is wrong.
> 
> Unless you can prove that it is wrong in its absolute statement that energy will not move from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state, I am afraid that you are just preaching and trying to convert me, and anyone else that is listening, to your faith.  QM and its various and assundry pronouncements are theory Ian and have not overturned a single physical law, much less the most fundamental of all physical laws.




I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.

you keep saying I think the Second Law is wrong but I keep saying it is right, only your understanding of it is wrong. the SLoT started out as an empirical law that was only supported by observation. now statistical mechanics describe exactly how and why it works. but nowhere in all the volumes that have been writen about thermodynamics is there anything stating the existence of a previously unknown physical law prohibiting radiation emission from a particle, or the emission in a certain direction, because of a temperature differential. you wont even say how the particle knows the temperature of its surroundings.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Until you have evidence, it's all self-serving babble. Nobody cares what you wish was true.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Your cognitive limitations are not my concern.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.
> ...



Your cognitive limitations are not my concern. The science has been clearly layed out here in many ways by many people many times. They all are, apparently, beyond your comprehension. The only real question is why would someone so limited, voluntarily put it on repeated display in such a public forum?

Al Franken answered that question below.

You are a "fucking moron".


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> hahahahaha. you're stonewalling again. Wiki is a reasonable resource for non-controversial topics like this. the SLoT is only for macroscopic systems where large numbers cancel out random fluctuations. it has nothing to do with single events, only with the results of many, many single events. why dont you just ask a professor or even a high school teacher? your interpretation is flawed.



Stonewalling?  You are joking, right?  I can go to any credible physics text and copy the statement of the Second Law right from the book and make my case.  Is that stonewalling in your book?  Is that stonewalling in anyone's book.  Lets see.

stonewalling - n - the act of stalling, evading, or filibustering, especially to avoid revealing  embarrassing information.

So lets look again.  I have my argument which is supported entirely by the second law of thermodynamics as it is stated in every legitimate physics text that I have ever looked at, in addition to scientific dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.  Those words are the essence of my argument and practically every credible reference on earth supports them.

You, on the other hand claim that the statement of the second law isn't actually law...you claim that under some conditions it doesn't apply even though you can't provide the first bit of repeatable experimental evidence to support the claim.  When asked what the statement of the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one state to another, you go into some spiel about photons needing to know in which direction they must move which we know by direct observation is just so much bull.  We know from direct observations that the forces of nature dictate movements of objects ranging from the swirl of galaxies, to the movement of microscopic particles.  None of these movements are the result of any "knowing"...they are the result of the action of natural forces described by universal laws.

When asked what the statement of the Second Law has to say about energy movement, you never quote the Second Law, which is the appropriate response, instead you go to sources such as wiki for someone's opinion on what the second law means...someone, by the way, who also can't provide the first bit of repeatable experimental evidence that his claims regarding the Second Law are anything more than theory as yet unproven by anything more substantial than a mathematical or computer model while I can point to every energy change in the known universe which is observably obeying the statement of the second law.

You dance, you gyrate, you bend over backwards in a myriad of transparent attempts to avoid simply stating what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one place to another.  Why do you do this?  It is obvious.  If you state the Second Law, then it casts serious doubt on your belief.  All of the actions you take when asked what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one place to another is, by definition, Ian, stonewalling.

I go straight to the physics text, scientific dictionary, or encyclopedia and simply state what it says and will continue to say until such time as some actual proof that it is wrong overturns it.  Hypothesis and theory, as romantic and exciting as they may be to you, do not trump actual physical law and they do not replace it.  You can hypothesize and theorize as much as you like regarding what if the Second Law, or any other physical law for that matter were wrong, but until they are proven wrong, they stand and those who are in disagreement with them are wrong.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







Yes indeed.  And it go's BOTH ways tojo.  Hansen is the architect of many of the computer models that he admitted are shit....and those are the very same models that you clowns fawn all over.

See how that works?  No, I didn't think so...in addition to your well displayed lack of intellectual honesty you also simply lack intellect....period.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








But yours concern us a great deal.  Can you really wipe your own bum?  I say no but some say yes...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.
> ...



Hunke, E.C., and J.K. Dukowicz, 2002: The Elastic-Viscous-Plastic sea ice dynamics model in *general orthogonal curvilinear coordinates on a sphere*Effect of metric terms. Mon. Weather Rev., 130, 18481865.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.



You are doing even worse.  You are attempting to mislead people who are not even in the conversation.  

I have no bizarre theory.  It is you who is operating on unproven theory and hypothesis.  My argument is that Second Law of Thermodynamics says: _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._

Tell me, what is strange and bizarre about my stating the Second Law and saying that I believe it to not only be true, but to mean what it says?  What is bizarre Ian, is claiming that it doesn't mean what it says when if science had found it to be proveably wrong then science would have recended it and replace it with a more accurate statement.  If the law didn't apply to individual events, and that was a proveable fact, don't you think that qualifier might be inclued in the statement of the law?

Would you think it bizarre if I quoted the Ideal Gas Law in a discussion over whether or not the state of a gas is determined by its pressure, volume and temperature?

Would you accuse me of bizarre theories if I quoted Dalton's Law if we were in disagreement over whether the pressure of a mixture of gasses is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the component gasses and said that you were wrong if your position were in opposition to the statement of that law?

If you would think that bringing the statements of those laws into those conversations would constitued bizarre beliefs on the part of the one who used them, then you are even further out there than I had suspected....now if the use of those physical laws, in support of an argument are not bizarre, how then could the use of the statement of the most fundamental physical law be any more bizarre?  What is bizarre Ian, is to be in disagreement with that statement.




IanC said:


> you keep saying I think the Second Law is wrong but I keep saying it is right, only your understanding of it is wrong.



So you keep saying but all I need do is quote the Second Law and ask you how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypotheisis, and you immediately deviate from the statement of the law and go into how it doesn't really mean what it says or that even though it is written in absolute terms it doesn't really mean what it says.  If you disagree with it as an absolute statement regarding the movement of energy from one place to another, then you, by definition, think it is wrong.




IanC said:


> the SLoT started out as an empirical law that was only supported by observation.



And that is what it remains.  Till some actual evidence, beyond mathematical and computer models proves it wrong, it is what it is.  You are trying to replace a law of nature with a theory...it is as simple as that.  QM is theoretical and will remain theoretical for longer than either of us have left on this earth and much of what it states today will be found out to be completely wrong.  Any thoery that must form an ad hoc solution to explain the orbitals of a hydrogen atom is suspect from the start.



IanC said:


> now statistical mechanics describe exactly how and why it works.



Statistical mechanics is a theory and it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE.  There is a fundamental difference between describing a thing not understood in factual, proveable terms and attempting to describe a thing not understood in unproven theoretical ideas.  You put far to much faith in things that aren't even beginning to be proven.




IanC said:


> but nowhere in all the volumes that have been writen about thermodynamics is there anything stating the existence of a previously unknown physical law prohibiting radiation emission from a particle, or the emission in a certain direction, because of a temperature differential. you wont even say how the particle knows the temperature of its surroundings.



There doesn't need to be any such statement for reasons I have already given you.  The statement of the Second Law is made in absolute terms.  _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. _  A statement like that doesn't need further qualification.  There is no need to describe every possible energy exchange from place to place or in quanity.  

The statement says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body.  Which part of "not possible" is it that you are having problems understanding.  A statement like that makes it unnecessary to describe when heat might flow from a cooler object to a warmer object because it is "NOT POSSIBLE".  If it were possible, then the statement would say something else, or not exist at all.

"ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT".  That statement does not need a sub statement saying that the law also includes particles.  It says that energy WILL NOT flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.  The law would fill volumes that would fill and overflow the library of congress if it were necessary to clearly state every possible energy exchange.  

The statement is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body and energy WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object and it is enough.  If you have a theory or hypothesis that runs afoul of that statement, then your theory or hypothesis is doomed no matter how much press it can get and you will, in fact, be the one guilty of bizarre behavior in trying to get around the most fundamental law of nature.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The science has been clearly layed out here in many ways by many people many times.



Apparently it has not been laid out very clearly to you if you are laboring under the impression that the current crop of climate models are portraying the earth as anything other than a flat disk existing in weak twilight across its entire surface 24 hours a day from a weak sun that is 4x further away than exists in reality.

Sorry you have been bamboozled so.  If you weren't quite so stupid, perhaps it wouldn't have happened thus.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



Not a climate model goober and not really modelling a spherical earth...an ad hoc construct that pretends to model a sperical earth...and again, not a climate model at all.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

Thermodynamics is a description of net averages.  It is not a description of individual particles.  The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Niether is your flat earth disk cartoon.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

SSaDhD said:
			
		

> Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. *All models* represent the earth as a flat disk.




"...three-dimensional, viscoelastic, *spherical earth*, finite element model that..."

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/ar5/authorsresource/unsolicited/13389.pdf

"By 1965 Manabe's group had a reasonably complete *three-dimensional global model* that solved the basic equations for an atmosphere divided into nine levels."

"Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments  *hemispheres*, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map"

"They avoided problems with the* North and South Poles* simply by shifting the troublesome convergence points onto a land mass.(36)"


General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The human brain is a model of the world.  And, like climate models, they can have gross or fine resolution.  Climate models progressively increased resolution, refining the grid on a spherical representation, to finer and finer elements.

Some human brains represent the world with gross amd sweeping generalizations like "*All models* represent ...."


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSaDhD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Models models everywhere and not a drop of actual data anywhere....


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSaDhD said:
> ...








And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;






No data in your head. Plenty in climate models.  Your ignorance doesn't change reality.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



What kind of person believes that whatever they don't know, doesn't exist?

We can certainly be glad that there aren't many of them.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...







The simple fact that your pretty models and graphs bear no semblance to reality exposes you as the ignorant one there Charlie Brown...


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







I don't know?  How does that feel?  To you personally I mean?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The simple fact that your head bears no semblance to reality exposes that "you as the ignorant one there Charlie Brown" ...

The unpredictability of the world must keep you from leaving the house. However do you go shopping when the price of bread isn't exactly the same as it was last week? 

*"OMG, it was $2.18 last week and it's $2.28 this week. It is completely unpredictable.   I can't do anything!!!"*


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Thermodynamics is a description of net averages.  It is not a description of individual particles.  The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles.



So you say, and yet, that is not what the zeroth, first, second, or third laws of thermodynamics says.

When making my argument, I simply quote the statement of the Second Law.  When you make your argument, you do not.  You go into theoretical world where nothing is known for sure, and nothing is proven, and nothing is observed.

Who has the stronger argument?  That's easy.  Who is basing their argument on the statement of the laws of thermodynamics and who is basing their argument on unproven theory?

Again, what does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another and if you can ever manage to work up enough intellectual honesty to actually bring yourself to answer the question, you can then tell me how that statement applies to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



I have no flat earth disk cartoon.  The model I subscribe to is that of a rotating spherical earth with a sun that is the same distance away from us as reality dictates.  The model I subscribe to actually predicts the temperature here, as well as that of every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...unlike yours which can't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets and only predicts the temperature here because of the constant tweaking that ad hoc constructs require.

Of course the model I subscribe to doesn't need an ad hoc greenhouse effect to explain the temperature because of defeciencies in the physics upon which it is based.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSaDhD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yet, all climate models in use today portray the earth as a flat disk with no day and night receiving exactly the same amount of solar energy at every point across its surface 24 hours a day.

You can feel free to provide link after link of people who may have experimented with models that attempt to depict reality, but the fact remains that all climate models in use today are based on a flat earth.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Thermodynamics is a description of net averages.  It is not a description of individual particles.  The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles.
> ...



I'm just pointing out that thermodynamic laws are macroscopic laws that define the statistical behavior of large numbers of particles and that Einstein demonstrated this and the existance of atomic particles in his paper on brownian motion.

What are you talking about?  Are you having difficulty, again, distinguishing betweem individuals?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSaDhD said:
> ...



That's what you keep claiming.  Though it is irrelevant.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.
> ...





Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC said:


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



I think that a more interesting question that you might know the answer to is:

When a GHG molecule absorbs longwave radiation the electron cloud moves to a higher energy state which is unstable. When it stablizes by radiating the excess energy, does a wave of energy really go off in all directions, or does a photon go off in one direction that is randomized only though many such events?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Of course another interesting variation is:

Two bodies in space. They are attracted to each other, through the nothing in between them in proportion to their combined masses. How does each one know the mass of the other?

BTW, this is not a trick question. I agree with you on the radiation issue. I'm just curious.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses.  It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.

 Einstein collapsed this to space itself, defining that space-time is "deformed" by the presence of the mass.  This is sufficient for relativity, when velocities are near light speed, mass is very large, and time is measured at small scales.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC said:
			
		

> Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?



I didn't feel like searching throug the thread to figure out the entire context. The original point may have gotten lost, but I think I got the gist of it, which is why I posted;

"Thermodynamics is a description of net averages. It is not a description of individual particles. The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles."

You are absolutely correct. *Two systems at thermal disequilibrium do transfer instantaneous energy in both directions. Thermodynamic laws are a description of the statistcal averages for large numbers of particle.

As your example implies, two bodies at different temperatures emit radiation completely independent of each other. The body at a higher temperature does absorb energy from the cooler body. The warmer body, on average, emits more radiation than the cooler body. So, on average, there is a net energy transfer from the warmer to the cooler body.

In terms of gasses and other matter, where the energy is tranfered in the form of kinetic energy, it was not resolved, until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion, if atoms and molecules were a real or theoretical construct. *Einstein showed them to be real and the issue of thermodynamic laws being a statistical macro process was resolved.

It now comes down to probabilities. It is statistically, and really possible, for the net energy movement to be transfered from the cold body to the warm one. *In practice, over large quantities of particles, the probability of this occuring is so increadibly small, as to make it insignificant in practice. In practice, it is practically impossible. It is not absolutely impossible. And there is no way to utilize this to extract energy from the system or violate the macro laws of thermodynamics. *Any device imaginable is part of the thermodynamic system and, as such, cannot change the macroscopic outcome.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses.  It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.
> 
> Einstein collapsed this to space itself, defining that space-time is "deformed" by the presence of the mass.  This is sufficient for relativity, when velocities are near light speed, mass is very large, and time is measured at small scales.



I understand that as the assumption generally made. What I don't understand is an undetectable (unlike a magnetic) gravitational field. Especially which, to be effective must have knowledge of all masses no matter how far distant. 

Curvature of space time is also the accepted model but has no intuitive meaning to me. 

Perhaps I'll have to bumble through life without knowing.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I posted a reference earlier that used the concept of two hot plates in a vacuum box. if constant power is put into one, it will eventually warm to a stable equilibrium temperature. If constant power is then introduced into the second one, such that it rises to a lower equilibrium temperature, the temperature of the first one will also increase due to the energy radiated from the cooler one. 

I've never tried that but it would be a simple experiment to replicate.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

Thermodynamic energy, is heat, in the form of the kinetic energy of the molecules. *This may include rotation of the molecule. *Kinetic energy may be transfered to vibrational modes of the atomic bonds, which, in turn, may emit energy as electromagnetic radiation.

The electron is bound to the nucleus. The nucleus contains protons and neutrons. *The nucleus has mass. *The seperate molecules repell each other due to the electric charge on the electron.

**The balance of forces, gravitational mass, strong, weak, and electromagnetic, are such that the electrostatic force between the electrons in different molecules is stronger than the other three, hence the molecules tend to bounce off each other, transfering kinetic energy and momentum.

Depending on the structure of the bonds, in the molecule, kinetic energy may be transfered to the electrons, resulting in the bonds vibrating. *The elecrons may then emit a photon.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I'm just pointing out that thermodynamic laws are macroscopic laws that define the statistical behavior of large numbers of particles and that Einstein demonstrated this and the existance of atomic particles in his paper on brownian motion.



Once again, so you say and yet, that is not what the statements of the thermodynamic laws say.  If they mean something other than what they say, don't you think the people who wrote them would rephrase them?  What proof is presently in existence that overturns the laws of thermodynamics as they are written?



itfitzme said:


> What are you talking about?  Are you having difficulty, again, distinguishing betweem individuals?



No, I recognize the same individual pretending to be two via quirky grammatical habits, spelling errors, and very unusual, in fact unique ways of describing absorption and emission.  Continue to play if you like, but don't expect for me to respect the game.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?
> 
> Will you answer this time?



If you wonder about the direction of energy transfer, you really don't need to ask me Ian.  You know what the second law says regarding energy movement from one location to another.  Apply it.  

And why do you insist that the objects in question must "know" anything.  Does a tennis ball somehow "know" which way to travel once it is struck?  Does a falling rock "know" which way to fall?  Do the chemicals involved in a reaction somehow "know" how to react with each other?  Does the earth "know" how far to maintain itself from the sun and or how long it should take to complete an orbit, or how fast to rotate?  Do you believe all of these things somehow "know" what to do, or how to act?  

Personally, I think that the natural forces at work simply make things happen as they do and the things themselves have no sort of knowledge or choice of how to act.  Connect a battery to a lightbulb...do those free electrons somehow know that they should exit the battery and go cause the light bulb to illuminate?  

Get over your childish sarcasm and acknowledge the fact that the Second Law says that it is not possible for energy to move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.  We can no more explain the mechanism of how it is so than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I think that a more interesting question that you might know the answer to is:
> 
> When a GHG molecule absorbs longwave radiation the electron cloud moves to a higher energy state which is unstable. When it stablizes by radiating the excess energy, does a wave of energy really go off in all directions, or does a photon go off in one direction that is randomized only though many such events?



You guys, in addition to being very cute in your circle jerk ask some seriously inane questions.

It really doesn't matter whether the energy radiates in the form of a particle or a wave.  It is the same amount of energy and it will radiate in accordance with the laws of nature.  It will radiate towards a state of higher entropy.  It will not radiate towards an object, or region that is warmer than itself.  The Second Law tells you in which directions the energy can and can not move.  

When you drop a rock, is the direction it falls randomized...or is its direction dictated by the laws of nature?

Does a fired bullet follow a trajectory that is randomized...or is its trajectory dictated by the laws of nature?

When you plug an electrical cord into a wall socket, is the direction of the flow of electricity randomized....or is its direction of flow dictated by the laws of nature?

You guys are hilarious...every other damned natural phenomenon in the universe is just fine with you...you don't think rocks need to know which direction to drop...you don't think bullets need to know what sort of trajectory they need to follow...you don't think that gas molecules need to know how much to heat up when put under pressure...you don't think that chemicals need to know how to react to other chemicals...you accept that they do what they do because the laws of nature dictate how they act...but in the singular case of energy moving from low entropy states to high entropy states, you want to argue with the laws of nature and say that they don't mean what they say that they mean....and why?  Because if you accept the laws of nature, then your greenhouse hypothesis falls apart.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Of course another interesting variation is:
> 
> Two bodies in space. They are attracted to each other, through the nothing in between them in proportion to their combined masses. How does each one know the mass of the other?
> 
> BTW, this is not a trick question. I agree with you on the radiation issue. I'm just curious.



Why do you goobers think these objects need to know anything.  If you want to know why they behave as they do, then the Law of Gravity should enlighten you.  

Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:








where:
 F is the force between the masses,
 G is the gravitational constant,
 m1 is the first mass,
 m2 is the second mass, and
 r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

We don't understand the actual mechanism of gravity any more than we understand the actual mechanism of radiation...We do know that the law describes the invariable...important word there....invariable relationships between the phenomena whether it be attraction between two bodies...gasses under pressure...chemical reactions...or the transfer of radiation between bodies of different temperatures...the laws tell us what will invariably happen....every time it is observed.

Now if you believe that radiation between objects of two different energy states is a two way street, then provide a link to an observed, measured, experiment proving the claim to be a fact.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You are absolutely correct. *Two systems at thermal disequilibrium do transfer instantaneous energy in both directions. Thermodynamic laws are a description of the statistcal averages for large numbers of particle.



If that is true...proven by experiment and observation...then why are the laws of thermodynamics written in absolute terms?  You keep claiming that the laws don't actually mean what their statements say, but can offer no actual evidence that the absolute statement of the laws has ever been proven wrong.

Theory and hypothesis do not overturn law.  Till the law is overturned, I am afraid that you must live with it or be an obviousl goof in claiming that a fundamenal natural law is somehow mistaken, or doesn't mean what it's statement says.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I understand that as the assumption generally made. What I don't understand is an undetectable (unlike a magnetic) gravitational field. Especially which, to be effective must have knowledge of all masses no matter how far distant.
> 
> Curvature of space time is also the accepted model but has no intuitive meaning to me.
> 
> Perhaps I'll have to bumble through life without knowing.



You don't have to understand the mechamism in order to grasp the invariable relationship between the objects.  The laws of gravity tell you precisely what that relationship is every time it is observed...just like the Second Law of Thermodynamics will tell you in which direction energy will travel between objects every single time it is observed. The laws don't attempt to describe the mechanisms and in some cases, we may never fully understand them...but the invariable relationship can be observed and described.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Thermodynamic energy, is heat, in the form of the kinetic energy of the molecules. *This may include rotation of the molecule. *Kinetic energy may be transfered to vibrational modes of the atomic bonds, which, in turn, may emit energy as electromagnetic radiation.
> 
> The electron is bound to the nucleus. The nucleus contains protons and neutrons. *The nucleus has mass. *The seperate molecules repell each other due to the electric charge on the electron.
> 
> ...



And if photons actually exist as particles rather than simply being part of a wave, the direction they will be emitted will be dictated by the energy state of every object around them as surely as the direction of movement of a piece of matter in space is dictated by every object that can interact with its gravitational field.  There is no knowledge necssary on the part of either the object in space or the direction the energy is emitted...it happens in accordance with the forces that dictate in which direction energy can move. 

Don't like it?  Tough.  It's the law of nature and if it fucks up your greenhouse hypothesis...to damned bad.  You shouldn't have bet on a hypothesis that is in opposition to the most fundamental law of nature.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses.  It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.
> ...



At any point in space, the point mass is affected only by the field at it's location.

I can feel it on my seat now.  If I drop a rock, the rock experiences the field.

The Earth affects space and space, the gravitational field, affects the rock.  It is, for all practical purposes, static. 

A dynamic example may help.

As the planets orbit the Sun, the sun and planets all create a field in space about them. *As the Earth and Mars orbit past each other, the force that each exerts on the other is not the result of where each is, but where each was, as it takes the field time change. *That change is limited by the speed of light, 3x10^8 m/s. *At their closest, they are*33.9 million miles or*54 556 761 600 meters away. *The field that Earth experiences is then due to where Mars was,*

54 556 761 600 m/ 300 000 000 m/s = 181 seconds ago.

Of course, the light took exactly the same amount of time, so it looks like Mars is exactly where it should be given the field that is being experienced.

Both the gravitational field and light propogate according to the properties of space.  No instantaneous information need pass between the two.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses. *It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.
> ...



It is helpful to build up, from static to dynamic. *

Still, to put things in context. with the exception of quantum entanglement, no information can travel faster than the speed of light. This is as true for changes in the gravitational field as it is for changes in the electromagnetic field. *So, when a body is moved in space, the change in the space-time "ripples" outward at the speed of light. *Hence, the attempt to detect gravitational waves.

Now, I am intentionally staying away from quantum mechanics and the current attempts to combine the electromagnetic force with gravity. *There are areas of physics that become philosophical. It is best to leave the philosophical pursuits to the PhDs,*
the guys with a Doctorate of Philosphy in physics.

While classical electrodynamics defines an electromagnetic field, one that is measurable as a static field, once an electron is vibrating, that field is no longer static and an electromagnetic wave is described as propogating. Light is a propogating electromagnetic wave, as described by Maxwell. *Still, Einstein proved that light is quantized. *And Feynman tells us that there are no waves, just particles.

So, for the details of the static case in classical Newtonian mechanics, gravity is a field that expresses the attraction between two masses. Two point masses are related by F=G*m1*m2/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are each mass, and r is the distance between them. * F is the force the masses experience which gives rise to the acceleration on each as F=ma.

For m1 equating F=m1*a gives

F=G*m1*m2/r^2=m1*a.

a=G*m2/r^2.*

So, in essence, we may define a gravitational field.

As with the electric field, where the force between two point charges is given by

F= k*q1*q2/r^2  where k is a constant, 1/(4*pi*epsilon_0)

and the electric field experienced by q1 is

E=k*q2/r^2

The gravitational field is,

a=G*m2/r^2, which near Earth's surface is*

g=9.8m/s^2m

So, whether we consider mass or charge, the static fields are similar concepts.

As we move away from a point charge, we may measure the static field, at any point, as a vector with magnetude E=k*q2/r^2, pointed in the direction away from positive and towards a negative.

As we move away from a mass, we may define the gravitational field similarly, as a vector*a=G*m2/r^2. *But, as there is only positive mass, any mass will move towards the other. *The field lines are always towards the mass.
*
So that defines, at least, the static electrostatic and gravitional fields. *

Charge has both positive and negative, so the field is "higher" at the positive charge and "lower" at the negative charge. *

Mass is only positive, so the field is "higher" in empty space and "lower" at the mass.

We mighy say that free space is at zero electric potential and that the electrostatic field is "warped" by the presence of a charge. *Positrons "fall" down the field and electrons fall "up" the field.

At any point in space, the point mass and point charge is affected only by the field at it's location.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting.  He so desperately wants to be the expert.  It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



In both the formula and the reality of gravitational attraction there is no limit to the distance between bodies that attract. So all masses in space attract all other masses. Of course distant attractions are small and close by attractions are large. So something undetected, at least at this time, creates a measurable force between all objects based on their mass and separation. No other properties. 

Of course at this time nobody knows what mass is either. Something that both creates this universal attraction and resists changes in motion. 

I wish that I was young enough to see how this story works out.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC is spot on with his view.  With the exception of quantum emtanglement, which requires that the two particles are initially at the same place at thd same time, there is no action at a distance or information transfer that can happen faster than the speed of light.  

Two hot bodies, seperated by space, emit radiation independently of each other.  One cannot decide to not emit because it "knows" that the hotter body is at some distance from it.  The only way it "knows" is in that energy impinges on it due to the other. And, as it absorbes that energy, it becomes imcrementally hotter, thus the amount of energy it emits becomes greater.

The only thing that thermodynamics limits is that the colder body radiates less energy to the hotter one than the hotted one does towards it. Thermodynamics simply limits the net flow, from hot to cold.  As the two bodies reach equilibrium, the net flow is zero. On average, each radiates and absorbs the same amount tonand from the other.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

All objects, warmer than absolute zero, radiate in proportion to their temperature. (They may or may not transfer energy in other ways as well.) Therefore all objects receive radiation from all other objects. 

The concept of entropy is really based on the certainty than ultimately everything will be the same temperature. And it will be impossible to do work as the flow of energy requires a delta T.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting.  He so desperately wants to be the expert.  It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.



One of the reasons that the Dunning-Kruger effect occurs is that the less one knows, the more one has to rely on passion to not get overlooked.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)

First sentence of second paragraph of Investigations On The Theory Of Brownian Motion - Albert Einstein - 1905

"... then classical thermodynamics can no longer be looked upon as applicable with precision of bodies even of dimensions distinguishable in a microscope..."

He proved the existance, even the size, of molecules in the liquid. *He proved the kinetic-molecule theory of heat. *

He eviserate classical thermodynamics as being absolute in defining the behavior of materials and gasses even up to the size visible in a microscope. *So classical thermodynamics can only be applied rigidly at macroscopic levels.

This left statistical thermodynamics or statistical mechanics, which preserves the classical macroscopic laws while describing them in terms of particles.  It is, thankfully, intuitive if you understand statistics.


----------



## gslack (Jul 12, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



You're an Idiot dude.. Science supports me, common sense supports me, and so far only you and your clones agree with you..  

Fact is as we all know, carbon has to be present to create CO2. Since carbon was first, life obviously came from carbon numbnuts.. CO2 is a created by carbon oxidization. No matter what form it takes, it requires the presence of carbon and oxygen. Therefore CO2 did not create plant life, plant's evolved to feed on it. Some plant-like organisms do not require CO2, they evolved that way just as the photosynthesis using plants evolved..

Holoparasitic Plants do not use CO2, and neither do myco-heterophytes.. They evolved, just as some of us do..

Now grow up junior socko...Your theory is stupid, your claim is retarded, and your a moron..ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jul 12, 2013)

IanC said:


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



It's a silly question Ian... Of course they radiate at one another, the real question is can they effect noticeable change in one another? Will they raise one anothers temperature beyond that which they already match? In other words, would it make either one warmer?

I say no because that would lead to a chain reaction and an infinite heat gain over time. But you seem to think otherwise...

The objects don't need to "know" the others existence or "decide" to radiate in that direction. And that tiresome nonsensical argument you been supplying forever now is not getting any better.. There is no thought involved in the process there is no decision made, it just happens. The difference is does that happening create noticeable change or not? 

Now please stop reverting to the "decide to radiate or not" BS, it's childish...

BTW, I worked for years with a guy who was a physicist. A real one not the fake ones we see on here all the time. He worked for the same people I worked for, and was a consultant on higher end data compression and various other things I wasn't part of. Anyway, he and I used to converse from time to time and I told him once about my son thinking about engineering or physics for his future. He told me that it's one thing to be good at math,but it's another to understand what it means in reality. According to him, about 3/4 of the graduate students heading towards a Doctorate in physics, are expert at doing the math and doing things mathematically correct, but only about 1/4 of them are able to understand the real world meaning or implications behind it. For instance, your excuse above using "conscious thought" of the objects, is a perfect example of it. Also your continued treating radiation as a particle only. And your support of a theory that is although perhaps mathematically sound, realistically unlikely... Basically, you're a guy who knows numbers but not the reality of what they mean. You think if the math says it, it's fact. But the fact is not everything can be explained with math yet. And until that time comes, there are going to be situations where the math will say one thing, but the reality says another..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 12, 2013)




----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting.  He so desperately wants to be the expert.  It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.








The only ones feverishly posting are you and pimmerz.  You guys bring new meaning to the term "bury them with bullshit".


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting.  He so desperately wants to be the expert.  It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.
> ...



Um, I think you don't have any kind of understanding of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








pimmie doesn't understand_ anything_...


----------



## gslack (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


>



Yes we know you don't understand it socko..Not even surprised...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting.  He so desperately wants to be the expert.  It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.



No goob. I neither want nor claim to be an expert.  Those who are can see all to well who is pretending.  There are some actual experts here and they are laughing at you and your sock. I am no expert but am educated and am laughing at you in your unwillingness to engage an actual scientific conversation with anyone but your sock.  I don't guess you realize how obvious it is.

The questions I am asking you should be easy to answer for the real expert you claim to be.  A real expert wouldn't find it necessary to either alter the meaning of a fundamental law of nature or run from the topic. 

So keep dodging. There is a bit of entertainment to be had in watching.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting.  He so desperately wants to be the expert.  It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.
> ...



Don't they though?  To is funny for all their (his) posing and posturing he won't engage on the fundamental laws of physics which is where the present failure of climate science can be traced to.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?
> ...




Still no answer. Perhaps we should go to an even more basic level.

What is the origin of blacbody radiation? Can one single particle emit it? 

One particle, say a CO2 molecule, can absorb and re-emit a photon of IR. But that is not blackbody radiation. One particle does not have a 'temperature'. Why not?

I am only trying to help you reframe the concepts. Unlike gslack, I am certain you have the brainpower to grasp it, if only you would widen your focus.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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




Only one photon means only one direction, at least until it interacts with matter again.

In AGW it is often only the up/down component discussed but radiative processes happen in all direction equally.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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




Wonderful question, fun to think about, but I'm not the guy who can answer in any meaningful way. 

As a teenager did you grok that photons (or any speed of light entity) just don't have time or distance in their frame of reference? It make electrical fields much easier to imagine, and perhaps gravity as well.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Exactly. 

Some people here take offense at quantifying the energy flow going in each direction and insist that only net flow be considered.  Each event can go in either direction. Only the final result is statistically certain.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It's explained at the bottom of each of my posts.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I see SSaDhD has been freverantly posting.  He so desperately wants to be the expert.  It is driving him crazy. He just can't accept that he isn't.
> ...



There is no possible way that you are educated.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means.   You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing.  A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> Still no answer. Perhaps we should go to an even more basic level.



I am never going to give you an answer that you like Ian.  We have done this dance before and it goes no where.  Tell you what, lets lay all the cards out on the table in as honest a manner as possible.

I make my argument and you know what it is...energy can not move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.  In support of my argument, I have, first and foremost, the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it is stated in every physics textbook I have ever looked in, as well as every scientific dictionary and encyclopedia.  Secondly I have every laboratory, and field experiment ever done as well as every observation ever made.  All of them say that I am correct in my position that energy will not go from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.

Now, as honestly as you are capable of, what, exactly do you have in the way of actual physical evidence to support your claim?



IanC said:


> I am only trying to help you reframe the concepts. Unlike gslack, I am certain you have the brainpower to grasp it, if only you would widen your focus.


[/quote]

What you are trying to do is reframe the statement of the Second Law from "not possible" and "will not" to "sometimes" or "if the unit of energy is small enough" or some other permuation which changes the fundamental law of nature, to a sometimes, if maybe, sort of law.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> [
> Only one photon means only one direction, at least until it interacts with matter again.



Only one stone means only one direction as well.  Do you think that if I drop enough stones, that statistically, at some point, the force of gravity will "forget" to make the stone fall and will instead allow it to climb?  Which other forces of nature do you believe sometimes "forget" to determine the relationships between phenomena?



IanC said:


> In AGW it is often only the up/down component discussed but radiative processes happen in all direction equally.



Prove that.  If you can, then you can prove the statement of the Second Law is not correct.  That's the problem.  You believe it fervently...I have no doubt of that.  But Ian, there is no proof...not one single observation in the history of science supports your belief.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Some people here take offense at quantifying the energy flow going in each direction and insist that only net flow be considered.  Each event can go in either direction. Only the final result is statistically certain.



Cute how you two are scratching each other's itches...but prove it.  Provide one observed and measured example of two way energy flow between objects at radiating at different entropy states.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Unlike cultists, I've never suffered from the delusion that my knowledge is unique. In fact the vast majority of it is "copied and pasted" into my brain from those who taught or reported it. My tag line is copied and pasted as well as it said, in a way that appealed to me, the essence of cult behavior. 

Feel free to use me as an example of anything you want. Your words reflect on you, not me. 

In the meantime, do you have anything to add to the discussion here?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So, when GHG molecules emit the radiation that restores their stability, it is truly wave propagation in all directions, and not photon emission in a single, but random, direction?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no possible way that you are educated.



It isn't me who is dodging any conversation on the laws of thermodynamics.  It isn't me who can't even bring myself to state the Second Law because it would wreck my belief in an implausible hypothesis.

It is precisely because I am educated that I know precisely which questions will back you against the wall...and precisely because you lack any real education and critical thinking skills that you remain unable to even try to answer the questions I am asking.  Those who spoon feed you what you pretend to be education haven't instructed you in how to actually answer the questions.  Even Ian, who is obviously far better educated than you will not answer the questions directly because to do so brings his belief in the hypothesis into question.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I've always been glad to have lived through a period where so much has been learned, and frustrated that I will never know what's learned after.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The problem with victims of Dunning-Kruger is that they don't realise that they are victims.  For all of his cut and paste "scholarship" he finds that he must completely avoid any discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypothesis.  That topic, and relationship should be easy for a truely educated person, but he must avoid it like the plague because the cult sites where he gets his cut and paste also avoid such fundamental issues because the law speaks directly to the greenhouse effect hypothesis as it is stated.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If you don't want to discuss the Dunning-Kruger effect, then don't bring it up.  I wasn't the one to bring it up, and my comment was in direct response to your use of it.

It adds to the discussion here, however, when it becomes abundantly clear that some who think they know a lot about something obviously don't.   It is less applicable to the cut and paste, blow as much smoke as you can to obfusicate and confuse crowd, who WANT people to think they're smart and educated when it is obvious they couldn't explain any of this stuff in their own words if their lives depended on it.

Of course there is also the possibility of trollism that doesn't apply to either.  Those are the cut and paste of huge quantities of irrelevent scientific looking data to prevent any serious discussion of the topic from taking place.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Do you realize that you are the only one here believing that the SLoT, correctly stated, is being violated by GHG back radiation?

The fact that GHG backradiation can be, and has been, precisely measured, makes it indisputable. The fact that the SLoT is correct when it's properly stated, is indisputable. 

That's why what you assert is regarded as your lack of understanding, not a scientific breakthrough.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



If you want to ask a specific question about anything that I've asserted here, I would be glad to respond with proof. I don't claim things in the absence of proof. 

Everybody "WANT(s) people to think they're smart and educated". Some are. Some are illustrating the Dunning-Kruger effect. 

If you are capable of formulating a specific question on what I've asserted, please do it. If not, just say so.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



One of the many benefits of education is to be able to distinguish between other educated people and victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It shows up not just in what they know but how they think, how they question, their ability to research. Their relationship with knowledge. Their objectivity. 

That's why the future of our democracy is absolutely connected to the future of our education. 

An informed electorate must learn to separate the flyshit from the pepper.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Do you realize that you are the only one here believing that the SLoT, correctly stated, is being violated by GHG back radiation?



_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._

Except in rare, and short lived instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is, in fact, warmer than the surface of the earth, describe how backradiation might happen when the Second Law says explicitly that it IS NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish the task.



PMZ said:


> The fact that GHG backradiation can be, and has been, precisely measured, makes it indisputable. The fact that the SLoT is correct when it's properly stated, is indisputable.



I suggest that you take some time to actually learn about the devices that have supposedly precisely measured backradiation.  Those devices which are supposed to have measured backradiation are cooled to a temperature that is much lower than the atmosphere they are measuring.  The AIRS instrument is a good example of an instrument that has supposedly been used to precisely measure backradiation.  They all have cooling modules that cool the focal plane to a temperature below -18 degrees F.  

Since the instrument is cooler than the atmosphere, it isn't backradiation that they are measuring at all, but the perfectly predictable radiation exchange from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument.

Listen closely...this is important....NO MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION HAS EVER BEEN MADE AT AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.  Any such measurement of energy exchange between a cooler atmosphere and a warmer surface of the earth would invalidate the statement of the Second law as such an exchange would require that energy move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.



PMZ said:


> That's why what you assert is regarded as your lack of understanding, not a scientific breakthrough.



I am afraid that it is you who has been hoodwinked.  It is easy to use instrumentation and the data gathered to fool those who aren't well educated enough to know what is being measured.  When the Second Law says that it is not possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, only an undecuated rube, or an educated rube who is willing to decieved for political reasons would believe that actual measurements of a phenomenon that the Second Law explicitly says can not happen were being made.

If you are referring to the comical claim that backradiation has been measured via pyrgeometer, here is a link to a specific discussion complete with all the math on how to fool yourself with one by a professor of applied mathematics at the Royal
Institute of Technology in Stockholm.  

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: BIG BLUFF: Pyrgeometer DLR as Bolometer OLR


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

One of the observations that reveals the limitations of the denial cult is that they don't know what questions to ask. 

There are really only two. 

The problem is not AGW. That's a scientific certainty. Approximately 1 degree C per effective doubling of GHG concentration. 

The real question is what are the consequences of that?

The currently most valid answer is that it will launch positive feedbacks such as melting ice which will 1) reduce the reflectivity and increase the absorption of solar shortwave. 2) release CO2 presently sequestered in permafrost, increasing GHG concentration. 

That will up the ante to a warming of between 3 and 12 degrees C of average long term climatic temperature.

Leading to hypothetically: costly impacts on our civilization like sea level rise into our port cities, relocation of necessary precipitation to away from our farmlands and population centers, and increase in the severity and frequency of extreme weather impacts like hurricanes and tornadoes. 

Anybody want to debate those issues?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the many benefits of education is to be able to distinguish between other educated people and victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It shows up not just in what they know but how they think, how they question, their ability to research. Their relationship with knowledge. Their objectivity.
> 
> That's why the future of our democracy is absolutely connected to the future of our education.
> 
> An informed electorate must learn to separate the flyshit from the pepper.





It is more than obvious that you are not educated as evidenced by the fact that you are unable to discuss this, or any other topic in your own words.  Excessive use of cut and paste are the first signs of a lack of education.  The primary benefit of education is to allow one to contemplate on a topic and actually discuss it in real time from the contents of one's mind.  Those who find that they must cut and paste do so because they lack the education required to actually discuss the topic.  One of us lives by cut and paste, which does not involve any actual discussion of the science.  Cut and paste simply assumes that the science is correct and is hurled against the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick.  

One of us prefers to discuss the topic and get down to the nuts and bolts of the science to determine whether the excessive cut and paste is founded on sound science or not.  All the pretty graphs, and equations on earth mean nothing if they are founded on a hypothesis that is in oppostion to a fundamental physical law.

People who are truely educated tend not to flount their education or attempt to use it as a weapon...clearly you have spent little if any time on a college campus interacting with highly educated people.  Those who are genuinely educated work hard to impart their knowledge in terms that anyone can understand and will go to whatever lengths necessary to reach understanding.  Those who lack any real education...or perhaps I should say, lack any real understanding of the material they are working with tend to wield essentially useless information as a weapon in an attempt to subdue those they view as advesaries.  

And that's another indication of a lack of education or true understanding, or both...viewing those who disagree with you as advesaries.  That view is the result of your own lack of self confidence and a lack of the emotional maturity to view disagreement as a learning opportunity.

I am perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong.  All you have to do is prove it.  If the statement of the Second Law is incorrect and it is possible for energy to move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state, all you need do is prove it, and in doing so, gain a million dollar Nobel for yourself in the process.

Claiming education when everyting you do indicates a lack of it is just sad.

So again, what does the statement of the Second Law say regarding the movement of energy from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state and how does that statement apply to the greenhouse effect hypothesis as it is stated?

Are you educated or not?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize that you are the only one here believing that the SLoT, correctly stated, is being violated by GHG back radiation?
> ...



"

A simple replicable 200+ year old experiment proving what everybody but you knows. That you are simply wrong.

http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet's experiment.pdf


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



But technically, those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger syndrome actually believe they are smarter, better, more capable than their opponent.  The one who is totally stupid but wants others to believe he is smart isn't exhibiting Dunning-Kruger but instead is exhibiting a pathetic desire to impress.

And the troll simply amuses himself throwing out random stuff and doesn't even read what he cuts and pastes.  He enjoys watching others jump through the hoops he puts out there.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The problem is not AGW. That's a scientific certainty. Approximately 1 degree C per effective doubling of GHG concentration.



The fact that you believe AGW is a scientific certainty when there doesn't exist a single scrap of empirical evidence proves a increased temperature is a causal effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is more evidence that you lack any real education.  You are a church member repeating the dogma.



PMZ said:


> The currently most valid answer is that it will launch positive feedbacks such as melting ice which will 1) reduce the reflectivity and increase the absorption of solar shortwave. 2) release CO2 presently sequestered in permafrost increasing GHG concentration.



Why is that the most valid answer when we know from the past, that atmospheric concentrations were orders of magnitude greater than they are today no such chain reaction of positive feedbacks and consequent runaway warming effect took place?



PMZ said:


> That will up the ante to a warming of between 3 and 12 degrees C of average long term climatic temperature.



Since we know that for most of earth's history, it has been considerably warmer than the present, why do you assume that we are somehow causing the warming?  The rate of temperature increase certainly isn't unprecedented...and the temperature itself certainly isn't unprecedented...compared to most of earth history, the present atmosphere is postively starved for CO2.  The question is what proof is there that man's meager contribution (not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year) is causing any warming at all?  Actual proof mind you, not mere corelation which isn't proof of anything.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








I look forward to you demonstrating your "education".   I've been waiting for it for a very long time.  So please, proceed.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



I see that you are unable to formulate any questions or debate regarding my assertions. There is a good reason for that that you are not in a position to understand at the moment.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is not AGW. That's a scientific certainty. Approximately 1 degree C per effective doubling of GHG concentration.
> ...



We know empirically and theoretically the behavior of greenhouse gasses.

We know the rate at which the present burning of fossil fuels increases the concentration of GHGs In our atmosphere. 

We know math. 

We can measure GHG back radiation. 

We can correlate increase in GHG concentration with measured temperature increase.

We know the results of other times in earth's history when we had elevated GHG concentrations.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.






That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Alternatively graph is shown here;






This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.

To get the correlation accurately and precisely, we plot temperature anomoly as a function of CO2.






Now, we can determine how the temperature anomoly is related to CO2.

The chi square for the ln fit is 0.459 and the chi square for the linear fit is 0.453. So the linear fit is slightly better, but probably within the measurement errors. The climate sensitivity searched to 2.29 away from 3. The linear parameters searched to -3.176 and 0.009468.

An alternate regeression may be found at;

Temp v CO2 Correlation

This regression analysis, is based on this data






Which yields

"The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Now here we have a nice ln fit of

"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495."

Or we can go with either; anom=-3.176 + CO2 * 0.009468 for the more precise data or; anom=-3.08 + CO2 * 0.00922 for the full data.

A line fit or a log fit works as well. Basically, in atmosphere, over the range of CO2 and temp anomoly, the two are indistinguishable, within the bounds of variability due to other factors. *These are accurate. *

As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *

And it accounts for all but 23.6% of the variability when just examining CO2. *The rest comes from other factors.

We may do the same with the solar variation

This is solar irradiance against temperature anomoly






which is also included in






Which also contains;






And if you do the linear regression on solar irradiation, that huge divergence guarantees that the R^2 will be less than for CO2.*

Obviously, CO2 is the gas responsible for holding the *suns heat in. So a regression against CO2 yields a higher R^2 because it accounts for the majority suns heat. If there were no sun, CO2 would yield nothing. *If there were no CO2, the Earth would be substantially colder. *CO2 and the sun yields multiple times more temperature. The CO2 multiplies the suns influence. *

The Solar Cycle and Global Warming ? Starts With A Bang

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields






When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are






And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;






The science, in it's details, is far more complex than this overview. *It involves the work climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, and biologists. *Each of these broad categories has specialists, scientists that focus on very specific details of their field, much like there are different medical doctors; surgeons, pediatricians, and podiatrists. *

As the study progresses, the regression becomes more refined. *

Like Einstien refined Kepler, Kepler refined Newton, Newton refined Galileo, Galileo refined Copernicus, and Copernicus refined Pythagorus, the science keeps refining the prediction. *Pythagorus was right, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein were all right.*

CO2 is correct, and solar, volcanos, ozone, and sulfates were added, to get closer and closer. *What was accurate is now even more precise.

These changes will not be exactly the same, everywhere. *AGW causes climate change. Climate change causes changing weather patterns.

There will be increased drought, sea level rise, flooding, changes in precipitation, longer summer seasons, movement of *mobile species, extinction of others, increased forest fires, and other effects. *And, worst of all, it will strain our mature agrigultural industries in providing for the current populations as crop yield falls as a result of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.

Most people are smart enough to not try to reinvent science. *If you are among those, you can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive. *

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

JMF:itfitzme


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> A simple replicable 200+ year old experiment proving what everybody but you knows. That you are simply wrong.
> 
> http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet's experiment.pdf



Pictet's experiment?  Interesting choice since it proves my case as well as any other.  I can only suspect that you didn't understand his conclusions since you offer it up as evidence that I am wrong.

Pictet wasn't of the opinion that cold existed in and of itself but was instead an indication of negative heat, or the "privation" of heat.  He believed that warm objects created a sort of tension in the air and the "heated air" around his thermometer would develop the same tension as the thermometer and would, by some mechanism reject any radiation from the thermometer.  

In essence he described a standing wave between the air and the thermometer in which they essentially cancelled each other out...ie equilibrium.

He then took a flask of cold water or snow and placed it at the focal point of a concave mirror and a thermometer at the focal point of another mirror.  As predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the temperature or the thermometer began to drop as it was radiating heat to the cooler flask.    Interestingly, when the thermometer was placed somewhere close to, but not at the focal point of the mirror, the temperature appeared to remain unchanged...probably due to the limits of his thermometer.  Prictet's experiment demonstrated one way energy flow from warm to cold.

That experiment brings to mind an experiment that you can perform in your own back yard for a minimal expense that will demonstrate undeniably that backradiation is not happening.  If you like, I can IM to you a simple set of plans for a home made solar oven that I built myself for about 5 dollars.  (I had some of the materials already in my workshop) If you have none of them, I doubt that you could spend more than 25 dollars.

Construct your solar oven.  Be sure you have correctly identified the focal point.  Then in the evening, point your solar oven at open sky.  Place a thermometer at the focal point and you will see the temperature drop to well below ambient, precisely as the Second Law predicts.  In fact, if the ambient temperature is 45 degrees F or less, you will see ice form in a bowl of water set at the focal point of your oven.  If backradiation sufficient to warm the surface of the earth were actually happening, you would not see ice form when the temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.

You can point your oven at open sky during the daytime as well and again, you will see the temperature drop below the ambient temperature.  Again, if backradiation were happening, then you would not see a temperature drop as your oven would be collecting and focusing the backradiation to a specific point which would cause the temperature to increase.

Pictet's experiment proves my point and achieved results that were predicted by the Second Law.  The thermometer in the focal plane of a mirror reflecting a cold flask dropped in temperature...it did not remain in equlibrium with the room and it did not increase.  The Second Law predicts that it would cool and that is exactly what it did.  One way transfer of energy.

So tell me, which of the laws of physics do you believe predicts a greenhouse effect as it has been described by climate science.



He essen


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

SSaDhD said:
			
		

> Actual proof mind you, not mere corelation which isn't proof of anything.



This is an absurd statement. Correlation is a necessary part of proving causality. *There are two parts to a causal proof. *One is the correlation between two quantities amd the second is the one is manipulated and the other follows. *

In a laboratory setting, under controlled conditions, the independent quantity is manipulated amd the dependent quantity is correlated with it. Note that the proof of causality requires correlation in the laboritory.

The Beer-Lambert law is a concequence of laboritory correlation between IR radiation absorbtion by CO2 gas.

In a natural experiment, the variation of two quantities in nature, correlation is fundamentally required. Being a natural setting, and not a laboritory, the remaining environment is not controled and therefore other correlations will present.

Never the less, the fact that the controlled experiment proves causality between IR and CO2. CO2 is the same everywhere. It does not change properties outside.

The issue then being a question of proportions, how much effect is CO2 having in the atmosphere. The question is not if it is causal. Of course it is causal. The question is how much does it cause.

To determine this requires determining all the causal factors that are in play and tweezing out the contribution of each.

Simply saying, "coorelation isn't proof" is absurd. *In the laboratory, correlation is proof. *It is proof because there is no other correlation. *The only thing that exists is the IR and the CO2.

This then leads to correlation in nature as proof that the identical process is in play as occured in the laboritory. *

Proof requires correlation. *Repeating "correlation doesn't prove causality" is little more than an ignorant distraction. Of course correlation proves causality. It proves causality when causality exists. *Without correlation, no causality is proven. Correlation is required.

Anyone that says, "correlation doesn't prove causation" is demonstrating their hell bent desire to refuse the proof, by making an over simplified, out of context statement.

In the context of a controlled experiment, correlation proves causality.

In the context of a natural experiment where a priori causality has been established, correlation proves causality.

In the context of a natural experent with multiple a priori causes, multivariate correlation proves causality and tweezes out the individual contributions of each causal factor.

The full effect of AWG is of the form

Temp=a+b*f(solar)+c*f(GHG)+d*f(volcanic)+g*f(sulfates)+h*f(Ozone)+error_term, where f(x) is whatever function best accounts for the individual contributing factor.

The scientific process is very simple, and without question. As each of those functions are demonstrated as causal in the laboritory setting, they are causal in nature. *The above equation is regressed to determine the exact values of each term. *The error is examined for randomness, and if it displays a significant level of non ramdomness, further investigation is warrented. Further investigation may still be warrented as other observations reveal additional effects, like contributions due to El Nino events. In such a case, the formula is recast as

Temp=a+b*f(solar)+c*f(GHG)+d*f(volcanic)+g*f(sulfates)+h*f(Ozone)+j*f(El_Nino)+error_term

and the regression is done again. The error term will be reduced. *The R^2 will increase, and the coefficients will change slightly.

Propery done, due to interactions, the function may even be more like;

Temp=a+b*f(solar)+k*f(GHG,Solar)+c*f(GHG)+f(Whatever)+error_term

Where

k*f(GHG,Solar) is a function of both in combination. After all, GHG doesn't do anything in a cold dark universe.

That is where the reference to the lab experiments and known laws comes in.  Even current temp becomes a factor in the change in temp.  It get's messy, which is why few of us have the time or knowledge to tweeze it all out on the weekend with Excell.  SAS is a good stat package for it, but you need a course of instruction.   At best, the general, linear form is sufficient to demonstrate it goes in the right direction.

This is no different than proving causality of gravity by experimemting with numerous objects. *The equation is cast as

F=m*a+e, with sufficient measure, this becomes

F=m*a-b*f(surface_factors)+e *where

b*f(surface_factors) becomes the result of friction

Well designed, the resulting error term will fully account for measurement error and*

a=g=9.8 m/s^2.

The correlation is the proof.  It is the proof because all relavent factors have been accounted for.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We know empirically and theoretically the behavior of greenhouse gasses.



We know that the so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit.  That in no way proves that they can cause the atmosphere to warm.  



PMZ said:


> We know the rate at which the present burning of fossil fuels increases the concentration of GHGs In our atmosphere.



No, we don't "know" any such thing.  We theorize how much but we don't know because we lack a complete understanding of the intake and outgassing of CO2 across the entire system.  Recent peer reviewed, published research has found that the ocean along the Northern California coast, for example is a net source of atmospheric CO2.  There is no reason to believe that further research at other locations will yield the same result.  That throws a seriously large monkey wrench into the proposed cycle of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere.  

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds ocean along N. California coast is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere



> A new paper published in Biogeosciences finds the ocean acts as a net source of CO2 along the Northern California coast, rather than as a sink. The authors find that "the coastal waters were a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere" during both periods of upwelling of deep waters as well as periods of "relaxation" without upwelling




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2



> A new paper published in Deep-Sea Research finds the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, the opposite of claims by climate alarmists that the ocean removes CO2 from the atmosphere. According to the authors, "At the [research] site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events." The paper also notes, "Astor et al.(2005) observed the interactions between physical and biochemical parameters that lead to temporal [over time] variations in fCO2 [CO2 flux from the] sea, finding that even during periods of high production, the CO2 flux between the ocean and the atmosphere decreased but remained positive, i.e. CO2 escaped from the ocean to the atmosphere."






PMZ said:


> We can measure GHG back radiation.



Actually, we can't.  We can fool ourselves into believing that we are measuring backradiation, but the solar oven experiment I provided you with above is demonstrable, physical, observable evidence that it is not happening.  If it were, the oven would collect and concentrate the backradiation resulting in warming at the focal point...not cooling.  That is where education comes in.  Being able to look at a phenomenon and understsand what is happening and what is not happening.  If backradiation were happening, do explain why the focal point would be cooler than the ambient temperature.



PMZ said:


> We can correlate increase in GHG concentration with measured temperature increase.



Of course, every ice core ever taken reveals that increases in temperature result in increased atmospheric CO2.  



PMZ said:


> We know the results of other times in earth's history when we had elevated GHG concentrations.



Of course, if atmospheric CO2 follows temperature, it stands to reason that at other times in earth's history when the temperatures were higher, there would be increased atmospheric CO2.  We also know from those past times that the present is in no way unusual or unprecedented and in fact, far milder than many interglacials.  Lets just hope that the fact that this is a mild interglacial that it is not a short one.  Cold kills far more readily than heat.  Second Law of thermodynamics don'tcha know.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This is an absurd statement. Correlation is a necessary part of proving causality. *There are two parts to a causal proof. *One is the correlation between two quantities amd the second is the one is manipulated and the other follows. *



Interesting that you find it necessary to alter my name.  Psychologically speaking, those who resort to name calling, especially fiddling with the names people are identified by, is an indication that the name caller doesn't feel OK about himself.  The name caller does this in a futile attempt to make himself feel more powerful, or in some way superior to the one he is calling names.  Your name calling is an attempt to project your unhappiness with yourself upon me.  

Personally, I take name calling on these boards as a compliment.  Rather than simply cut and paste my screen name and post number, you take the time to try and project the feelings of insignifigance and intimidation you feel when speaking to me upon me.  What more flattering thing could you possibly do than to publicly admit that I intimidate you and make you feel insecure?  I encourage you to continue and perhaps expend more energy and express more of your insecurity through even more creative misuses of my screen name.

Back to the topic....corelation is only meaningful if the corelation is accurate.  In the case of climate science, it is not.  Ice cores show that CO2 increases after temperature increases, not before.  If you were making a case that temperature increases result in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and took the evidence that ice cores provide, in that they show that every time temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 increases follow, then you would be making a usefull corelation.  As it stands, your corelation is meaningless because you have ignored what the ice cores tell us.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > A simple replicable 200+ year old experiment proving what everybody but you knows. That you are simply wrong.
> ...



What it proved of course was that the 32 degree F flask radiated heat that effected the thermometer. Radiantly. It's all covered in the pdf. You have to read the whole thing. If you are really interested. It was an exact replica in that regard of GHGs radiantly warming the earth in spite of the fact that in most cases their absolute temperature is lower than earths. 

Is that the last obstacle in the way of you understanding and accepting AGW?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > This is an absurd statement. Correlation is a necessary part of proving causality. *There are two parts to a causal proof. *One is the correlation between two quantities amd the second is the one is manipulated and the other follows. *
> ...



*Or it could be that I just consider it entertaining to use SSaDhD, Walleyed, Slacksack, and Flatulance.

Like Freud said, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar."  And as correlation requires some demonstrated laboritory level causality to serve as proof, any illusory correlation, in this context, means nothing.

The ice cores do not change the correlationnal causality if current anomoly vs CO2.  CO2 is the same in nature as it is in the laboritory.  That CO2 absorbes IR in the laboritory demonstrates that it absorbes IR in nature.  This is as factual for the current record as it is for the paleo record.  

The natural paleo record isn't a lab experiment and therfore doesn't have direct bearing on the current record, or vis a vis.  The path of scientific reason and proof is from lab to current record and lab to paleo record.  

When, and if, the full effect of factors in each natural system has been appropriately accounted for, independently, then they ma be compared directly to reveal any implications that might otherwise have beem overlooked.  Thise implications are then further investigated.

Like CARVE, which is currently investigating the effect of warming on thawimg of the permafrost and its potential for releasing additional GHG.

There in lies the biggest issue, the potential for AWG to stimulate further release of natural stores of GHG.

It is important, when attempting to understand all thing scientific, that you build that understanding in a coherent fashion.  Simply following a random path of arguing against the larger body of science yields nothing but lack of knowledge.

My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof.  Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value.  You need to focus on that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Yeah, I'm not seeing it.  Clearly, the body of science demonstrates that classical thermodynamic principles apply to macroscopic quantities, this was demonstrated by Einstein. And, classical thermo remains a solid science for macro systems.  Statistical mechanics has since replaced it at a microscopic level.

While my performance in classical thermo was above par, for one semester, I make no claims to having retained a solid recollection of it's application beyond having spent many an hour thumbing through tables of enthalpy and entropy.

It is my understanding that, below the microscopic level, there remains the philosophical consideration that it still holds, to some degree. It seems, though, that there is no case for revoking it in the context of energy transition between microscopic particles.

At any moment in time, any molecule may emit a photon of such wavelength or energy that is consistent with the electron orbitals. The probability of doing so is dictated by quantum mechanics, not thermodynamics.  And as spooky action at a distance applies to only particles that originated at the same place, at the same time, there is no mechanism that forbids a colder molecule from emiting a photon towards a warmer molecule.  And as I am unaware of any principle that results in the photon carrying any information from whence it came, there seems no mechanism that will forbid the warmer molecule from absorbing that photon.  

As such, it remains clear that a cold body does emit radiation towards a warmer body which does absorb it.  All molecules, in a larger body, are not at identical energy levels.  As such, the instantaneous temperature of that warmer body will increase.  Never the less, as it does, it will then emit more radiation.  Just as the instantaneous temperature of the colder body decreased and it will, however momentarily, emit less.

So, while, should such a refined measuring apperatus be possible, we would find that the warmer and colder bodies do not reach equilibrium in a direct and single directional manner, but rather, wiggle towards equilibrium, in a random walk that is analogous to the random walk of Brownian motion.

Still, I can think of no macroscopic device which would reveal this microscopic process as all macroscopic measurements are subject to thermal noise and it is, in fact, this random walk that accounts for the thermal noise itself.

Perhaps you are seeing something from the experiment that I am not, something that yields the logical conclusion that heat is being tramsfered, unmistakably, from the cold flask to the warmer thermometer.  I am not seeing it.

Perhaps a page and paragraph.  Viewing an 8-1/2 x 11" page, on a mobile, is frustrating my usual skill to absorb whole pages.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > You are absolutely correct. *Two systems at thermal disequilibrium do transfer instantaneous energy in both directions. Thermodynamic laws are a description of the statistcal averages for large numbers of particle.
> ...



I am actually searching back to find the beginning of this thermo issue, and it's application within the context of AWG.

I ran across this post and stopped to respond.

The issue you are having with thermodynamics is not recognizing the context within which the experents were performed and the laws devised.

All laws of physics are in the context of the experiment from which it is devised. *Every experiment has a setup which creates a context for the results. *It includes the data set and the experimental error that is the outcome of both the setup and the measurements.

As the laws are extracted from an initial experiment that is able to ellucidate that law. *It then gets further applied in new, more refined, and often more complicated experiments. The law is *generalization of all the experiments. It is lifted from the experiments and put into some undergraduate textbook with a section or chapter, at the beginning, that clearly outlines the nature of the system to which the laws apply. *For physicists and engineers, even students, the context has become so well ingrained, that they usually will site the law without referencing the context. To them, the context is so fundamental, that they simply never invoke the principle out of context. *And, as such, it can be a bit confounding to be presented with an "executive summary", like Wikipedia, as the context gets dropped.

The principles of thermodynamics originated out of the observations made of large systems, consisting of macro quantities of particles. *It works for air conditioners, refrigerators, steam locomotives, for sure. It works for large, and well defined, closed systems.

It isn't applicable at the microscopic level, at least not directly. *It isn't applicable for open systems. *The system must be well defined to invoke the principles of thermodynamics. *Once the system has been correctly defined, then the laws become absolute. *And one of those system definitions is that we are discussing the net energy flow for gross volumes of particles, within and between the boundaries of the well defined system or systems. Thermodynamics says nothing about what happens at a microscopic level, to individual particles, over short time scales.

No thermo laws are broken by a cold molecule radiating energy to a hotter molecule. *At an moment in time, they both have some probability of radiating energy in whatever direction they may. *It is an open system. *The cold one will likely radiate energy into free space. It may radiate energy at the hot one which absorbes the photon. On average, over the long term, the hot one will radiate more often than the cold one.

In a perfectly insullated system, with two large bodies, one hot and one cold, the net energy will be from hot to cold. *But at any particular moment, given any two pair of hot and cold molecules, it is simply a bet on what will occur.

Context is everything.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

Ahhh, the fraudsters love their propaganda....  Flog away, you just warm my heart with all of your BS...


"Recent years' slowdown in global warming completely ignored by networks 92 climate change stories in 2013.

Stories citing experts or the latest studies promoting alarmism get covered more than 8 times as often as critical experts and studies."


"Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about "climate change" or "global warming." Not a single one of those stories mentioned the "warming plateau" reported even by The New York Times on June 10. The Times wrote, "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace." Even though the Times piece wasn't published until June 10, a warming slowdown had been reported by foreign media outlets in November 2012, and by The Economist online in March, Reuters in April and BBC online in May of 2013."

Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention 'Lull' in Warming All 92 Times - WSJ.com


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

There is no warming platueu.  It is a delusion of your cherry picking mind.  What you think you see has no statistical significance.

We can go back throught the recent temp record and find multiple instances of a "flattening" out of the temperature rise.  And this is exactly why it is insignificant in terms of the long term trend. 

And I can guarantee that an honest statistical evaluation will show no significance.  All the short term trend yields is "eh!".

Any other interpretation simply displays ignorance or desperate disengenousness.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

The eskimos have a nifty trick for living in the extreme cold.  Out in the elements, they would freeze to death.  So they build an Igloo out of ice.  Inside this wall and ceiling of frozen water, the temperature rises to be warmer than would other wise be if a) theu were not in it or b) they were out in the open environment.  Frozen ice traps heat.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What it proved of course was that the 32 degree F flask radiated heat that effected the thermometer.



You really don't get this do you?  The energy, as predicted by the Second Law radiated from the thermometer to the cold flask.  Pictet was of the opiniont that energy only flowed one way as cold, to him was an absence of heat and therefore whatever heat was available would flow into the cold area to releive the "tension".



PMZ said:


> Radiantly. It's all covered in the pdf. You have to read the whole thing. If you are really interested. It was an exact replica in that regard of GHGs radiantly warming the earth in spite of the fact that in most cases their absolute temperature is lower than earths.



I read it, and more importantly I understood it.  As predicted by the second law, the thermometer, when placed in the focal point of the convex mirror radiated to the cold flask.  One way energy transfer from a low entropy state to a higher entropy state.



PMZ said:


> Is that the last obstacle in the way of you understanding and accepting AGW?



With this, you have well and truely exposed yourself as someone who doesn't have a clue.  The thermometer behaved precisely as the Second Law, which predicts energy movement in one direction from warm to cool and you think it proves your point.  All your pretended education just flew out the window with your making such a very basic mistake.  

Thanks for saving me the time.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *Or it could be that I just consider it entertaining to use SSaDhD, Walleyed, Slacksack, and Flatulance.



Sure...tell yourself that all you like.  Mental masturbation, after all, is your thing.  People rarely, if ever, realise the true reasons for what they do...they tell themselves this and that and in most cases, especially with the uneducated who are incapable of serious self examination, actually believe what they tell themselves.  You are no exception.



itfitzme said:


> Like Freud said, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." And as correlation requires some demonstrated laboritory level causality to serve as proof, any illusory correlation, in this context, means nothing.



Freud is no longer taken seriously by anyone who begins to grasp psychology.  He, and his hypotheses were proven wrong time after time after time.  Interesting that you would try and defend yourself with a failure.




itfitzme said:


> The ice cores do not change the correlationnal causality if current anomoly vs CO2.  CO2 is the same in nature as it is in the laboritory.  That CO2 absorbes IR in the laboritory demonstrates that it absorbes IR in nature.  This is as factual for the current record as it is for the paleo record.



Of course CO2 absorbs IR, which it then emits at a very slightly lower wavelength equal to the energy it took to produce a photon.  No energy is stored and it is always emitted in a direction towards less entropy just as a dropped stone always falls in the direction the forces at work demand that it fall. 



itfitzme said:


> My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof.  Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value.  You need to focus on that.



My observation is that you will ignore stone cold proof that backradiation is not happening if it challenges your faith.  Again, explain why, when a solar oven is pointed at open sky, the temperature at the focal point invariably drops when if backradation were happening, the temperature at that focal point would increase.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is no warming platueu.  It is a delusion of your cherry picking mind.  What you think you see has no statistical significance.
> 
> We can go back throught the recent temp record and find multiple instances of a "flattening" out of the temperature rise.  And this is exactly why it is insignificant in terms of the long term trend.
> 
> ...









Oh no.  I got this direct from one of your leading high priests.  You know Dr. James Hansen, head of GISS and arguably the father of modern AGW "theory".  You know your dear leader.  This is what he said....

Now he only admits to a decade, while the IPCC says 17 years and the UK's Met Office stipulates 16 years, but these are *FROM YOUR SIDE SILLY PERSON.*


If you've got a problem take it up with your anti-science denying leaders.  Not us.....


Global Temperature Update Through 2012
15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The eskimos have a nifty trick for living in the extreme cold.  Out in the elements, they would freeze to death.  So they build an Igloo out of ice.  Inside this wall and ceiling of frozen water, the temperature rises to be warmer than would other wise be if a) theu were not in it or b) they were out in the open environment.  Frozen ice traps heat.








  You really don't have a fucking clue do you...  Wow, your level of ignorance is *AMAZING!*  You might want to look up "dead air space" insulation some time there nimrod.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Ahhh, the fraudsters love their propaganda....  Flog away, you just warm my heart with all of your BS...
> 
> 
> "Recent years' slowdown in global warming completely ignored by networks 92 climate change stories in 2013.
> ...



An implosion is damned near as much fun to watch as an explosion isn't it.  Notice how the left hand tries to comfort and convince the right hand that all is well and he is correct even though he stands in oppostion to the most fundamental law of nature.

You have to love it...don't you?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > *Or it could be that I just consider it entertaining to use SSaDhD, Walleyed, Slacksack, and Flatulance.
> ...



And yet you invoke the concept of defense mechanism.  You can't have it both ways.  If you want to claim defence mechanisms, you accept Freud, at least in that part.  If you want to reject Freud, as a whole, then you can't invoke the concept of defense mechanism.

Prove backradiation is not happening.

I don't even need to invoke any principles beyond simple correlation of temp to anom, solar, etc, to get that AWG is correct.  This is perfectly correct without bothering to detail the specific mechanism.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof.  Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value.  You need to focus on that.



It is your lack of understanding that clouds your ability to make accurate observations.



itfitzme said:


> And yet you invoke the concept of defence mechanism.  You can't have it both ways.  If you want to claim defence mechanisms, you accept Freud, at least in that part.  If you want to reject Freud, as a whole, then you can't invoke the concept of defense mechanism.



The defense meachanism you exhibit is a product of long research in modern psychology not a throwback to Freud.  Make up whatever lie you wish to tell yourself and continue to try and convince yourself that I don't make you feel inadequate and intimidated.  Expend more energy fabricating new twists on my name and demonstrate in publich that I intimidate you, or don't and admit that I am right, and have intimidated you into not fucking with my screen name again.  You lose either way.  It harkens to a knight's gambit on a chess board.  In common terms, you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight.



itfitzme said:


> Prove backradiation is not happening.



Easy enough...I already laid the groundwork.  As I have stated, and offered to provide you with a set of inexpensive to build plans for a solar oven that proves behond question that backradiation is not happening, and you provided the foundation, thank you very much.

Point a solar oven at clear sky, place a thermometer or bowl of water at its focal point and you will see a marked decrease in temperature.  If the ambient temperature is 45F or less, you will actually see ice form in a bowl of water.  If backradiation were happening, the solar oven would collect it and focus it to a point...the focal point.  If backradiation were happening, the temperature at that focal point would remain at ambient temperature or climb some unspecified temperature above the ambient temperature as claimed by the greenhouse effect hupothesis.

Now here is where you have painted yourself slap dab into a corner.  You referened Prictet's experiment which is essentially the same as my solar oven experiment.  The focal point of Prictet's mirror was reflecting the cold flask and the focal point of my solar oven is reflecting the cold sky.  In Prictet's experiment, the temperature of the thermometer dropped when it was placed in the focal point of the concave mirror which was reflecting the cold flask.  In my experiment, the temperature of an object (thermometer or bowl of water) drops when it is placed in the focal point of the solar oven (concave mirror) which is reflecting the cold sky.

We both know that the cold isn't radiating heat because the temperature drops.  We know that what is actually happening is that the thermometer, or bowl of water in either experiment is radiating heat towards the cold flask, or cold atmosphere.  The key to understanding the Prictet's experiment or my solar oven experiment is the focal point.  In Prictet's experiment, when the thermometer was placed near the focal point, but not in it, there was no temperature change.  This is because the energy transfer could only happen if both the cold flask and the thermometer shared the connection of the focal point.  In my solar oven experiment, if the thermometer or bowl of water are not placed in the focal point, no decrease of temperature happens.  The water or thermometer remains at ambient becuse no shared connection exists at the focal point.

OK are you ready?....here is the kicker.  In Prictet's experiment, you claim that the cold flask was radiating heat which caused the temperature of the thermometer to drop.  My solar oven is essentially Prictet's experiment except the concave mirror is pointed at the sly collecting what you call radiation from the sky.  

Are you ready?  Here it comes....If the sky is, as you claim, radiating "cold heat" towards the earth, and that is why we see a marked drop in ambient temperature at the focal point of the mirror which is aimed at the cold sky...how then does this "cold heat" which causes the temperature on a thermometer to drop, or ice to form in water when the ambient temperature is 45F or less cause warming.



itfitzme said:


> I don't even need to invoke any principles beyond simple correlation of temp to anom, solar, etc, to get that AWG is correct.  This is perfectly correct without bothering to detail the specific mechanism.



Of course you don't invoke the laws of physics...that is what people who have valid hypotheses do.  If the laws of physics support and, in fact, predict, phenomena akin to those claimed by the hypothesis, then one can be pretty sure that one is at least on the right track.

If, on the other hand, one can not invoke at least one law of physics that at least supports, if not predicts phenomena akin to those claimed by the hypothesis, then those who actually understand science know that a hypothesis is on shaky ground to say the least....if the proponents of that hypothesis find that they can not even bring themselves to quote a law of physics that speaks directly to their hypothesis, then it is pretty clear that the hypothesis is dead, even if it doesn't know it yet.  If one finds themselves actively avoiding any real discussion of a fundamental law of physics that speaks directly to their hypothesis...one can only shake one's head in pity for the poor schmoe.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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







As it is quite apparent that you have no clue how the null hypothesis works I will enlighten you.  You have made the claim that back radiation is the source of your magical warming.  That means it is *YOU WHO HAS TO PROVE IT!*

It is veeeeerry informative how the mind of the fraudsters works...or how it _*doesn't*_ work, that they are attempting to flip science, and the scientific method, completely over on its head in an attempt to save their collective asses.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof.  Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value.  You need to focus on that.
> ...


[/QUOTE]





Don't waste your time trying to educate these morons.  Merely post that which is needed to demonstrate their total lack of intellect and honesty and move on.  You beat the moles back down their rat holes faster that way.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



That really wasn't for his benefit.  Even though he knows that he has effectively lost the debate based on hard, observable, repeatble evidence, he isn't grown up enough to admit it.  That tedious explanation, and observable demonstration was for those who might be reading who haven't engaged the debate.  It poses insurmountable obstacles for those who believe in backradiation.  If backradiation were happeing, then the temperature of anything in that focal point would increase.  

If as he says that the atmosphere is radiating "cold heat", which demonstrably causes the temperature to fall at the focal point of the solar oven pointed at clear sky, then such "cold heat" can not possibly be causing warming any more than it causes the temperature of a thermometer placed at that focal point to rise or ice not to form on water at that same focal point at ambient temperatures up to 13F higher than freezing.

A new law should be written regarding giving a fool enough rope to hang himself with...he will invariably do it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

[MENTION=23872]ssa[/MENTION]DhD

This may help you.

I simply don't read the majority of your posts. You simply are not important enough. *I have you on ignore, so all I see is that you have posted.

*I will read some of your post if it is in the context of someone else responding to you. *I may, if I get bored, look at one. I do so as sometimes I find that I discover something new in the process of finding you are wrong.

I was searching backwards, out of boredom, to find where the whole thermo thing got started. It didn't take long to find some gross error to reply to. *You present so many examples of what not to do. It is impossible to keep up.

Now, you will find that, before I ever used SSaDhD, or moved from objective response to saying something about you, was after you had used the second person pronoun, in a derogatory fashion, most likely directed at me, possibly towards someone else who had presented an objective idea. *Either way, you were measured immediately and found lacking.

I measure things objectively. *

Slacksack has been measured and as he has no clue as to photosynthesis, nothing he says is relevant until he figures that out. *

Oddballs has an information entropy so low that the air conditioners, for the USMB servers, expend less energy everytime he posts. *The more he posts, the cooler the servers get. *If he were to post enough, the harddrives would crystalize.

**If we adjust the concept of information entropy such that incorrect information is less than one and correct info is greater than one, we have a measure that is consistent with the context of Shannon's idea in that the absolute value is the same, more information is higher entropy, higher energy, higher randomness.

That said, unlike OddBalls, who consistently posts zero info, your information entropy is consistently less than one. *As measured, your repeated use of the term "correlatiom doesn't prove causation" sits at the foundation of any understanding of science. *Correlation is necessary and required for proving causation. A presentation of correlation is correct and saying "correlation doesn't prove causation" is meaningless. *As this concept is fundamental to science, until you work that out, nothing you say beyond it has any relevance. *Science builds from a foundation. *As you have no foundation, nothing further is of any relevance.

So if your wondering why I don't answer questions that you present, it is simply that I don't read them. *I don't read them because the probability is to near 99% that they are irrelevant. *I know they are irrelevant because you simply don't grasp the basic foundation of scientific thought. *And I can reasonably and rightfully say this pointedly because you already demonstrated the behavior of invoking the second person pronoun in a derogatory and unprovoked manner. *You do, completely unaware, because you are always taking a position of offense, pre-emptive defense. You have never had a purely, non-defensive, objective thought in your life. *You cannot act except as a defense mechanism.

And as such, even should you happen to randomly be correct, it is purely by accident.

That said, I'd just as well appreciate it if you don't read my posts. In fact, I forbid you crom reading my post, here to forth.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 13, 2013)

Clearly there are two sides here. 

On one side current scientific theory and data are accepted as fact. 

On the other they are rejected out off hand. 

More and more it's become apparent to me that given that, the issue is unresolvable at the level of this forum. 

Is that a problem? I don't think that it has to be. 

If the believers in science address only other believers in science, and the deniers address only other deniers let those who come new to the forum pick the story most credible to them. 

There is nobody here, I don't think, capable of advancing the science. Nothing new will be proposed or added here to what climate science has already figured out. We are merely cataloging what's been published by others. Some of us have faith in that reporting, others not.

Those without that confidence should feel free to address their aversion to the theory and data. And make up what ever they are inclined to in alternative realities. 

Those ho are confident in the current science should feel free to discuss why current theory and data make sense, and are what needs to be acted on. 

We'll let actions of the majority of Americans decide.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 14, 2013)

"When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;*when [they] are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert;*when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement."
Bertrand Russell.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Clearly there are two sides here.
> 
> On one side current scientific theory and data are accepted as fact.
> 
> ...



Still, I would like to see the page and paragraph that you read as demonstrating heat transfer from cold to hot.  Thermodynamics doesn't forbid it, obviously, or my air conditioner and freezer wouldn't work.  Thermo just says it isn't for free.

  I'd also like to explore the thermodynamic concept of AWG, if there is anything there at all.

And the igloo analogy, even the thermal blanket analogy seemed appropriate. Understanding the mechanism that accounts for the fact that the Earth isn't a snowball in space is curious.  I get, in general, that the idea is that IR radiation is limited on the way in as on the way out. So it is in the balance and this is why GHG and solar are required for the better correlation to temp anomoly than either alone.  Apparently, we can count the number of CO2 molecules emited by fossil fuels, the number in the atmosphere, and get a more precise theoretical answer that supports the obvious causal-correlation.  That is a nice trick.

Even a discussion the precision and accuracy (two distictly different things) of the measures would be interesting.

The trick with AWG, isn't proving it true or false, refer tonthe Bertrand quote.  The trick is two fold; a) finding a group motivation to read, discuss and analyze the mind numbing science splattered about the internet and summarized by the IPCC and b) finding a simpler construct for understanding it as demonstratable without the mind numbing details.  If I wanted to just sit passively and absorb things I'd watch Promethius.

There are alot of interesting things to explore.  I'm just tapped out on the exploration by negation followed by "You're a doodoo head."


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 14, 2013)

This is a reprint from Scientific American, July, 1959.

"A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man's activities influence the climate of the future?"

"Even the carbon dioxide theory is not new; the basic idea was first precisely stated in 1861 by the noted British physicist John Tyndall. He attributed climatic temperature-changes to variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Scientific American


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> [MENTION=23872]ssa[/MENTION]DhD



Thanks.  I was pretty sure that you lacked the character to admit the intimidation and fears of inadequacy I bring out in you and would not be able to admit it to yourself.  I prefer the public admission of those feelings and fears anyway.  You really should be able to get more imaginative than that.  How much fear and intimidation can you project with such a mewling twisting of my name?



itfitzme said:


> [This may help you.
> 
> I simply don't read the majority of your posts. You simply are not important enough. *I have you on ignore, so all I see is that you have posted.



Sure you don't.  You go to a great deal of trouble to project onto someone you don't read.  I suppose you have your sock read the posts that are not commented on by anyone else and therefore not duplicated just so you can answer.

Of course, maybe you have put me on ignore after the shellacking you took yesterday.  To see that the foundation of the AGW hypothesis is a fraud must have been a shock, and even worse that your own link provided the impetus for that miserable defeat.

It would be expected from one who lacks the character to simply man up and admit that he was wrong.  Call some names, project some feelings of inferiority, then run away with what, to you, must seem like a reasonable excuse to not have to speak to me again. 
You are worthy of a chuckle.



itfitzme said:


> [I was searching backwards, out of boredom, to find where the whole thermo thing got started. It didn't take long to find some gross error to reply to. *You present so many examples of what not to do. It is impossible to keep up.



Right.  Now begins the requsite shuck and jive in a futile effort to completely avoid the drubbing you and I both know you received in our last exchange.  You asked for proof that backradiation did not exist and were given it in spades via the material you posted yourself in an attempt to make your case.  

There has been one gross error made insofar as you are concerned.  You engaged me on the topic of thermodynamics and you lost...and lost badly.  Not only is my postion supported by the Second Law as it is stated in every physics text, science dictionary, and encyclopedia, but is demonstrable by repeatable experiment.  Sucks to be you...huh?



itfitzme said:


> [Now, you will find that, before I ever used SSaDhD,



You started fiddling with my name shortly after I started trying to engage you on the topic of thermodynamics.  I watch things like that as I am a student of the psychology behind why people behave as they do and am particularly interested in stress reactions.  The questions I put to you regarding the Second Law triggered an anxiety response in you as a result of feelings of inadequacy and intimidation.  Manning up and admitting it to yourself will be the first step in dealing, internally with those feelings and kissing them goodbye.  Internalizing them and attempting, unsuccessfully to project them on to me will only compound them and add to your frustration.



itfitzme said:


> [or moved from objective response to saying something about you, was after you had used the second person pronoun, in a derogatory fashion, most likely directed at me, possibly towards someone else who had presented an objective idea. *Either way, you were measured immediately and found lacking.



He says with a tremble in his voice.  Tell me, does it really make you feel stronger to talk lke that to someone on the internet who so obviously makes you feel inadequate?

All this talk to avoid the post that brought it on.  Do you have any idea how obvious your effort to avoid the parallels between Prictet's experiment and the solar oven experiment and the hard, undeniable evidence it provides that backradiation isn't warming anything and in fact, does not exist at all?  

If you had an answer to the problems those experiments pose to your belief, you would be confidently answering them in this post rather than the craven and panicky attempt to side step the issue and divert attention away from them. 

The biggest problem with not being able to objectively examine your own feelings and the behavior they prompt you to exibit is that you have no idea how obvious your attempt to supress them is to everyone else.  



itfitzme said:


> I measure things objectively. *



Sure you do.  That is why you have put all this effort into hiding from the fact that Prictet's experiment and the analogous solar oven experiment demonstrate that backradiation is not warming the earth...and in fact, does not exist at all.  That's hard, observable, demonstrable evidence kiddo.  Only a fool argues with such.  

Just for fun, lets take the solar oven experiment to the next level and have it kill two birds with one stone.  We have the solar oven pointed at open sky, and have placed a thermometer at the focal point and have observed the cooling.  Observable results that have meaning sure, but lets take it to the next level.

Lets take your pyrgeometer, or bolometer, or interferometer, or whatever instrument you have been using to fool yourself into a belief in back radiation and place it on a dish at the focal point of the solar oven.  Before we do that, however, lets put a surface temperature sensor on your device and watch it cool as it tells you that it is measuring enough backradiation to cause warming.  Quite a sticky wicket there, what eh?  Any answers to that conundrum?  Either the hard physical evidence that you can observe and measure is lying to you or your instrument is lying to you.  In a court of law, I am afraid that the peponderance of the evidence would convict your instrument as being a liar.



itfitzme said:


> Slacksack has been measured and as he has no clue as to photosynthesis, nothing he says is relevant until he figures that out. *



Yeah, I have been watching that conversation progress.  But the paddling he as been giving you there, and your entertaining, albeit predictable psychological responses to said paddling are neither here nor there and don't bring you one angstrom closer to addressing the problems the solar oven experiment, not to mention the Second Law of themodynamics (one in the same really) lay upon your AGW hypothesis.



itfitzme said:


> Oddballs has an information entropy so low that the air conditioners, for the USMB servers, expend less energy everytime he posts. *The more he posts, the cooler the servers get. *If he were to post enough, the harddrives would crystalize.



You must really be intimidated by me to feel the need to project the inadequacy all these other people make you feel upon me as well.  Doesn't really help though once you submit the reply and put your deep seeded fears and shortcomings out for public view, does it?

It is a viscious cycle which serves to do nothing but further cripple you emotionally.  You can't give it up though, can you?  Feels too good when you are typing it all out...hammering on those keys...pouring your fears out on us....really giving it to us....till you hit that submit reply button and the inevetable answer comes.  It is just mental masturbation though,  and like its physical counterpart, doesn't really leave you with anything afterward but an empty feeling and another mess to clean up.  



itfitzme said:


> **If we adjust the concept of information entropy such that incorrect information is less than one and correct info is greater than one, we have a measure that is consistent with the context of Shannon's idea in that the absolute value is the same, more information is higher entropy, higher energy, higher randomness.



Meaningless...and still not bringing you any closer to answering the problems that the hard physical evidence I have put in your hands lays on your AGW hypothesis.  They aren't going away.  In fact, I am thinking of starting a thread specifically on the topic of how your reference to Prictet's experiment led to hard, repeatable, measurable,and undenable evidence that backradiation is not happening.



itfitzme said:


> That said, unlike OddBalls, who consistently posts zero info, your information entropy is consistently less than one.



So you say, and yet, you have concocted this tedious lament and public airing of your intimidation and inadequacy...put it all out here for everyone to see, symbolically prostrated yourself at my feet, rather than simply answer the post which has served to prove that backradiation is not warming the earth. 



itfitzme said:


> *As measured, your repeated use of the term "correlatiom doesn't prove causation" sits at the foundation of any understanding of science. *Correlation is necessary and required for proving causation. A presentation of correlation is correct and saying "correlation doesn't prove causation" is meaningless. *As this concept is fundamental to science, until you work that out, nothing you say beyond it has any relevance. *Science builds from a foundation. *As you have no foundation, nothing further is of any relevance.



Of course correlation is a necessary part of finding answers.  But the correlations must be accurate and reach a valid conclusion.  Take Prictet's experiment, and the analogous solar oven experiment.  When placed in the focal point of the mirror reflecting a cold object, or the atmosphere, the temperature dropped.  Take that bit of measurable data and combine it with the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy transfers are only possible from warm regions to cold regions and you have physical evidence that was predicted by the law of physics.  That sort of corelation will lead you to a meaningful and correct conclusion.  

Taking evidence gleaned from ice core data which show time and time again that increased atmospheric  CO2 follows temperature rises, sometimes by as much as 800 or more years, and then trying to torture that data into submission so that it says that CO2 drives temperature will not lead you to anything meaningful.  It only leads to situations in which you find yourself now...confronted with undeniable, physical evidence that your belief is not true and the, inevetable, and (should be) embarrassing public psychological reaction that brings on.



itfitzme said:


> So if your wondering why I don't answer questions that you present, it is simply that I don't read them.



I'm not wondering.  I know precisely why you haven't answered them.  You have stated explicitly why you have not answered them with the projections you have vented in this post.  What is sad is that you don't know why you haven't answered them.  I do believe you when you say that you believe they are unimportant.  Since you lack the emotional maturity to admit that you were wrong, you must tell yourself that I am wrong and that nothing I say could possibly be of any importance to you...and then you fashion a post like this one in which you cry out at the top of your lungs that what I say is in fact important to you in that it scares the hell out of you and makes you feel like a child.  The sad thing is that you are unable to see what is so obvious...but alas, that's the way it goes.



itfitzme said:


> And as such, even should you happen to randomly be correct, it is purely by accident.



Mental masturbation is such a lonely, cold, and bitter practice...isn't it?  To bad it doesn't leave any good feelings once you are finished.



itfitzme said:


> That said, I'd just as well appreciate it if you don't read my posts. In fact, I forbid you crom reading my post, here to forth.



You forbid?  You sound like my youngest grandson (3 years old).  Earlier this week my daughter and he were visiting.  I stood him on the mantle so that he could have a higher vantage point from which to launch his rubber band powered plane.  He accidentally knocked over a chatzky which promptly fell and broke on the fireplace hearth.  With as much bravado as he could muster at 3 years old, he "commanded" me to clean up that mess.

In this case, you are going to have to clean up your own mess.  It isn't going to go away.  You have had your ears pinned to the wall at your own request and it is going to linger for some time to come.  Till you can bring yourself to actually discuss the Second Law, and the ramifications of Prictet's experiment and the analogous solar oven experiment on the AGW hypothesis, your mess is going to be a millstone around your neck.  

It's the gambit all over again.  If you ignore me, you lose..if you engage me, you lose.

You aren't a chess player or any sort of strategist are you?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> On the other they are rejected out off hand.



Rejected out of hand?  You are joking aren't you?  Maybe you would like to discuss the ramifications that the statement of the Second Law, Prictet's experiment, and the analogous solar oven experiment have on the AGW hypothesis and backradiaton specifically which is the backbone of the hypothesis.  Without backradiation, there is no AGW hypothesis.

Lets hear your explanation for how an object placed at the focal point of a mirror, reflecting open sky cools rapidly and how ice will form on a dish of water placed at that focal point if the ambient temperature is 45F or less...and how the surface of a device that supposedly measures backradiation of a sufficient quantity to warm the earth will cool when placed in that focal point while it says that it is measuring backradiation sufficent to cause warming.

Hard, observable, repeatable, measurable evidence proving the hypothesis is flawed is hardly rejecting out of hand.  There is an experiment that you can perform yourself that demonstrates conclusively that backradition as described by the AGW hypothesis is not happening...can you show any experiment that proves that it is?

chatzkyIf the believers in science address only other believers in science, and the deniers address only other deniers let those who come new to the forum pick the story most credible to them. [/quote]

You mean, if the members of the church of AGW only talk to other members of the church, all will be well.  That solar oven pointed at open sky is science.  The reaction that it elicits is science.  If backradiation were warming the earth, then that solar oven pointed at the sky would be gathering it and anything placed at its focal point would warm.  That, however, is not what happens.  When the facts don't jibe with the predictions of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is suspect, not the facts.



PMZ said:


> We'll let actions of the majority of Americans decide.



They are.  That is why the concern over global warming is dropping like a stone in the polls.  That is why discussion of climate change has become the literal third rail for politicians seeking re election.  The people have decided that in spite of the billions of dollars spent and the decades long media campaign, that global warming simply isn't worth the time to consider seriously.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;*when [they] are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert;*when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement."
> Bertrand Russell.



How many times have the experts been proven wrong?  How many long held beliefs by the consensus of the experts have been demonstrably and completely proven wrong?

Dodging isn't going to take that millstone off your neck.

If backradiation is happening and it is sufficient to warm the earth, why then does an object placed at the focal point of a concave mirror pointed at the open sky cool.  Did you know that Prictet didn't stop at just reflecting a cold flask with his concave mirrors?  He also used warm objects.  The Second Law predicts that objects placed at the focal point of that mirror reflecting a warm object will warm.  Care to guess what his termometer registered when placed at that focal point?  He though that the warm object was reflecting fire particles to the termometer causing it to warm.  We know today that the warm object was radiating to the thermometer in the focal point of the mirror.  We also know that if the atmosphere were backradiating heat from the surface of the earth, the concave mirror would concentrate that heat and any object placed in its focal point would, inded warm as predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Practical experiment tells us that this is not what is happening, therefore the idea of backradiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth is without merit...regardless of how many so called "experts" say it is so...practical experimental evidence proves them wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Still, I would like to see the page and paragraph that you read as demonstrating heat transfer from cold to hot.  Thermodynamics doesn't forbid it, obviously, or my air conditioner and freezer wouldn't work.  Thermo just says it isn't for free.



You are very far behind the curve aren't you.  A statement like that  is a clear indication that you really don't have even the requsite basic education in physics to effectively discuss the topic.  Of course that was clear when you referenced Prictet's experiment.  How far behind must you be to bring your air conditioner, and freezer, which are machines designed specifically to do the work of transferring energy from cold to hot?  This is very basic stuff that anyone with even a rudementary scientific education would understand and not be making errors on.  Perhaps I should repost the second law of thermodynamics:  

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

The key phrase there as it relates to your air conditioner and freezer is that heat won't flow from cold to warm *without work having been done to accomplish the flow*.  Your air conditioner and freezer expend a great deal of energy in work performed to accomplish the task of moving energy from cold to warm.  And it certainly isn't free...your electric bill should clue you into that fact.  Of course, if you are still living with your parents, you may have never seen an actual electric bill.


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2013)

Are we back arguing over solar ovens?

Parabolic mirrors simply replace the environment radiating into the exposed surfaces of the focal object with radiation from a single direction. It works best with solar rays because they are highly ordered, Colimated as polar bear would say. Next best is radiation from a solid object, like a block of ice. Least effective is a gas.

SSDD- radiation from the atmosphere is as dispersed and disordered as it can get. Why do you think it can be focused in any meaningful way? Backradiation replaces some of the radiation from the surface that would directly escape without GHGs. This reduction of energy loss affects the equilibrium, it does not directly heat the surface.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 14, 2013)

Radiation is the movement of energy away from any object warmer than absolute zero. It has no plan, no goal. All bodies, at all temperatures >0K radiate. It requires no medium. When it encounters another object, depending on the properties of the object, it will be reflected, transmitted or absorbed in knowable proportions.  If it is absorbed that energy is added to the receiving body's energy. 

That's the way the entire universe works every second. 

The universe in SSDDs head, however, follows a different science.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

IanC said:


> This reduction of energy loss affects the equilibrium, it does not directly heat the surface.



That's your own hypothesis.  Not that endorsed by climate science or the mechanism depicted in climate models.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Radiation is the movement of energy away from any object warmer than absolute zero. It has no plan, no goal. All bodies, at all temperatures >0K radiate. It requires no medium. When it encounters another object, depending on the properties of the object, it will be reflected, transmitted or absorbed in knowable proportions.  If it is absorbed that energy is added to the receiving body's energy.
> 
> That's the way the entire universe works every second.
> 
> The universe in SSDDs head, however, follows a different science.



Observable as opposed to your unprovable fantasy universe.


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This reduction of energy loss affects the equilibrium, it does not directly heat the surface.
> ...




Would you be happier if Trenberth's cartoon only showed net radiation of 66W up rather than 400 up and 335 down? Or would you then complain that the number didn't match the blackbody radiation? It is already simplified, do you want it even more simple so that you can have a different set of quibbles?


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Radiation is the movement of energy away from any object warmer than absolute zero. It has no plan, no goal. All bodies, at all temperatures >0K radiate. It requires no medium. When it encounters another object, depending on the properties of the object, it will be reflected, transmitted or absorbed in knowable proportions.  If it is absorbed that energy is added to the receiving body's energy.
> 
> That's the way the entire universe works every second.
> 
> The universe in SSDDs head, however, follows a different science.



I asked SSDD, now I will ask you. Where does the blackbody radiation come from? Does a single molecule have a 'temperatue'?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2013)

IanC said:


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



That's the key right there. Net flow is UP -- nothing is violated. Heating of the GHGases merely SLOWS the rate of gray body energy transfer up.. EZ -- PZ...  Except that Trenberth is in the wrong units for an "energy" budget.. It's actually a fictionalized power budget that neglects the time of day, the seasons, the latitude, and all the important stuff    :RAZZ:

BTW: Heating of the GHGases also causes loss of heat in upper bounds of atmos. due to INCREASING the thermal gradient at the upper boundaries..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Radiation is the movement of energy away from any object warmer than absolute zero. It has no plan, no goal. All bodies, at all temperatures >0K radiate. It requires no medium. When it encounters another object, depending on the properties of the object, it will be reflected, transmitted or absorbed in knowable proportions.  If it is absorbed that energy is added to the receiving body's energy.
> 
> That's the way the entire universe works every second.
> 
> The universe in SSDDs head, however, follows a different science.



I've been reviewing my thermo and chemistry.  Thermo went in a conceptual box, related to steam, freon, ammonia, and the like, where then energy associated with large quantities were analyzed under isothermal and adiabadic changes in a Carnot cycle.  The question of energy transfer do to IR simply never arose.

The mechanisms that will limit absorption of IR by CO2 is simply the limited density of gasses and the binding energy of the atoms in the molecule.

There are three vibrational modes for CO2. *These are bending, symetric stretch and asymetric stretch. These modes are responsible for the spectral absorption lines as each wavelength corresponds to the energy level required for the electron in the bond. *There is no limit to the number of photons that may be absorbed except that, at high enough energy, the bond will be broken, disassociated into constituent elements.

As well, the vibrational energy may be transfered to kinetic energy during the collision of two molecules. This kinetic energy may be translational amd rotational.

The average kinetic energy of the molecules in the gas is what temperature measures. *This includes both translational and rotational energy of the molecule. It also includes the potential and vibrational energy in the bonds.

The total amount of energy in the volume of gas is the enthalpy. *

Entropy measures the randomness of the in the material. *A crystal, like a diamond, has a single ordered state and thus low entropy. *As the energy, and thus temperature increases, the entropy increases as the individual particles are flying about, thus having more randomness and more ways that they can be arranged.

Entropy is related to enthalpy as S= &#945;+ &#946;*H. *It is, though, more practical to consider the change in entropy and enthalpy as*&#916;S= &#945;+ &#946; &#916;H. *The coefficients,*&#945; and*&#946; depend on the material. *

The relationship between temperature and enthalpy depends on the material. *It is not linear. It has to do with volume, pressure, and other factors.

Entropy, enthalpy, kinetic energy, vibrational mode energy, and temperature all increase as CO2 absorbes IR energy, with the exception that the energy is divided up between different modes.

There is nothing that limits the absorbtion of IR energy, by a CO2 molecule, except the atoms disassociating. *Ergo, IR may be emitted by a "colder" molecule and be independently absorbed by a "hotted" molecule. *The net behavior, as described by thermodynamic principles is, exactly that, net behavior as the hotter gas radiates more energy tham the cooler gas.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2013)

Isn't the internet wonderful??

Now you can steal wisdom and pretend to play along..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

IanC said:


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



The problem is that it is, in fact a cartoon.  The whole shooting match is based on a cartoon that simply does not reflect reality...ergo, its constant and continuing failure.

The hypothesis as stated by climate science is that the backradiation actually warms the surface of the earth and if it were so, then the solar oven would warm whatever was placed at its focal point.  It does not because there is no backradiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> That's the key right there. Net flow is UP -- nothing is violated. Heating of the GHGases merely SLOWS the rate of gray body energy transfer up.. EZ -- PZ...  Except that Trenberth is in the wrong units for an "energy" budget.. It's actually a fictionalized power budget that neglects the time of day, the seasons, the latitude, and all the important stuff    :RAZZ:
> 
> BTW: Heating of the GHGases also causes loss of heat in upper bounds of atmos. due to INCREASING the thermal gradient at the upper boundaries..



Two way net flow is unproven, unobserved theory.  The fact that you guys speak it as if it were known fact is...well...just amusing.


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


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




Does a cup of coffee cool faster outside at 0C or in your kitchen at 25C? Is the warmer air warming the coffee directly or indirectly? Why are you holding on to your strawman so tightly? The increased radiation returning to the earths surface indirectly warms the surface by reducing heat loss. While you can calculate the energy moving in both directions, you cannot just ignore one side of the equation. We would cool very quickly if all 400W/m2 was actually escaping to space.

What is wrong with you? You ignore all the impossible results that logically follow from your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT and the diety that must decide which emissions and absorptions are allowed.


----------



## gslack (Jul 14, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Sorry I didn't respond till now. I'm doing my roof so I had zero free time till now...

LOL, so if it's now that back-radiation does not warm the surface further, even though you believe in its existence, what difference does it make? If it's there but does nothing to warm the surface, than it's a moot point Ian...

So which is it now? Seriously dude you're waffling big time.. Before you stated it's role in warming the planet as fact minus the extremists claims, hence your luke-warmer status. Now you claim it's their but ineffectual in warming the surface more...

SO wtf? Make up your damn mind already dude. This is exactly the kind of thing I talked about from you. Waffling when it doesn't fit your belief system... You know it's BS, or you know it's not, time to man up.. Pick a side and face the music, you will be right or you will be wrong. It's called a risk and everyone should be ready to take some...

If it were a simple matter of hyped-science only but a sound theory, there would be some thing made to harness this backradiation property by now, if only for the press and the ability to shut up skeptics.. It's a flawed theory and based on an incomplete one...


----------



## gslack (Jul 14, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Don't try and use entropy as evidence of backradiation... It's dishonest and BS..When we talk of back-radiation in AGW threads like this one, we are talking about the claim of AGW theory regarding IR re-emitted from GH gases back to it's warmer source the surface. You are trying to falsely attribute entropy and the natural state of all things above absolute zero to radiate in seemingly random directions, including possibly back to it's source, as proof of atmospheric back-radiation warming the surface further..

It's a silly claim Ian, and you should know better. If you are half the thinker you claim to be you would realize that just because something radiates towards something it doesn't mean it can effect change in that object radiated to. ALSO, if you continue to claim that the 2nd law somehow denotes a "net flow" rather than an absolute hot to cold, than the point still remains. If the "net flow" is hot to cold with some incidental radiation to the reverse, but that incidental radiation would certainly so slight that it would not effect change in the warmer object. Not to mention phase and various other quanta that would prohibit such...

The fact is whether or not atmospheric backradiation exists is moot. The problem is can it effect change in it's warmer source.

If you believe it can, than you must also believe in perfect heat engines because that is what you will have created. An infinite source of heat from a finite resource..

Again time to grow a backbone and pick a side because your waffling and BS are tiresome. Especially when coated in all that jargon...

PS... Why don't you correct PMZ/ifitzme on their "sequestered CO2" BS? You know it's nonsense, yet you say nothing.. If you're a "luke-warmer" and possess half the knowledge you claim here, you would in the very least put as much effort into correcting that nonsense as you spent trying to preach at us over our disagreement in back-radiation.. But no not a peep from you to them about their obvious nonsense..

Luke-warmer my ass...


----------



## westwall (Jul 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Clearly there are two sides here.
> 
> On one side current scientific theory and data are accepted as fact.
> 
> ...








Yes, there is.  And the desperation with which you and your clones feverishly try and bury *OUR* posts shows just how full of crap you all are.  Thank you for once again proving our point.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



There IS backradiation... Has to be.. Photons don't decide where to go depending on the destination temperature. NET FLOW is upwards. Doesn't violate ANY damn principle.. The warming of the lower trop simply acts to SLOW DOWN the ENERGY transfered from the Gray Body Surface upwards.. Remember the diff between POWER (instantaneous) and ENERGY (over time). 

You and ssdd are stuck on the paradigm that this means the net warming direction changes. It doesn't.. Take the sun out of the picture. Desert at night. 

1) What is the surface COOLING profile (over time) on a cloudless night? 

2) What is the surface COOLING profile (over time) on a cloudy night? 

THere's your backradiation effect..

THe reason your backradiation oven doesn't work >>>>>>>  --- there's NO NET DOWNWARD FLOW --- ever.. 
((OK maybe BRIEFLY LOCALLY with warmer air aloft and other weather transients. ))

Check the plug.. That's what an electronics engineer always does first..


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No you are missing the point here. Net flow, or absolute, IF there is back-radiation yet it cannot warm it's source it's a moot claim as far as AGW theory goes. If the process slows heat loss as you just said, and Ian now claims (despite past claims to the contrary by him) than it's an insulator and NOT a secondary heating mechanism.

An insulator does not create more heat, it slows heat loss. Now if Ian's previous claim via Dr. Spencer and co. is to be believed, backradiation can produce additional warming of the source. IF Ian is now claiming that it doesn't warm the source more but only slows heat loss, which we claimed all along, then he is in fact backpeddling from his previous claims..

Thermal properties of gases (especially  GH gases due to additional the molecular bonds), are directly effected by their temperature. Meaning more heat in, the faster it sheds that heat. Same thing in reverse, less heat in the better an insulator they are. Further, and at that same time Add heat, and convection increases, remove heat and convection decreases. 

Air minus convection is a great thermal insulator, add convection and it's a great heat dissipation/transfer system. We aren't discussing solid, liquid, or a porous material with trapped air pockets inside here, we are discussing air moving relatively freely and able to convect heat away very well.

As I said before and will continue to say, the entire system is an excellent heat pump, with limited thermal insulating properties. Limited by air flow and the inherent thermal properties of gases.

Compress the gasses to the point they are near liquid, a different story. But they aren't here and so they react as gases do to heat.

You can call it "net flow" all you want, the fact remains if the "back-radiation" that is claimed is actually going on, and as you and Ian say it has no effect on the warmer source, than it's a moot claim..

All things radiate some amount of heat, yet that does not mean that radiated heat can warm it's warmer heat source. Call it phase differential, call it wavelength variance, call it magic for all I care, the point remains it doesn't effect noticeable change in it's source.

If you heat up a iron bar until it's red hot, and wrap it in a blanket, it will still cool down, slower than without the blanket, but it won't get hotter, it will cool.

That's the very reason we cannot create perfect or even near-perfect heat engines. The entire process would require infinite or near-infinite reusable energy from a source.

PS.. Before I forget again. You're forgetting the wave-like properties of EM radiation. You are doing what Ian and Spencer does and treating it as a particle only. As SSD pointed out before if it's a particle, it can flow back due to the shear space available to miss the incoming source particle. But if it's a wave than it is a wave and cannot flow back towards it's greater source. What we have in our understanding right now is wave-particle duality, meaning to our understanding it shows properties of both equally. Dismissing the wave property to suit a theory makes the theory dubious at best. As I said before, the entire system reacts and responds more like a heat pump than an insulator. The thermal properties of gases and convection alone would lead to this conclusion, add in the complete failure of climate modeling and predictions based on them, the failure of rises in GH gases to show additional warming in the last decade and a half, and then realize that 180 years of CO2 increases and we have not even a 2 degree rise in temps globally.. Yet every year in my state we go from 90 degree and up summers and 30 degree and below winters, and this drastic drop is due to our position relative to the sun. SOmething which warmers and luke-warmers claim to have less an impact on climate then a trace gas...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

IanC said:


> The increased radiation returning to the earths surface indirectly warms the surface by reducing heat loss.



There is no increased radiation returning to the surface.  The radiation moves, according to the laws of thermodynamics...towards cooler regions and more entropy.  That's it unless you can prove otherwise and prove that the statement of the Second Law is wrong.  I'm waiting.  (tapping foot)



IanC said:


> While you can calculate the energy moving in both directions, you cannot just ignore one side of the equation. We would cool very quickly if all 400W/m2 was actually escaping to space.



There is only one side of the equation.  The other side is a fabrication, a hypothesis, untested, unobserved, and unproven.

You entirely neglect the proven, observed, and experimentally verified atmospheric thermal effect which does explain the temperature here on earth..only it doesn't need an ad hoc greenhouse effect to do it.



IanC said:


> What is wrong with you? You ignore all the impossible results that logically follow from your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT and the diety that must decide which emissions and absorptions are allowed.



Bizarre interpretation?  Are you kidding?  Are you stupid?  Are you a congenital liar?

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

I don't interpret the Second Law at all.  I don't change one single word of the statement.  Interpreting a law that says explicitly, in no uncertain terms that energy flow is one way is your purview Ian.  You can't hold on to your beliefs as the law is written, so you must interpret it to say something else.  Here is my argument in a nutshell...the actual statement of the Second Law.

Take another look at the statement of the second law and try to work up enough honesty to actually say which of us is interpreting..making claims that the law does not make.

As to what climate science says is happening with backradiation, here is the offical word:



			
				IPCC FAQ said:
			
		

> "Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."



http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

So not only do you interpret the Second Law of Thermodynamics to mean what you need it to mean, you have your own, non approved version of the greenhouse effect which does not jibe with the description that climate science itself has given.  How many variations are there on that worthless pile of shit hypothesis?  You have one, climate science has one, does thunder have his own version....who else?

And you claim that I am making bizarre interpretations.  This is why you have the reputation of being a liar around here Ian.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Sorry I didn't respond till now. I'm doing my roof so I had zero free time till now...
> 
> LOL, so if it's now that back-radiation does not warm the surface further, even though you believe in its existence, what difference does it make? If it's there but does nothing to warm the surface, than it's a moot point Ian...
> 
> ...



If one actually believes that the Second Law means what it says, that being, that radiation is moving relentlessly toards cooler regions and more entropy, then he must be saying that greenhouse gasses slow up IR radiation to some unspecified speed below the speed of light so that they can hang around and cause warming.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> PS... Why don't you correct PMZ/ifitzme on their "sequestered CO2" BS? You know it's nonsense, yet you say nothing..



Can't do that.  He has found himself some new friends.  They have been having themselves a fine little circle jerk.  He has gathered them around him like a hen gathers her chicks.  They respect good old Ian because when they get backed into a wall and have no idea what to say, good old Ian can spout some bullshit that sounds far better than anything that they could make up and then all they have to do is say "what he says".


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> There IS backradiation... Has to be.. Photons don't decide where to go depending on the destination temperature.



Seriously flacaltenn, why do you guys keep claiming that there must be thought, or a decision regarding the direction radiation flows?  

Do you question the law of gravity with the claim that a rock must "know" or "decide" which direction it must move when you drop it from your hand?  

Or do you accept that the forces at work simply move the rock in the direction it must go?

Do you think that an electron "knows" or "decides" which direction it is going to move along a wire?  Or do you accept that the forces of nature move that electron along because it must move in the direction of more entropy?

Do you question the laws of chemistry on the grounds that the chemicals must know how to react with other chemicals, or know what the other chemicals are and then decide what to do or do you accept that they behave as they do because the forces of nature dictate their invariable response to the other chemicals?

Do you think that water "knows" or "decides" to run downhill or do the forces of nature simply dictate the direction it will travel.

Do you question every single law of nature based on the claim that the object or objects in question must somehow know which direction to move, or what to do, or do you accept that the forces involved cause them to invariably do what they do with no need for conscious action whatsoever.

Considering the number of observable phenomena, including radiation of objects reacting, and moving, and chemicals reacting and every other observable phenomena of energy naturally moving towards a state of more entropy with no need for consciousness or decision, why on earth would you question the most fundamental law of nature which describes the most fundamental force.  Energy moves in a direction of more entropy and it doesn't need to decide to move, or know which direction that is any more than a rock needs to know which direction the ground is when you drop it.  It goes there because the force of gravity makes it go there and radiation moves towards a state of more entropy because a force of nature dictates that it move in that direction...all of it.



flacaltenn said:


> NET FLOW is upwards. Doesn't violate ANY damn principle..
> 
> You are right.. it doesn't vioalte any damned principle...it violates the most fundamental law of nature.  _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._
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2013)

The two "no backradiation!" loons seem kind of lonely without the third loon, PolarBear.

Yes, it's a century of physics as known by the entire planet, vs. two bitter cranks on a message board. But if the cranks just rant loud and long enough, it will make them correct, because that's how the magic of the internet works.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PS... Why don't you correct PMZ/ifitzme on their "sequestered CO2" BS? You know it's nonsense, yet you say nothing..
> ...



Which is why I call them the 'quadruplets' and possibly 'quintuplets'.  Now that Mamooth has returned, can Saigon be far behind?  But you'll notice they all use the same style of posting, the same syntax, the same absurd cut and pastes, misspell the same words the same way.   And they all try to drown the thread with interminably long masses of cut and pasted gray type because they can then giggle and point and slap each other on the back when somebody takes their bait and addresses that.

I am now convinced they don't have a clue what they are talking about and could care less about the topic.  And you can rebut their posts until the cows come home and it won't change a thing.

A pity too as there are a number of us who would really enjoy discussing the pros and cons of climate change and the implications for all of us re the policy that the AGW religionists are tying to force on us.   But the tag team won't allow it so most serious debaters have now moved on to other forums that this crew hasn't discovered yet.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


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



So who agrees with SlackSacks theory that CO2 isn't part of the carbon cycle amd that plants get carbon from soil carbon?

This is pretty telling, as group behavior goes...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Sorry I didn't read too far into that reply.. You're still not getting it. 

You didn't answer my questions about the desert COOLING profile under 2 conditions.. 

The desert will cool at night WITH or WITHOUT clouds. But the RATES will be diff and the EQUILIBRIUM position will be different depending on the cloud "blanket"... If it loses LESS heat at night because of the thermal insulation effect of the clouds, it will start the day warmer than it normally would because of the RETAINED HEAT.. NOT ADDED HEAT from the back radiation.. Get it?? NOTHING ADDED to time integral of net flow.. Just RETAINED... 

So will your "iron bar" reach a different equilibrium if you pump it daily for 12 hours with a little bit of energy.. Depending on whether the blanket is there or not. 

All you're doing is adding a thermal resistance to a uni-directional flow.. That's how rates of flow according to thermolaws behave. THey radiate BOTH ways and establish  a net flow. THe warmer object will cool SLOWER if interacting with a boundary that is raised in heat energy --- but still cooler than the radiating grey body.

No wave/particle discussion, no violation of any thermo law..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > There IS backradiation... Has to be.. Photons don't decide where to go depending on the destination temperature.
> ...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

" if it's a particle, it can flow back due to the shear space available to miss the incoming source particle."

What the f is that?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Show the thermodynamic, second law statement that says, "*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."


First, heat isn't a thing. *It is a qualitative concept. *Heat is a net flow of energy.

There is no thermodynamic statement that says that energy will not flow from a low energy particle to a higher energy particle.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Clear your head.. Take a breath.. You're in the desert at night..
> 
> Answer my 2 questions about the COOLING profile.. Is it gonna be warmer in the morning if there's a substantial cloud deck? Why? It's back radiation.. It's reducing the rate of Net flow UPWARDS. Nothing says that a colder body doesn't radiate. EVERY body with any heat radiates..



If I am in the desert at night, and there is a substantial cloud deck, and I look at my hygrometer, I will surely see that there is much more humidity in the air than if the skys are clear.  Water, even in its vaporous form, can, unlike any of the other so called greenhouse gasses, actually has the capacity to absorb, and hold on to heat.  It has nothing to do with backradiation, it has to to with the relative humidity in the air and water's ability to store heat.



flacaltenn said:


> Remember that Second law knows nothing about quantum effects...



And in reality, neither do we.  Your "quantum effects" are the product of mathematical models and remain to this day, and all days in the forseeable future, unmeasured, unobserved, undetectable, and unprovable.  Thanks for the reminder, but the present paradigm is that energy flow is one way towards more entropy.....when the Second Law is rewritten to reflect what you believe, then, and only then will a new paradigm exist.



flacaltenn said:


> Because particle for particle, they are bombarding each other almost equally.



So you say, but you can't even begin to prove it.  You may as well claim that a certain percentage of dropped rocks falls up because the forces that govern which way the rock fall aren't necessarily consistent, or just don't have time to deal with all of the dropped rocks.



flacaltenn said:


> Say one shoots 20 photons per minute, the other 21 photons. THERE'S your "net flow".. A virtual cannonade broadside like in the pirate days and that extra ONE cannonball wins the day..


[/quote]

It doesn't matter if all of the photons are moving towards a state of greater entropy.  Why would you believe that any photon, or any other form of energy would be able to move towards a state of less entropy?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Which is why I call them the 'quadruplets' and possibly 'quintuplets'.



You do that because you're a gutless troll. You're helpless at science and logic, so trolling and personal attacks is all you've got.



> But you'll notice they all use the same style of posting, the same syntax, the same absurd cut and pastes, misspell the same words the same way.  And they all try to drown the thread with interminably long masses of cut and pasted gray type because they can then giggle and point and slap each other on the back when somebody takes their bait and addresses that.



Bullshit, liar. I do _none_ of that. My style is nothing like Saigon, PMZ, Ifitz, Numan or anyone. You're either a total 'effin retard, or a deliberate liar. My guess is a mixture of both.

Now you, you're unique in respect to your cowardice. You only jump out if you can hide behind the skirts of other posters, where you try a hit and run attack in safety. You contribute nothing positive to any discussion. Any thread you appear on is worse for your presence.

In other words, stuff the hypocrisy, troll.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why I call them the 'quadruplets' and possibly 'quintuplets'.
> ...







Oh, yes you do mr. troll!  You clones are all alike.  You have no imagination because imagination requires intellect.  You guys cut and paste and try and bury the legit discussion of climate change because you don't care about science.  You care only about politics.  You are a political operative pure and simple.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Show the thermodynamic, second law statement that says, "*It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."



I already provided you with it once, but sure, here it is again.  This particular source is the physics department at the University of Georgia...want to claim they aren't credible?

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Here are various other wordings that say the same thing.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mbahrami/ENSC 388/Notes/Second Law of Thermodynamics.pdf
LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072383321/22360/study_guide_ch05.pdf
Second Law of Thermodynamics, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics | Physics@TutorVista.com
Second Law of Thermodynamics
In the one from NASA, do bear in mind that all natural processes involving energy are irreversable.



itfitzme said:


> There is no thermodynamic statement that says that energy will not flow from a low energy particle to a higher energy particle.



Actually, that is what every statement of the Second Law says.  NOT POSSIBLE.  There is no qualifier for particles.  NOT POSSIBLE needs no qualifier.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Thermodynamics

0th law : Temperature can be measured.

1st law: Energy is conserved.

2nd law: Entropy always increases spontaneously to equilibrium. It does not decrease spontaneously.

3rd law: At zero temperature, there is zero entropy.

2nd law statements;

"The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases.

Entropy is: A thermodynamic property that is the measure of a systems thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work"[1]

"*The is a state function, entropy S, which has the following properties:

For a very small incremental addition of heat to a system, &#948;q, one will obtain a very small increment of entropy, dS, according to the relationship: * *d S = &#948;q/T *, where T is the absolute temperature at the time and place of the heat transfer.
For an isolated system, any change over time in S is either positive or zero, that is: &#916;S > or = 0"[2]

"The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease". This is often taken to mean that "disorder always increases" and is frequently misinterpreted. Another way of putting it is "An isolated system's ability to do work decreases over time"."[3]

"The zeroth law of thermodynamics involves some simple definitions of thermodynamic equilibrium. Thermodynamic equilibrium leads to the large scale definition of temperature, as opposed to the small scale definition related to the kinetic energy of the molecules. The first law of thermodynamics relates the various forms of kinetic and potential energy in a system to the work which a system can perform and to the transfer of heat. This law is sometimes taken as the definition of internal energy, and introduces an additional state variable, enthalpy. The first law of thermodynamics allows for many possible states of a system to exist. But experience indicates that only certain states occur. This leads to the second law of thermodynamics and the definition of another state variable called entropy. *The second law stipulates that the total entropy of a system plus its environment can not decrease; it can remain constant for a reversible process but must always increase for an irreversible process.*"

[5]"dS>0" for an isolated system

None of these say, or otherwise imply that energy absorbtion is dependent upon the relative difference in energy between two systems.

The incorrect statement is

dU2=0 and dQ=0 if U2<U1

There is no such statement!!!

---------
[1]
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry...rmodynamics/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/
[2]
The laws of thermodynamics
[3]
Second law of thermodynamics - RationalWiki
[4]
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thermo.html
[5]
Thermodynamic equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Show the thermodynamic, second law statement that says, "*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."
> ...



Not one of them makes that statement.  If you are so convined otherwise, pick one and quote it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Show the thermodynamic, second law statement that says, "*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."
> ...



You need to know the difference between

heat                 Q     change  dQ
temperature       T    change   dT
energy              U    change  dU
enthalpy            H    change  dH
entropy              S    change dS
closed system
open system

None of them say what your saying, in any various wording.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

Watch and learn....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj5tqM5GZnQ]The Second Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Watch and learn....
> 
> 
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - YouTube



I read precisely defined mathematical expressions. I don't watch videos.

You describe in your best words and math.  Then we can discuss.

I aced my thermo course and my project was on the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine.  You learned from a video.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Heat is a measure of a quality of net flow from one system to another. *Heat is not a real physical thing. *An object does not physically contain heat. That would be the equivalent of saying there is some fluid called "caloric", a concept that has long been abandoned as proven wrong. An object contains energy in the form of kinetic and potential energy. *When two objects are put into contact with each other, there is a ramdom exchange of energy across the contact boundary. This exchange may occur in both directions simultameously and is dominated by the object that has more internal energy. *There is more energy exchanged from the higher energy object than is echanged from the lower energy object. *The net difference in the flow of energy is qualitatively refered to as heat flow.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Watch and learn....
> ...








You couldn't "ace" tying your shoes.  As I said, watch and learn.  The subject of the video is a Nobel Prize winner and is certainly better qualified than the mechanic you learned your thermodynamics from.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Keep telling yourself that... That will work for you.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Here, I have a little test for you.  Describe what thermodynamic and information entropy are and why they share the same term "entropy" evem though one involves physical materialm and the other involves an abstract quality of communication?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Watch and learn....
> 
> 
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - YouTube



You should be able to answer the following from your video.

In thermodynamics, the ideal gas law is important. It is the foundation for the thermodynamic cycle that allows a steam engine to run. *During the thermodynamic cycle, there are two contant quantity paths that allow energy to be input amd extracted, tranfering heat to work.*

Show the following mathematically, in terms of enthalpy, entropy, heat ans work.

What is the ideal gas law?

What are the two constant quantity processes?

Which one does the work and which one allow energy to be added?

I'll give you a clue: dU=dQ-dW or rather dQ=dU+dW

Bonus; which thermodynamic law does this come from and what is the significance in proving that a perpetual motion machine is impossible?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Watch and learn....
> 
> 
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - YouTube



You haven't a clue what that lecture is even talking about.  You got lost in the first five minutes, as soon as he wrote

S=k*log(P)


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Clear your head.. Take a breath.. You're in the desert at night..
> ...



It doesn't matter if all of the photons are moving towards a state of greater entropy.  Why would you believe that any photon, or any other form of energy would be able to move towards a state of less entropy?[/QUOTE]

Really can't help you with ALL your misconceptions.. Can only do one at a time.. 

That's unfortunate that you deny that CO2 can retain heat. A simple trip to a Chem materials handbook could fix that. But whatever.... 

As for the two frigates battling analogy.. A body is gonna emit what is dictated BY THE body and it's temp. So literally take 2 identical bodies bring one to T1 equilibrium and the other to T1 equilibrium plus 0.01degC. (where T1 is very low temp giving you about 20 avg photons per (say) nanosecond. BOTH will emit identically except for that 21st photon per unit time. THAT will determine the NET flow of 1 photon per time unit. 

At that point -- they are pretty equally bombarding each other.. Your view that nothing gets launched at lower entropy targets becomes very problematic. For short time periods of observations --- it is EVEN POSSIBLE that the net flow reverses temporarily.. But over the long haul -- nothing in the thermo laws gets violated. 

But what the hay.. Your view is problematic on several levels.. 

Let's compromise with "the desert thought experiment works for water vapor then".. You just need to cross the finish line with it. The water retains heat.. Becomes both a source of emission AND thermal resistance to the outbound flow of heat from the surface. Lowers the total amount of surface cooling due to (yes say it , say it) back radiation.. What else could it be? The additional heat in the air INCREASES radiation heating via IR photons.. That IS the definition of radiative heat transfer. 

((Might also increase pure conduction and convection as well))

 What I wanted to do was to make that point and then direct you to a paper on why CO2 does not REALLY work in that desert scenario..  A study that DOES NOT FIND Global Warming in the desert at night when controlling for water vapor... 



> A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data
> 
> The arid environment of New Mexico is examined in an attempt to correlate increases in atmospheric CO2 with an increase in greenhouse effect. Changes in the greenhouse effect are estimated by using the ratio of the recorded annual high temperatures to the recorded annual low temperatures as a measure of heat retained (i.e. thermal inertia, TI). It is shown that the metric TI increases if a rise in mean temperature is due to heat retention (greenhouse) and decreases if due to heat gain (solar flux). Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data.



Seems like with our rough edges here ---- At least we could agree on that..


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



No one agrees with BS you just made up asshat..LOL


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The two "no backradiation!" loons seem kind of lonely without the third loon, PolarBear.
> 
> Yes, it's a century of physics as known by the entire planet, vs. two bitter cranks on a message board. But if the cranks just rant loud and long enough, it will make them correct, because that's how the magic of the internet works.



Go take a dump in one of your many hats fraud..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Really can't help you with ALL your misconceptions.. Can only do one at a time.. 

That's unfortunate that you deny that CO2 can retain heat. A simple trip to a Chem materials handbook could fix that. But whatever.... 

As for the two frigates battling analogy.. A body is gonna emit what is dictated BY THE body and it's temp. So literally take 2 identical bodies bring one to T1 equilibrium and the other to T1 equilibrium plus 0.01degC. (where T1 is very low temp giving you about 20 avg photons per (say) nanosecond. BOTH will emit identically except for that 21st photon per unit time. THAT will determine the NET flow of 1 photon per time unit. 

At that point -- they are pretty equally bombarding each other.. Your view that nothing gets launched at lower entropy targets becomes very problematic. For short time periods of observations --- it is EVEN POSSIBLE that the net flow reverses temporarily.. But over the long haul -- nothing in the thermo laws gets violated. 

But what the hay.. Your view is problematic on several levels.. 

Let's compromise with "the desert thought experiment works for water vapor then".. You just need to cross the finish line with it. The water retains heat.. Becomes both a source of emission AND thermal resistance to the outbound flow of heat from the surface. Lowers the total amount of surface cooling due to (yes say it , say it) back radiation.. What else could it be? The additional heat in the air INCREASES radiation heating via IR photons.. That IS the definition of radiative heat transfer. 

((Might also increase pure conduction and convection as well))

 What I wanted to do was to make that point and then direct you to a paper on why CO2 does not REALLY work in that desert scenario..  A study that DOES NOT FIND Global Warming in the desert at night when controlling for water vapor... 



> A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data
> 
> The arid environment of New Mexico is examined in an attempt to correlate increases in atmospheric CO2 with an increase in greenhouse effect. Changes in the greenhouse effect are estimated by using the ratio of the recorded annual high temperatures to the recorded annual low temperatures as a measure of heat retained (i.e. thermal inertia, TI). It is shown that the metric TI increases if a rise in mean temperature is due to heat retention (greenhouse) and decreases if due to heat gain (solar flux). Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data.



Seems like with our rough edges here ---- At least we could agree on that..[/QUOTE]

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect*Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data*Slade Barker*2002

Yep, listed at;

Junkscience.com -- Archives, July 2002


That explains why, in 11 years, it has never been cited in another paper.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Not one of them makes that statement.  If you are so convined otherwise, pick one and quote it.



So either you are a bald faced liar, or you can't read.  Which one is it?

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Physics Department of the University of Georgia...Cut and paste from that link

_"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."_

Maybe you are a liar who can't read.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I aced my thermo course and my project was on the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine.  You learned from a video.



Since you have never taken a physics class in which thermodynamics was discussed, it is clear that I was right...you are a liar who simply can't read.


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The bolded part... A lame excuse. Why respond then? If you can't be bothered toread it,than why bother responding to it?

Your desert at night analogy; pointless in the exchange here. The fact remains an insulator does not warm it's source more, it slows heat loss. You are assuming that any incidental radiation that may be radiated back towards it's source is used by that source. 

As we already know CO2 is transparent to short-wave IR radiation from the sun, but reacts to long wave IR radiation from the surface. What makes you believe that there isn't a similar situation going on here? Do you know this? Have you been made privy to some kind factual evidence that the rest of the world hasn't been told about?

Again, just because something can radiate in any and all directions at once, doesn't mean it will do so back to it's source or that it can effect change in that source.. You are assuming radiation in a direction from whence that energy came, must effect change in that source. Why? Because it effects change in other objects? Warmer objects? No... WHY? Because entropy doesn't work that way.

Two-way energy flow could mean perfect machines, it can't happen to our knowledge but you seem to think that back-radiation exists anyway.

Again your desert scenario. Cloud cover at night acting as an insulator is not proff of back-radiation. It shows how an insulator is supposed to work. That's it. SLowing heat loss does not mean re-radiating some back to it's source. It simply means that the energy is slowed in it's transfer between the molecular bonds of a material. More molecular bonds = more time to through them.

One reason GH gases react to IR is the extra bonds they have over less complex gaseous compounds. More bonds =  more time spent in transfer. A solid for instance can retain heat a lot longer than a gas, for this very same reason. It doesn't have to re-radiate, there is no need for it and it violates the fundamental laws.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> That's unfortunate that you deny that CO2 can retain heat. A simple trip to a Chem materials handbook could fix that. But whatever....



It can't.  It absorbs, it emits.  It doesn't store.  EDIT.....  OK, CO2 can store heat, but not above 0.01675 K or -459.63985 degrees F at atmospheric pressure...What's your point?

 Lowers the total amount of surface cooling due to (yes say it , say it) back radiation.. What else could it be? The additional heat in the air INCREASES radiation heating via IR photons.. That IS the definition of radiative heat transfer. [/quote]

Since water can actually store heat, it is entirely possible for water vapor to be warmer than the surface of the earth...especially after nightfall.  In that case, it isn't backradiation at all, it is the warmer water vapor in the air radiating to the cooler surface.

There is no such thing as backradiation.  If there were, then the second law would read quite differently.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> No one agrees with BS you just made up asshat..LOL



Guess he thinks no one has been reading the conversation and knows that it was his own stupid...very basic error that brought on the whole thing.


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Watch and learn....
> ...



Got a thermally perfect gas do ya? LOL

An IDEAL GAS is exactly as it states "ideal" meaning perfect...

WTF does that have to do with anything we discussed here socko?

Your googling is tiresome you grabbed that verbatim from this link...

New Page 1

You don't even know shit about it, you just grabbed some random tidbits and tried tosell your intellect again..

You're a proven fraud and fake socko.. From your sequestered CO2 nonsense, to your asinine ramblings from the start till now, all of it shows you for a BS artist fake...

ROFL trifling moron..


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I aced my thermo course and my project was on the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine.  You learned from a video.
> ...



LOL, a thermal course?

Wasn't aware they had a specific "thermal course".. Heard of physics, natural sciences, thermal imaging, thermodynamics, solar thermal training, and many others but not a "thermal course"..

Maybe he was instructed how to use his mom's hot water bottle once?

ROFL


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> You don't even know shit about it, you just grabbed some random tidbits and tried tosell your intellect again..
> 
> You're a proven fraud and fake socko.. From your sequestered CO2 nonsense, to your asinine ramblings from the start till now, all of it shows you for a BS artist fake...
> 
> ROFL trifling moron..



You can always tell the fakes...take random samplings of their "science talk" plug it into google and you almost always find that it came from somewhere else.  They never speak in their own words because they just aren't able to actually discuss the topic....and the idea that they actually understand what they cut and paste is just a joke.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, a thermal course?
> 
> Wasn't aware they had a specific "thermal course".. Heard of physics, natural sciences, thermal imaging, thermodynamics, solar thermal training, and many others but not a "thermal course"..
> 
> ...



Maybe it was a talk they had on the short bus about how dangerous a thermos full of hot chocolate could be and he heard thermos as thermo....or maybe thermo is what he called his thermos.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



you poor lost puppy.. I'm a fan of junkscience.com and the archives are simply a daily log of topical and interesting stuff... If they wanted to debunk anything -- they wouldn't be shy.

Probably find some good hansen and mann stuff in the archive too.. 

Can't help it if no one appreciates the genius of looking for global warming AT NIGHT (without the sun radiation) and in the DESERT (so that water vapor content can be controlled for).. Should be 100 papers looking at this -- the fact that there isn't -- should tell you something about the results..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Not one of them makes that statement.  If you are so convined otherwise, pick one and quote it.
> ...



Well, now I see why you are confused, because the second law doesn't say that energy won't flow from a cold to hot body. The author is simply wrong or you have lifted it out of context.  The second says that entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease.

I am sorry you are so confused.

Well, I was looking on Hyperphysics for a decription of the system.  It doesn't explain to you it is for large qualtities of materials and net flow only.

To bad you don't get it is reference material.

I guess you are screwed then.  Now we know why.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Page 4 section 2 paragraph 2

"In accordance with their definitions, thermodynamic properties apply to systems which must contain a very large number of elementary ultimate particles"

Now, why do you suppose a more rigorous text would say that?




http://www.uic.edu/labs/trl/1.OnlineMaterials/BasicPrinciplesByTWLeland.pdf


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

"We introduce the concepts of temperature, energy, work, heating, entropy, engines, and the laws of thermodynamics and related *macroscopic concepts.*"

Now, why point out macroscopic?

STP Textbook Chapter 2: Thermodynamic Concepts and Processes Documents


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Wow, bummer dude, you are screwed.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



You're getting closer.. We have to unravel about 3 knots here.. 

1) Heat energy transfers in various ways. You mentioned the requirement for molecular bonds.. *There are no molecular bonds transfering the sun's energy thru space*. This is a different college course called "Fields and Waves".. There the propagation of EMagnetic energy is discussed and this is the basis for the back radiation claim. There is no conduction or convection involved in the back radiation claim.. It is solely based on EM propagation.. 

2) Therefore my use of the word "thermal resistance" or the use of the word "blanket" can lead to misconceptions. It should read --- a change in the Thermal Flux of EM radiation due to bidirectional exchange of long wave IR.. When you have 2 black bodies in proximity... EVEN WITH A VACUUM separating them --- there will be an exchange of longwave IR. The NET FLUX will correspond to the 2nd law and flow from hot to cold. But EACH body is a source of IR photons traveling unrestricted between the bodies. 

3) THis results in the effect of REDUCING the net flow of energy from the warmer to cooler body. Those clouds in the desert are a source of IR photons from heating during the day. And it is raining IR photons all day long reducing the net flow from the surface. You can only REDUCE the amount of COOLING of the earth's surface in this fashion.. IF --- the temperature and heat content of the atmos remains the <<Edited error>> COOLER body. See next.

4) The obeyance of the Thermo Laws is calculated on net exchange of energy RESULTING in entropy changes. In reality, energy always has a time element. If you increase the amount of heat induced IR EMagnetic radiation from the atmos to the ground, you reduce the ability of the surface to shed that much heat on a daily basis. So eventually, equilibrium will produce a higher surface temperature. 

The temperature is not higher solely BECAUSE of the raining IR EM energy. It ALL came from the sun in the first place. But it forced the earth to become an energy storage mechanism for the excess energy that could not be sent upwards against the flux of the back radiation.

That's why no clouds (less GHGas back radiation) starts the next day in the desert at a lower temperature and vice versa. ((More complicated during the day, because clouds also restrict incoming solar radiation)) Not because the clouds acted as a material insulator, but because they were a source of (weaker) opposing RADIATIVE energy.

It's a simple minus sign in the net upward radiative loss from the surface.

It ACTS like a blanket --- but involves no material or molecular heat transfer.. And it doesn't violate a single law of physics.. 

As for SSDD quotes from the physics books. THe change in Entropy implied in any exchange does not specify the details of such exchange on the basis of thermal conduction, convection, or radiation.. Only that the NET RESULT must obey the law..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Now you are getting it.  It is part of the reason Barker's TI doesn't work effectively.  He uses TI=T_low/T_high, looking for retained heat.

Problem is that the high temperature will be higher and the low temperature will be lower so the ratio will be roughly, (T_low+dT)/(T_high+dT). Both climb simultaneously and he has simply removed the majority of the systematic increase from his measure.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

For Gslack and SSDD.. 

Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient? 

Skin 90F  Room 67F   Outside 47F 

You were COOLING outside FASTER than inside. Assume there is no convection or conduction. JUST radiative heating from the room.. (minute amount of double paned glass with good deep IR transmission) Same effect. You will COOL slower.  Your skin will EVENTUALLY assume a new equilibrium say 95F. 

You'll say the body supplies the heat.. Of course. Just like the daily pumping of solar energy the earth surface gets. But the body LOSES heat at lower rate --- EVEN IN the proximity of a colder radiative mass. 

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic.. 



> Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom
> 
> The equation for how much radiation is emitted by a body &#8211; &#949;&#963;T4 &#8211; does not include any terms for where the radiation might end up. So whether this radiation will be incident on a colder or hotter body, it has no effect on the radiation from the source. (See note 3).
> 
> ...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> For Gslack and SSDD..
> 
> Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?
> 
> ...



No shit!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Thanks for encouragement --- but your rebuttal to Barker sucks.. You managed to miss both points of innovation and brilliance in that exercise.. 

By looking at the ratio of Tnightlow/Tdayhigh -- you can isolate the diff between solar heating and the GHouse retention. GHouse retention occurs all day long and would RAISE the ratio -- while the ratio decreases if the source of heating is primarily solar. 

You need a delGH and a delSolar in your mothy math.. 

Similiarly, you can isolate the confounding effect of water vapor when you check for GHouse effect in a desert.. 

Congrats..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



No you don't, because it will look the same whether there is CO2 or not.  Nighttime doesn't have any less CO2 and changes from one day to the next are systematic and are cancelled out.

It is cold.  Then it gets hot.  TI1 is determined
Then it cools of, but not as much as before. Then it gets hotter cuz it started off a litter warmer. TI2 is calculated. The low temp is higher, the hot temp is higher. The TI is (T_low+dT)/(T_high+dT) and the ratio is the same.  The change from day to day got canceled out. The low temp increased, the high temp increased.

1/1=1  2/2=1  3/3=1

1/2=.5   1.1/2.2=.5  1.2/2.4=.5

His method of TI takes out systematic change, amd quite arbitrarily


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Nope.. Go to the board and write... (Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

Now with delSol == 0 ........... Put in some numbers like (14 + 2)/(21 + 2).. Is that LARGER than Tnight/Tday??? 

Can you tell me what happens to the ratio when delSol is the prevalent addition.

For homework -- give me the algebraic proof that adding a constant to the numerator and denominator results in a larger number if Tnight < Tday .

    The patience of a saint I tell ya... 

BTW:  There's the weakness in what Baker did.. Seasonal changes in the ratios give non-linear results. So you really only get the drift of what's happening without further fiddling.. Got to read the paper again..


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



1. I didn't say molecular bonds were required to transfer energy through space. I was very clear that we were discussing the manner which GH gases react to IR radiation. Not Radaition through space, but the transfer of IR through GH gas molecules. Try and stick to what I say and not what you gleam from a quick browse of a post...

2. AND ONCE AGAIN... Just because it CAN radiate in all directions, doesn't mean it WILL or it will cause change in the warmer body... You can repeat yourself using as many varied terms or vernacular as you want, the point remains the same...

3. SEE NUMBER 2 ABOVE... AGAIN... It doesn't mean it will effect change in it's source,or warmer object... AND I already went over the issue with slowing of heat loss. It's a matter of molecular bonds inherent in GH gases that are not present in less complex gases. More bonds = longer path to escape= slower heat loss.. I don't see how many times I have to repeat the same thing, in response to the same issues.. The system doesn't require backradiation, no system does and it's akin to a perfect machine to pretend so..

4. ONCE AGAIN.. Why is it you assume an insulator re-radiates rather than slows heat loss? The fact is an insulated item still cools, a bit slower than an uninsulated item, but cools nonetheless. Using you and Ian's logic, even the slightest insulator would increase efficiency of a heat engine exponentially. More heat in would mean more heat back in again, the higher the temp the less heat loss through the insulator. But we all know that's completely false. Higher temps, lessen the ability of anything to retain heat or retard heat loss. And with gases it's even more so...


I think you need to read what I write more carefully.. You just mistook my mentioning heat transferring through molecular bonds of an element(GH gases in this case) for convective/conductive transferof heat.. We are discussing radiative heat transfer through a GH gas...

All the condescension aside, if you aren't going to properly read what I write why pretend?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



(Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH + delSol)

you are counting the sun twice. *Day time is hot because of the sun, duh.

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tnight + delGH + delSol)

(Tnight + delGH) / (Tday + delGH)

And your still not getting that GHG accounts for the NEXT day and night BOTH being warmer.

The TI cancels out the day to day warming.


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> For Gslack and SSDD..
> 
> Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?
> 
> ...



Science of doom? LOL, the Clone to spencer's shtick? No thanks...

If you want to regurgitate the same argument's spencer and CO. use, it's a silly and tired strategy.. One that Ian tries...

Once again(like Ian and spencer) you are trying to use the properties of an insulator to explain backradiation warming the surface further, and it's been gone over again and again. It's a bogus claim, that relies on a theoretical concept of actions at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. A theoretical concept which has not and cannot be proven any place other than an equation.

Ian cited one of spencers arguments recently. The man tried to use an insulated house to make the same claim your site just tried. The problem was he said the insulation made the house warmer. No it didn't. Insulation allowed the house to reach a certain temperature faster and more efficiently than it would have otherwise because it slowed heat loss. Once the temp in the house hit the proper temp the thermostat was set to, it shut off. Minus insulation, it took a lot longer. Now we here on earth have a thermostat as well. it's called day and night.

Now,when we get a realistic energy budget based on a full day/night cycle and not based on a flat disc earth bathed in 24/7 twilight, you will see that backradiation is unneeded..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > For Gslack and SSDD..
> ...



It does if the insulation keeps increasing everyday.  Everyday the insulation is more, so temperature goes up as the heater never goes off.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Get a box and cover it with foam rubber.  Put lightbulb in it.  Stick a thermometer throuh the side.  Turn on bulb. Wait till thermometer stabilizes. Add more foam rubber..Watch temp increase.  Keep adding more foam.  It will increase as long as you have enough foam rubber.

You can go to the hardware store and buy the parts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Say WHATTTT?? You can't even follow instructions.. WHERE is the sun counted twice? 

The numerator is the NOMINAL Tnight with added GH effect. 
The denominator is the NOMINAL Tday with added GH effect and any added Solar effect.

You do understand that this ratio is almost always less than 1 right? Because you were freakin me out with your 
1/1 == 1     2/2 == 1    crap before... So if add identical GW deltas to top and bottom --- the ratio INCREASES... 

If future Tnight/Tday numbers INCREASE --- It's because the GH effect increased.. 
If future Tnight/Tday numbers DECREASE --- It's because the Solar effect increased. 

*assumes Tnight < Tday  

((OMG -- I'm not doing this at 11:30 with a Software Validation at a client in the morning))

Setting delSol = 0 leaves JUST the GH effect. 

Now go get a calculator and tell me if (14 + 2) / (21 +2)  is GREATER THAN,  LESS THAN or EQUAL TO  14/21 

 the value WITHOUT an increase in the GH effect. 

So if you look at a history of Tnights/Tdays and you see the graph GO UP --- GWarming.

If it goes down --- sell IBM shares.. 
I'm being punked right???

No more ---- UNCLE....


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



WHAT? Dude are you on crack or what?

Every single night the heater goes off numbnuts. Not to mention your idiotic claim that the insulator increases daily..

Dude get a grip..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well, now I see why you are confused, because the second law doesn't say that energy won't flow from a cold to hot body. The author is simply wrong or you have lifted it out of context.  The second says that entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease.



Actually you don't, but being what you are, you must tell yourself that you were not dead wrong.  Predictable and somewhat sad.

Funny that you, an obvious pretend science expert on the internet says that one of the most respected physics departments on the face of the earth is wrong.  If you had a clue in the first place, you would never suggest that the physics department at the University of Georgia is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Page 4 section 2 paragraph 2
> 
> "In accordance with their definitions, thermodynamic properties apply to systems which must contain a very large number of elementary ultimate particles"
> 
> ...



Wow, a whole paper based on a theory that is, as of yet, completely unobserved, untested, unmeasured, and unproven.  Thanks for that.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "We introduce the concepts of temperature, energy, work, heating, entropy, engines, and the laws of thermodynamics and related *macroscopic concepts.*"
> 
> Now, why point out macroscopic?
> 
> STP Textbook Chapter 2: Thermodynamic Concepts and Processes Documents



Wow.  A whole textbook based on a theory  that is , as of yet, completely unobserved, untested, unmeasured, and unproven. Thanks for that to.  Do you see a trend here?  You can only find information to support your claim in texts that are describing theory as espoused by mathematical model...not the first bit of observed, measured, empirical evidence...The Second Law still stands as law and your theory remains a theory.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Wow, bummer dude, you are screwed.



Why?  Because you can post links to theoretical information in an attempt to overturn every observation ever made since the beginning of time?  Maybe you should look up the definition of screwed.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..



Scienc of doom Skeptical?  Really?

Keep treading.  By the way, did you see the post above where ifitzme told you that you were getting it? HERE 

Congratuations...you appear to be making new friends.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:
> 
> http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpres...at-and-mass-transfer-chapter-12-radiation.png


[/QUOTE]

No shit![/QUOTE]

Guess you never read a standard textbook.  Classical physics texts do not teach two way net flow of energy.  Physics texts for climate science do...but then climate science is not a hard science and climate science is interested in funding.  Those textbooks that teach an unphysical phenomenon like backradiation are just another piece in the error cascade that climate science has fallen victim to.

For example:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest does not teach two way heat flow. 
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar, again, a hard science text does not teach two way heat flow.
An Introduction to Radiative Transfer does not teach two way heat flow.
Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung used to teach the hard science of physics does not teach two way heat flow.

While

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews a text used in climate science courses does
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC does teach two way heat flow
IPCC TAR 2007 does teach two way heat flow
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen does teach two way heat flow
Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation by Bohren-Clothiaux, again, a text routinely used in the soft science of climate science does teach two way heat flow.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...





You are as bad as polar bear when it comes to mis remembering what I have said in the past. Quote one of my posts where I have said something different than backradiation affects equilibrium.  

I can understand how it is difficult to argue against my words and ideas but I really wish you guys wouldn't go all politician-like and put strawman words in my mouth


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 16, 2013)

You don't need to make it that complicated SSDD.  Just observe an ice cube.  There is no scenario in which an ice cube ever became colder when placed in a warmer environement.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Two bodies at different temperatures in proximity both radiate towards each other. Heat flow is determined by the net effect. As standard textbooks indicate:
> ...



No shit![/QUOTE]

Guess you never read a standard textbook.  Classical physics texts do not teach two way net flow of energy.  Physics texts for climate science do...but then climate science is not a hard science and climate science is interested in funding.  Those textbooks that teach an unphysical phenomenon like backradiation are just another piece in the error cascade that climate science has fallen victim to.

For example:

Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest does not teach two way heat flow. 
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar, again, a hard science text does not teach two way heat flow.
An Introduction to Radiative Transfer does not teach two way heat flow.
Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung used to teach the hard science of physics does not teach two way heat flow.

While

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews a text used in climate science courses does
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC does teach two way heat flow
IPCC TAR 2007 does teach two way heat flow
The Greenhouse Effect by Lindzen does teach two way heat flow
Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation by Bohren-Clothiaux, again, a text routinely used in the soft science of climate science does teach two way heat flow.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much all physics texts give formulas for calculating the radiation of an object (kT^4) or between objects (k(Th^4 - Tc^4)). A simple rearrangement of terms gives (net power equals power emitted minus power absorbed).

Just because you would rather quote an out-of-context snippet of a definition of the SLoT that does not make you right. The SLoT is used to describe large number macroscopic systems not individual atomic events.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> Pretty much all physics texts give formulas for calculating the radiation of an object (kT^4) or between objects (k(Th^4 - Tc^4)). A simple rearrangement of terms gives (net power equals power emitted minus power absorbed).








  does not describe two way radiation flow.  You mention rearranging...what are you going to do, alter a perfectly elegant equation in an attempt to give it some meaningless meaning?




IanC said:


> Just because you would rather quote an out-of-context snippet of a definition of the SLoT that does not make you right. The SLoT is used to describe large number macroscopic systems not individual atomic events.



We both know that the statement that I routinely quote is not out of context.  Your claim that the Second Law does not include individual atomic events is hypothesis..unobserved, untested, unmeasured, unproven.  It is nice that you have something to beleive in, but I am afraid that your belief doesn't override what the Second Law actually says.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

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


[/quote]

The quotes are skewed up.  You've got someone elses text as me.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > For Gslack and SSDD..
> ...



You rejected the explanation I gave above INCLUDING A PAGE from a standard Thermo TEXTBOOK.. Are you saying the TEXTBOOK is wrong? ((Attrib for the page is on the original weblink))..


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much all physics texts give formulas for calculating the radiation of an object (kT^4) or between objects (k(Th^4 - Tc^4)). A simple rearrangement of terms gives (net power equals power emitted minus power absorbed).
> ...



Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

OK .. Really don't have time to protect the honor of Radiation Physics here.. 

Gslack is rejecting textbook pages because of where they appeared. SSDD has TOO many technical issues to deal with including a rejection that CO2 has any heat carrying capability at all. (I've done that one with him before).. 

So new tactic... YOU TWO need to provide YOUR understanding of the following real world examples.. 

1) A lot of my work is in cameras INCLUDING thermal IR.. So I'd be out of biz if IR photons only traveled to cooler objects.. 

Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"???? 

2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?

I'm waiting to be entertained... LOL


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> does not describe two way radiation flow.  You mention rearranging...what are you going to do, alter a perfectly elegant equation in an attempt to give it some meaningless meaning?



That difference is only the NET thermal Energy.. One is BIGGER or EQUAL to the other.. Those canonical precepts say NOTHING about the mode of the transfer.. There are SEVERAL modes for heat transfer.. Conduction, Convection obey ONE SET OF RULES.. Radiated EM obey an entirely diff set of rules.. NONE of those transfer mechanisms violates the law for NET flow... 

We are arguing about the set of rules for RADIATIVE thermal transfer.. *And THERE, EVERY body is a source.*. The Black Body Radiation laws SAY they are...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



It is unfortunate, for him, that Hyperphysics doesn't make any overt statement of the definition for a system.  Every thermo text does, in the first section od the first chapter.  Hyperphysics does, early in the presentation, use a glass of water as am example, but that alone is to weak to imply that everything following applies only to glass of water size objects.

I've presented a few thermo quotes that do say the system is macroscopic.  No source says otherwise. They either mention macroscopic or they neglects to mentiom it at all.  That should give one pause. 

Short of getting Hyperphysics to edit their page, I don't sew how SSaDhD's ever going to make the connection.

The thread has gone on and on about this for days, an issue that would have been resolved in a minute's time in a course semester.  At this rate, what should take 3 months x 4 weeks x 3 days x 1 hour will be dragging out for years.

Seems to me, he's basically screwed.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

No one seems to be stepping up with a simple explanation describing why objects emit radiation according to their temp. Is this a weak spot in many people's thermo understanding?

Single molecules have favoured absorption/emission but for temp related radiation there is a smooth Planck curve. This is indicative of a different process. And is one of the reasons why the SLoT does not cover individual atomic events..


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> OK .. Really don't have time to protect the honor of Radiation Physics here..
> 
> Gslack is rejecting textbook pages because of where they appeared. SSDD has TOO many technical issues to deal with including a rejection that CO2 has any heat carrying capability at all. (I've done that one with him before)..
> 
> ...



Dream on flac. They don't have a coherent understanding of how things work, only talking points and ad homs.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> No one seems to be stepping up with a simple explanation describing why objects emit radiation according to their temp. Is this a weak spot in many people's thermo understanding?
> 
> Single molecules have favoured absorption/emission but for temp related radiation there is a smooth Planck curve. This is indicative of a different process. And is one of the reasons why the SLoT does not cover individual atomic events..



That is a quantum physics issue.  At some level, you just have to take the empirical evidence as a postulate. As temp goes up, the probability of emmission increases.  That much we can say.  For macro quantities, there are more particles at higher energy so the probability increases.  For a single particle, at higher "internal" energy, the probability of emission increases.

The whole thing with the why of physics is that it is based on a "finer grain". Macro properties were what they were until microscopic "ultimate particles", atoms and molecules were proven.  Then the why became the mechanical statistics of the microscopic particles. 

The why is always one level of granularity lower.  Macro materials to molecules.  Molecules to atoms. Atoms to electron.  Electrons to, well now were getting to the quantum level issue. At that point, it is simply a matter of describing what is and recognizing that our "why" is often an analogy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

This is a bit more rigorus presentation of why Barker's 2002 attempt is wrong.

Let TN be night temp and TD be day temp. *

d is the amount added during the day. Let*&#916;C be the little bit more from additional CO2

So, on day 1,*

TN1 *and TD1=TN1+d** TI=*TN1/(TN+d+&#916;C)

That is, the day time temp is up by d, due to day time heating plus the additional amount due to that *dau increase in CO2. *TI is Barkers "thermal inertia" measure.

The next day,*

TN2=TN1+&#916;C *and TD2=(TN2+d+&#916;C)=TN1+d+2&#916;C

The second night is a bit warmer due to the day's additional CO2 warmth. The daytime is the accumulation of the two days additional CO2 plus the daytime warmth d.

TI2=(TN1+&#916;C)/(TN1+d+2&#916;C)

TNn=(TN1+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)/(TN1+d+(n)&#931;&#916;C)

&#916;C is very very small, so for

TNn=(TN1+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)/(TN1+d+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)

Even*(n-1)&#931;&#916;C is really small, amounting to no more than degree over decades compared to the day time and night time temp in the desert. Compared to TN and TD, it is swamped out.

Essentially,*

TNn=(TN1)/(TN1+d)

Barker 2002 doesn't present his raw data. *But, we can use a couple of example numbers that are reasonable. *Let's say 30F and 120F. Over the course of 1931 to 1995, the average change in temp due to CO2 was, let's say 2 degrees.

So &#916;C is 2/(1995-1931)=.031F per year, for 64 years.

Using*TNn=(TN1+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)/(TN1+d+(n-1)&#931;&#916;C)

d is the difference between day and night, 120-30=90.*n is 64 years.

TN1 is 30, TI1 is 30/120=.25

TN64=(30+2)/(120+2)=.262

Barkers TI changes by .112 over the course of 64 years. Meanwhile, the precipitation index he uses has year to year swings of .20.

It is a week measure as he is dividing the top and bottom by a factor containing the CO2 temp change, effectively cancelling them out.  The example I've used is rather forgiving as I have assumed nice smooth changes.  Larger variability in all the factors will just bury the year to year trend in the noise.

The other issue is fairly simple. He never does a multivariate on the TI to both CO2 and his precipitation index. *Had he, he may have very well found a better fit with both than either alone.

All he has managed to demonstrate is the obvious, that weather is more variable than climate. *But we already know that.

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



While SSDD has a blind sop on the SLoT, you have blind spot on correlation/causation and the issue of undisclosed variables. How long will it take to bring you around? Hahaha.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OK .. Really don't have time to protect the honor of Radiation Physics here..
> ...



You radiating at me man??
What? You think you're warmer or something? 


Here's what I believe Ian.. It's the way that academia lays out thermo in the classroom. The introduction includes the laws and makes a passing reference to radiative heating and then proceeds to finish the course talking almost EXCLUSIVELY about conduction and convection.. It's because Electro-Magnetic propagation is ANOTHER course.

Maybe you'll find a whole chapter on black bodies and Planck and Boltzmann. But the point is not stressed about the equations of transfer between radiating bodies.. (It's also too complex to get rigorous about the field of view geometries and all that)

And so most folks leave with the belief that ALL heat transfer proceeds along the lines of thermal conductivities of materials and unidirectional thermal differences..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This is a bit more rigorus presentation of why Barker's 2002 attempt is wrong.
> 
> Let TN be night temp and TD be day temp. *
> 
> ...



Nope... No one is silly enough to do this "day to day".. You should really go get a job that you can do without faking it.. This is pretty pathetic.. PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself.. The paper is not that important for you to commit felony fraud.. 

Of course he does a separation on TI for both CO2 and Precipt. That's part of the paper... The source of his "raw data" is ALSO disclosed in the paper.. 

You have a lot of time to waste.. I don't...


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No one seems to be stepping up with a simple explanation describing why objects emit radiation according to their temp. Is this a weak spot in many people's thermo understanding?
> ...





It certainly is QM issue but that does not preclude a simple one sentence explanation of where the planck radiation comes from.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I've got no blind spot. I am well aware that there is a 5% probability that the correlation happened by random chance.  I am well aware that there is a .0000099% probability that it is pixie dust causing the issue.

I also know that the temp goes up and it is highly correlated to all known factors.  The likely hood of it being due so some unknown factor is not worth the bet.  We don't bet on black swans.  That's the nice thing about it.  We go with what we've got until something proves otherwise.  And so far, nothing proves otherwise.

A 5% probability of not doesn't round up to a 100% probability of never, can't be.  A 95% probability rounds up to always, must be.

If I see some guy, walking by my parked car, repeatedly looking inside and around, I don't take that to be coincidence, even though it could be he just happened to be going back and forth to the store.  I take it as certain that he's looking to break the window and steal my briefcase.  And I can guarantee that everyone who falls into the denier category would do the same.  In day to dayl life, they go with far less certianty. Then, when it's about AWG, suddenly they are all "correlation doesn't prove causality".


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I'm sure if anyone knew, they'd say so.  When you find out, let us know.  I've never seen a need for quantum physics.  And as far as I'm aware, Feynman would simply say that's just what happens.  As one person put it, "If I knew that, I'd write a book".  But not knowing why photons leave when the leave, in the quantity that they leave, doesn't preclude that you know that they do.

It seems nice enough that quantum physic and relativity explain emission line broadening and shift.  That seems to be more significant.

If you do find it, let me know.  It may answer a few questions that have annoyed me.  It could be so simple as that, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty, as the energy level goes up, the electron is simply more likely to be in a broader location.  As that location gets wider, the likelihood of it not coming back increases.  But, hey, I'm just synthesizing from first princilples.  Call it a hypothesis.  This leads to considering the various complementary quantities for Hiesenberg, beyond momentum and location.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





conduction is markedly more efficient at distributing heat than radiation is. I have often wondered what proportion of conduction is actually radiation (of course that would depend on the material as well).

Planck radiation is directly proportional to temperature, which itself is a measurement of kinetic energy. collisions between the constituents of any gas, liquid or solid are the origin of Planck radiation and that is why they are somewhat normally distributed (I cannot remember the name of the curve which is truncated on one side). as long as there is kinetic energy and a density thick enough to allow collisions, there will be kinetic energy transformed into radiative energy that allows energy to escape and temperature to drop. individual atomic absorptions/emissions may be involved with this transfer of kinetic to radiative energy but a collision between two ground state molecules will still emit radiation. a non-groundstate molecule may or may not add its electron state energy into the collision, or it may re-emit its electron state energy as allowed by orbital drops or bond shifts, before a collision. kinetic energy transformation is not a standard absorption/emission event that is governed by QM. 

temperature is the average kinetic energy of the constituents of an object, some are faster some slower. even in a hot object two slow molecules may collide with a low energy photon(s) emitted. even in a cool object two fast molecules can collide, emitting a much higher energy photon(s).

for any one-to-one transfer of radiative energy between two objects there is a chance that the lower temp object may in fact send a higher energy photon. but because hotter means higher average kinetic energy, therefore higher average thermal radiation, AND more radiation per unit time, the transfer of energy always goes from hot to cold.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> []
> 
> Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?



Why would you apply any property to an steady elegant equation?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yep.. when the Laws were written, they were written only to explain the GROSS transfer of energy.. and the GENERAL progression of entropy.  You are absolutely correct about the underlying statistics of conduction.. 

Wish I had snipped an article talking about violations of the 2nd Law that occur when two objects are CLOSE in thermal gradient. Or when the amounts of energy are extremely small.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



"*I am well aware that there is a 5% probability that the correlation happened by random chance*."

No you're not.. There is no probability of causality attributed to the mere SHAPE of something. You need to have a math relationship between them based on reasonable mechanics of the relationship.. 

In truth, correlation is used mostly to FIND relationships hidden by noise and variance. NOT to assign causality... 

There are THOUSANDS of TRUE functions that are perfectly 1st order linear.. *They correlate with each other 100%*.. That doesn't mean they are all even REMOTELY an explanation for each other. 

Same for 2nd order functions. Etc.. Etc.. Etc...

You don't even know from a mere correlation which is the DEPENDENT and which is the INDEPENDENT variable.. 

Disclaimer.. 
<<When you get further in Signal Processing theory -- you encounter something called the "time-bandwidth" product.. It's a measure of the complexity of the signal.. The amount of information content in the signal.. If you find correlations between high TimeBandwidth product processes --- the LIKELIHOOD of a causal relationship DOES rise.. Unfortunately --- YOUR signal is one of the weakest punkiest ones on the planet and carries VERY little complexity>>

You're right on the cusp of being tuned out.. I SENSE you want to learn very badly.. And you're TRYING --- the only reasons you are not the 2nd USMB poster I have on ignore...


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



let's just look at two factors, solar and CO2.

people have always know that the sun is the biggest factor in determining the conditions on earth. once Hershel noticed there was a correlation between sunspots and wheat production we started to look for ways of quantifying it. proxy records suggest that there is a 0.7 correlation over the last few thousand years, which in turn suggests half the variance. lately we have better equipment to measure the solar input but typically just use the general TSI. we do not know the temperature neutral point of TSI. it is likely that the majority of the 20th century was  above that point on average, leading to rising temps. in my own opinion an extra watt of TSI is much more capable of actually changing terrestrial conditions because it is highly ordered and high energy, as opposed to the nearly useless backradiation that cannot do much of anything besides counteract outgoing surface radiation.

CO2 has a poor correlation over long periods, eg the last 5000 years has seen a slow drop in temps even as CO2 has slowly increased. of course mankind has disturbed the natural  amount of CO2 and that is a wildcard. even looking at the correlation of CO2/temp is difficult because temperature is also affecting CO2 concentration by causing it to be released from the oceans. 

when you, itfitzme, take a simple correlation between CO2 and temp, but only over the last hundred years, and declare that it is responsible for 78.xxx percent of the temperature rise, you are fooling yourself and doing a disservice to others by saying your incomplete understanding is true because you can put math equations on the table.

there are many other factors besides solar and CO2. water in its many forms being one of the important ones. when you discount the other factors, and then compound your error by adding the discounted variance from the other factors into the CO2 variance it is properly called fraud.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > []
> ...



physics is 75% manipulation of mathematical equations to understand the relationships between things. are you against the rearranging and replacing of equal terms for the equation F=ma ?

why are you upset with mathematics? I don't separate the terms for backradiation except to quantify them. they are both happening simultaneously. it is only people like you who declare that back radiation cannot be quantified (actually you say it doesn't exist) but then refuse to follow the consequences of denying back radiation to its logical conclusions. if the surface is emitting 400w/m2 but only gaining 160w/m2 from the sun....


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



DUDE your link was to science of doom website. Don't even try and claim it to a textbook it's right there in your link....

Source aside, just because something radiates to to another, warmer object, doesn't mean it can effect change in that object.. What part of this is escaping you?

You assume that if it radiates, it must effect change in a warmer object. When there is no evidence, even in your links, that any such thing must occur...

GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??

You keep trying to repeat the same thing and sidestep what I say... We do have a thermostat here. A natural one. Day and night, the seasons, solar variance, distance tothe sun, and the fact that GH gases are(thanks to convection) a lousy insulator but a very good method of transferring heat away from a source(convection again).

Which sounds more realistic to you.. Sun radiates to the surface, warms the surface, the surface heat warms the lower atmosphere, convection takes over the warmer atmosphere rises up away from the heat source, and then cools in the process until cold enough and starts to fall back towards the surface, where it collides with the rising warmer air and warms a bit until it gets close enough to the surface again to start the process over again. 

OR, your theory that the sun warms the surface which warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface further due to back-radiation...

LOL, I'll take my theory all day.. Your's is an attempt to justify a theoretical concept of GH effect, where none is required, Mine is a realistic portrayal of how convection and the atmosphere on this planet works.

It may be statistically correct to assume some form of back-radiation at work, but it is realistically incorrect to assume it can effect noticeable change in it's warmer source.

Call it "net flow" till you are blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Be it net flow or absolute flow, the fact remains it's still a positive flow warmer to cooler, and there is no physical evidence to support any incidental back flow effecting noticeable change in the heat source.


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


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



LOL, the idea is fine if the people doing the manipulations are trustworthy. When they are not we have concepts like this AGW nonsense. Which you yourself have agreed the numbers have been manipulated badly...

BTW. prove your numbers.. Prove the 400w/m2 and the 160w/m2... No interpretations based on theoretical mathematics, show actual proof that those numbers are indeed accurate.. See the problem yet? You are willing to bet the farm on an unproven theory, simply because it's been right on some other things, and despite the fact it cannot explain many real world phenomenon.. You need to get a grip and realize the difference between theory and fact,and realize most of what we actually know for certain is due to real world experience and not numbers..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Poisson.  The variance is the square root of the mean.  I'm pretty sure it falls out of a normal distibution probability of exiting or entry.  I have never bothered to derive it though. We get it in queing theory, where  normal distribution of people coming into the teller lines yields a poisson distribution because, obviously, you can't have negative people in line.  In the same way, we don't get negative number of photons exiting a body.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No I'm not. I am recognizing that the 5000 year curve has discontinuities. Thr discontinuities indicated that something significamt changed.  I'm doing a piecewise analysis based on recognizining where and what significantly changed.

I can do the same thing with gasoline prices.  Real dollar gasoline prices were basically flat, going up with inflation, until about 1998.  That was when China started ramping up in GDP growth on exports, production fueled by using fossil fuels.  It is just that simple.

And I didn't stop at CO2 with 74%, I added in solar, el nino, volcano, sulfates, and ozone.  As expected, with a muktivariate analysis, the R^2 for CO2 diminishes, as does the residual variance, as the others start picking up more and more of the variability in anomoly.

Calling it fraud deserves a fuck you.

I didn't charge money. It is how it is done, standard practice, and it is right.  I haven't done the confidence interval for the slope. You can do that yourself.  Like I said, I didn't get paid ti do it.

So fuck you. Or are we to accuse SSaDhD of fraud and lying for completely mangling SLoT?

You can bang your head against the thermo and quantum physics wall till the end of time, and you're not gonna get there.  All your gonna do is resolve out further the detailed explaination as to exactly what the regression coefficients really are.  And given the huge nature of the global climate, you are still going to have to come back to statistical regression, exactly like the IPCC has in their expression of climate sensitivity and radiative forcing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics... 

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink... 
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence.. 

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy??? 

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya?? 

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


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



I'm pretty sure we can measure the avg energy from the sun. I'm pretty sure that we know the avg surface temp so we know how much it radiates. The two are not commensurate so there must be a heat sink component added to the equilibrium which is logically caused by the atmosphere impeding the loss of radiation from the surface to outer space.

How do you explain it to yourself? I'm all ears. Educate me.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




Yourwork attributed most of the variance to CO2 and the rest of the variance to other GHGs. It should be easy to find, you spamed the board and various threads with it repeatedly.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

BTW GSlack:  You also have several issues goin here.. Besides a dismissal of basic Radiative Heating. 



> GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??



That's an easy one.. The sun is BROADBAND emitter. It bombards us with everything from UV to deep IR.. What comes thru goin down is largely ALL the visible and short wave EM.. 

But the source of what's going UP is the black body radiation of the Earth itself.. Because the thermal properties are much less than a sun --- the EMISSION spectrum of the radiation is shifted to be PREDOMINANTLY (almost exclusively)  LONG wave IR... It's this LONG wave IR that GHGases love to snack on.. 

It's that unseen Deep Dark Red Glow of the Warm Bosom of Mother Earth that goes back upwards. 

Short unpornagraphic answer.. The incoming broadband radiative energy is translated down in frequency by the heating of the surface.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Do you think gslack actually believes that page of text was photoshopped or something?

Its funny how the same information is considere acceptable or not depending on where it is found. Ideas stand on their own merit, not by who speaks them.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No, you will find I updated it with additional info as I improved it.  I started with a simple linear estimate of the time based extention.  Then I added the regression.  Then I added the multivariate when I found that.  I simply improved the presentation as I found new graphics or revised the text.  

That or when someones post warrented the exact same response. Why would I retype the same thing over again?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Sorry Dude.. Jig is about up.. Unless you are the guy who owns this website... 

Excel Chart Misrepresents CO2 ? Temperature Relationship | Climate Charts & Graphs

He's the guy who wrote the R-script to generate your avatar.. Unless of course with all that aggressive extra work you did --- you didn't take the time to plot your own result... 

Please quit while you're still barely likeable...


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



See now ya went from being condescending to downright rude..

The photocopied page from a physics text book? I didn't say it was wrong silly man. You claimed your link to science of doom was a link to a text book page. It wasn't it was a link to a page with the science of doom view of backradiation which tried to use a textbook excerpt page to justify it's claim.. Not exactly the same thing, and the page is neither proof of their theory or my repeated statements..

Now why not grow a pair and respond to what I say instead of what you feel you can argue?

I stated time and again net flow or absolute, either way, if the net is still from hot to cold, what makes you think that any incidental back flow (cold to hot or back radiation) will effect change in it's greater source?

You keep avoiding answering that because you know it's correct. You assume incidental backflow can effect change in it's greater source. WHY? Where did you come to that conclusion? What textbook states any such thing happening categorically? NONE, that's where spencer, and the science of doom guys are replacing what might be or could be, with what we know for fact is..

You are being led to buy into a concept that exists nowhere else but mathematics and only in AGW and related theories specifically.

Seen any back-conduction? How about back-convection? No? Perhaps electricity can spontaneously flow back down a wire to it's source? NO?? How about using the silly flac/ian logic on it? You know ask how the electrical current decides to not flow back to it's greater source? LOL, love that logic man...

Back to the text book.. I happen to have a copy here.. And nowhere in that chapter does it in anyway state anything that backs any claim of back radiation.. That is radiation flowing back to it's greater source..

In fact I am looking through the PDF right now.. Looking through the thing and can't find the chapter on backradiation anywhere.. Not even a peep on it...

So take your head out of the science of doom and spencer's ass, and actually take a look and show me what proof you have of back-radiation..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I did .. Go to the questions I posed in the post link above. I'd love to hear how YOUR theory handles those explanations..


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...





equilibrium temperature is a function of input minus output. where is the extra input into the surface coming from if not the atmosphere? why are you ducking the question?

if a wire has two opposing forces the electrons will flow in the direction of the larger force. not at the rate of only the stronger force but proportionall to the net force. the virtual photons are still moving in both directions and transferring their energy to electrons independently of the opposing force. photons are only affected by interacting with matter, not other photons. interference patterns can be present but only in the presence of matter. a magnetic field can polarize light but only if it is in the region of either the emitter, or the receiver, not in the open space between them. this is because photons do not transfer energy except in the presence of matter.

thermal radiation in an object that is conducting heat is going in all directions, as is demanded by physical laws that say radiative emission from kinetic energy has no preferred direction. you need to separate kinetic interactions from radiative ones. one is mechanical and is mostly property of matter, the other is quantum emission and is mostly a property of photons. photons can exist in the same space as another photon, particles of matter cannot.



edit- back convection? convection can go in any direction but it is mostly up or down because it is a function of gravity. it is also made up of particles of matter so it is a net force mechanism because matter cannot be in the same space as other matter. radiation does not have the same limitations.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



he cannot and will not answer because he knows that if he gives specific answers it will quickly lead to absurdities. general talking points and ad homs are all they have. 

nature is elegantly simple in her design. send energy out in all directions, some of it will escape.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





if you improved the one post that you repeated dozens of times; good, at least you are moving in the right direction. you simply repeated it when I originally questioned its veracity because of undisclosed variables. you said I was wrong but now you appreciate that there is more than GHGs involved with climate, and that only taking CO2 and temperature into account is a fool's game even if you can concoct mathematics that exaggerate the correlation. presumably you also now understand that substantial causation is also off the table.


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



WHY? your questions do not in any way negate or disprove my statements...

But here ya go... Your questions..

_"Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"???? "_-flac...

Are you reading the flow from warmer to colder? Seriously is that what your thermometer is reading? Or is it the change in temperature itself.  OR in this example from wikkipedia...

Infrared thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Sometimes, especially near ambient temperatures, false readings will be obtained indicating incorrect temperature. This is most often due to other thermal radiation reflected from the object being measured, but having its source elsewhere, like a hotter wall or other object nearby - even the person holding the thermometer can be an error source in some cases. It can also be due to an incorrect emissivity on the emissivity control or a combination of the two possibilities.



According to wikki they can be used for various purposes but somehow proving back-radiation isn't one of them... Hmmm...



> Infrared thermometers can be used to serve a wide variety of temperature monitoring functions. A few examples provided to this article include:
> Detecting clouds for remote telescope operation
> Checking mechanical equipment or electrical circuit breaker boxes or outlets for hot spots
> Checking heater or oven temperature, for calibration and control purposes
> ...



Simple dude show me the text book which states it being a fact and we are done.. Shouldn't be too hard if it's as factual and obvious as you claim...

Your next question...

_"2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?"_

Sure they may radiate at one another, BUT... And please pay attention this time because you keep ignoring this point.... DO THEY EFFECT CHANGE IN THEIR HEAT SOURCE? OR ONE ANOTHER?  

NO!

And why? Because the nature of blackbody radiation, or thermal equilibrium achieved by both bodies negating any gain in temperature from one another..

But hey, Don't take my word for it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation



> *Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature T surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature T on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium.* The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[20][21] Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body. This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature T, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature T.[22]



You are circle-talking, pretending that because something can radiate towards it's source, that means it can effect change in that source. It's a false assumption. Mathematically it should, but due to QM or Quantum theory being incomplete (the math behind it), reality and real world experience shows it doesn't effect change in the source.. See the problem yet?

You like Ian and so many others learned to do the math through a process, but you didn't learn to question it or think through what it means in application. Hence your attempt to use an IR thermometer to prove backradiation. If it were really that simple, there wouldn't be a case against it would there... It would be in the text books wouldn't it.. Well it's not and the reason is it's a mathematical concept which doesn't stand up to real world observation..

NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???

Please, if you can't answer it fine, just don't ignore it and try to make up my position for me... It's getting old..

BTW.. "kinda wins in the long run."  LOL are you serious.. It wins but you aren't gonna admit it so you try and justify it with that ? ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



No ducking by me Ian, you are the dancing bear who runs everytime you have to defend spencers position... Not a word from you until flac came to your rescue... LOL..

Back-convection would flow back to it's warmer source silly... That's the second time you tried to play obtuse to get by.. Grow up Ian, that's just as silly as your "decides to emit" Bullshit... Warmer air rises, colder air falls, hence back-convection would allow the opposite.. DOesn't exist dumbass..

Virtual photons? LOL, why not stick with actual photons schmuck? LOL, your BS requires you to delve ever deeper into theory and you don't see a problem yet? LOL, tell ya what you prove that virtual photons flow both ways in a circuit okay... Get back with me..

ROFL.. You are too ridiculous for words Ian..


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...

Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation

And to show another example.. I did a google search for the words "Back-radiation proof'. here's the list I got..

back-radiation proof - Google Search

What I got was a list that contained spencer and science of doom first and second respectively (no shock there) and then in third was my link above, followed by a mass of links to various sites and articles that for the most part call the concept of back-radiation a mathematical concept or possibility that does not stand up to observation in reality..

Disagree with me all you want, but the world seems to disagree with you and Ian.. Pretty blatantly too..


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...




photons that pass electromagnetic force are virtual photons that don't exist unless there are both an emitter and an absorber. they carry the additional property of being either attractive or repulsive. reactive photons cease to exist when their lifespan is exceeded, a la the uncertainty principle. that is why the field stays intact until something draws power from it. radiative photons are emitted just to lose energy and are complete even without an absorber. 

there are dozens if not hundreds of pages of me arguing with wirebender, polar bear and SSDD about Spencer thought experiment. it is a little unreasonable to say I have ducked the issue. and I answered their questions while I seldom got direct responses from them. 

BTW, I like your cut and paste about objects at the same temperature. they fully radiate in all directions but because there is no excess in any direction they stay the same temp. wow, exactly as I have been stating for years. in the case of earth, the temp is not quite equal but the radiation/backradiation is the cause of lowered loss to outer space. 

if you want me to answer anymore questions will you at least return the courtesy?

perhaps you could start with why the earth's surface isn't cooling dramatically because of the large discrepancy between solar input and surface output.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...
> 
> Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation
> 
> ...



 is that Claes' harmonic reflection paper that gives the exact same numbers as 'standard' physics, just with a convoluted new layer of complexity? or is it something new? Claes Johnson is considered a bit of a crank by just about everyone, but good luck to him.

back radiation is a descriptive term that is only useful for describing the situation. back radiation is simply radiation. just like reverse racism is simply racism, but it gives more information about the parties involved.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

Jen- you might want to research the increased water vapour thing a bit more carefully. just sayin'


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yeah, the same thing could be said about this long conversation about backradiation and SLoT.  The difference, I'm smart enough to know that you have to start somewhere and then build from there.  It doesn't matter where you start except isn't it damned nice that someone else already figured it out and it is CO2 and other GHGs that account for the climate variabiltiy.  

You can look at backradiation, then foolishly reject it because it's not enough.  The go off to clouds, and choke on that because you can't get precise enough data. Then look at whatever, rejecting things all along the way because not one is enough to account for everything.  That is fools errand.

And no, causation isn't off the table. I'm just going to watch you guys foolishly chase after some mythical blackswan.  Because, there isn't a thing, even blackbody radiation, that isn't subject to your rediculous "correlation isn't causation" bs.

You will be here for the next decade and you will never calculate/model your way into it.  In the end, after all is done, you still have to meld the physical models with the statistics to put the whole thing together.

Ever puzzle piece, that you have tossed on the floor, you will be looking under the rug for.


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The first bolded part, SO what? It does not prove the existence of back-anything and especially not back-conduction. If it did, it would be a simple matter to actually prove back-radiation wouldn't it. text books would have it in there and so on. Yet there is no such proof because like back-radiation and any other mathematical possibility that doesn't show in real world observation, it just either doesn't effect change in the energy source/object, or it doesn't happen anyway take your pick... Simple prove it exists by showing it in the real world observation, otherwise it's a mathematical construct to explain another mathematical concept that although may be sound mathematically, somehow isn't sound in real world observation... Best to get a grip and realize the difference between known and proven fact, and theoretical/mathematical concept or theory..

Second bolded part... You run everytime your chain of thinking ends in you being wrong Ian, you do it all the time... Sure you argued it for pages and walked away at the same point you were going in, incorrect in the application of your thinking in reality. Again you are sound on the math, but not sound in what it means or applies in reality... The fact you see QM and genral Quantum theory, and all that goes with them as established fact despite even the fathers of the theory stating it being incomplete.. It's a theory, get over it.. Just because a mathematical equation states your ass can catch fire in your chair, it's not a fact it will.. Jesus dude..

Third bolded part.. Already answered your questions to my knowledge you had another one? Please ask it again, but if it's a repeat of one already answered, prepare to get the same response I already gave for it..

Sure, as I said previously, the atmosphere slows heat loss. That isn't proof of back-radiation, it's proof of the inherent thermal properties of the atmosphere. Meaning it takes time to transfer the heat out from the surface; clouds, so-called GH gases, thermal transfer, and the inherent time/energy use in each transfer.. Simple. No back-radiation needed..


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...
> ...



Claes Johnson, prof of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.. LOLnow he's a quack by your standard? Get a grip Ian you're a web forum poster not a published scientist, and in no position to deny his credibility.. WHere did you get that nonsense? Oh wait I know it was either SPencer or science of doom right? yeah we know... Pathetic...

The simple fact is, whether you like Johnson or not, there still is no physical proof of back-radiation or back-anything.. LOL the fact you tried to use virtual photons as proof of back-conduction is beyond silly..

And now back-radiation is just a descriptive term... LOL almost didn't even hear your backpeddling that time Ian, so quite, so nonchalant. Nice try but it's a descriptive term to make a physical case for something that doesn't exist anywhere but theoretical mathematics... ROFL.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Try this, page 91, statistical mechanics

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

It comes down to basically, given the nature of quantum mechanics, the photon has a probabitity of being emitted at a given time at a given frequency given the temperature of the body.

No need for some other body to be coupled across space.

And as IanC notes, when it's two bodies, the net flow is the difference between the two.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



No back pedaling. Physics simply considers backradiation to be radiatiion. It is only a new term in the lexicon of popular speech, not a scientific term. Did you not understand that?

Virtual photons make up EM fields. The photons become real if they find another particle to exchange energy with. This is important for electron flow in a wire but inconsequential in most atmospheric radiation. Store security gates are a common example using virtual photons. The alarm sounds when something draws power.


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Try this, page 91, statistical mechanics
> 
> http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf
> 
> ...



Yes, yes, yes, all well and good we have seen the theoretical reasoning behind it, now can you prove it? Can you even supply a text book which states back-radiation as a known and proven fact? I looked all through that text book your Science of doom site referenced and didn't find a thing on back-radiation but obviously you, Ian, and the AGW pseudo-scientists/enviro-rockstars know better. So please pony up this evidence.. That's evidence not theory..

BTW, I noticed you still avoid answering my question... So I ask again, because the dancing is ridiculous now... Just because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, what makes you certain it will effect change in it's greater source?

Please answer it or not, but continued avoidance while accusing me of not answering your questions is tedious...


----------



## gslack (Jul 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Really? Why isn't part of the text books? For example the text book flac cried about? Not in there anywhere at all. So why is that? because it's a theoretical construct created to answer another theoretical inconsistency between the macro, and sub-atomic/atomic areas...

LOL, theory really is fact to you isn't it... Once again this proves back-conduction how? See the problem yet? The theory is unsound, and in an attempt to make it sound you resort to ever more theoretical constructs to answer for it.. The fact is IF(a very big IF) back-radiation existed beyond mathematical constructs, than it would be in every single physics text book, but it's not.  Not to mention your latest excuse.. Now you support back-conduction?? LOL get over it Ian... In the natural world back conduction doesn't exist any more than back radiation... 

All you got is loosely interpreted mathematical concepts that although mathematically sound to our understanding, do not jibe in real world observation..

I'll lend you a hand... Virtual photons - definition of Virtual photons by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



> virtual particle
> n.
> *A subatomic particle whose existence violates the principle of conservation of energy but is allowed to exist for a short time by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.*
> 
> ...



Seems you are missing the point of virtual particles bud.. Not to mention it's still very much a theory...

http://www.theqxci.com/promorpheus/qxci_promorpheus_8.pdf



> VIRTUAL PHOTONS
> *Modern physics has encountered many particles other than electrons, protons and neutrons. Modern
> quantum physicists have come up with some bizarre ideas of the nature of subatomic reality.
> There are many radically different ideas of the nature of subatomic reality, but all seem to parallel the idea
> ...



All of that... Basically telling you it's a theory.. Not a fact.. get it? Don't believe me? Fine don't... But there is a large world out there, and a big part of that real world realizes the difference between fact and theory, especially when the theory doesn't stand up to real world observations.. 

The world of science isn't settled or decided upon by internet entrepreneurs selling a book, or PR sites selling you a theory as fact. And certainly no scientist will rely on the internet to prove his theory or call anything fact before it's proven...


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2013)

I think Ian and flac should read this..

Godel and the End of Physics - Stephen Hawking

Please try and read the whole thing with an open mind. It's not my work, or the work of some obscure scientist either pro or con AGW. It's from Stephen Hawking,and it explains (among other things) the problems with what we know vs what we theorize..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2013)

Bottom Line:

If the mechanisms that you warmers claim are at work were actually at work, the tropospheric hot spot would be found in the real world rather than only in the models which believe the same mechanism is at work.

You would think that at least Ian and flacaltenn would at some point wake up and see that if what they beleived were true, it would be evident out in the real world.  The rest of the warmers, I doubt will ever wake up.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Try this, page 91, statistical mechanics
> ...



As I pointed out already....backradiation is not taught in physics....classical physics doesn't even leave room for the possibility...post modern climate science physics strongly suggest it, but again, don't teach it as proven fact.  Postmodern physics has a nasty habit of confusing what is real with what is only dreamed of...no proof needed.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2013)

IanC said:


> physics is 75% manipulation of mathematical equations to understand the relationships between things. are you against the rearranging and replacing of equal terms for the equation F=ma ?



That isn't the question.  Why would you apply any property to an already elegant equation?  Even physics does not apply properties to already elegant equations, it is neither good math, nor good physics.  So again, why?


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're preaching to the choir on that one.. I was just making the point to them, that  a possibility of incidental radiation being emitted in the direction of the source does not mean it will effect change in that source...

LOL, did you see Ian try to prove back-conduction of all things, using virtual photons? ROFL,  using the Ian logic, we can call whatever we want fact, and every form of thermal or energy transfer of any kind can go both ways. Electrical circuits? Doesn't matter now which way you wire em. Heat engines? Ian can reuse the same heat at least twice, and in time maybe 3 or even 4 times.. Oh what the hell, make it infinite times, why not it's theoretically possible so fact..

Unbelievable. It's like there is no difference between fact and theory with many people these days. I Bet you, if you took 10 people and had them watch an episode of "into the wormhole" and after asked them each how much of what they saw was fact, and how much was theory, 7 or more couldn't tell you.. Frightening..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2013)

gslack said:


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



What next, back convection?  And you are absolutely right...there are to many who subscribe to post modern science, QM in particular who have lost the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is hypothesized.  Look at Ian, claiming to be able to create backradiation by altering an already elegant equation.  Unfortuntately, a great swaths of science have fallen for the post modern habit of accepting the output of models of hypothesized universes as real.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



The rest is pretty much mutual assault.. Let's concentrate on the questions..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Ian doesn't need rescuing.. I comment on his posts because he's CONTRIBUTED something significant that I hadn't thought of.. We're pretty much on the same wavelength as far as the Greenhouse being a REAL and defendable paradigm for understanding the atmos heat retention..


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



And that is a crucial part of the debate isn't it?  Separating what we know to exist from that some WANT to be true?  I don't pretend to have the math skills to evaluate or even understand whether backradiation and/or Planck's Law et al are the real deal or whether other scientific probabilities are more coherent.   But I do know that ice never becomes colder in an environment that is warmer than it is.

And I do know that it is a sad fact that there are those who are willing to use flawed or even bogus science or any other faulty observed phenomena to take more and more control over our lives.   I cannot understand those who can't see that unless they are in fact paid or recruited to be a part of it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...
> 
> Two Proofs of Planck?s Law vs Backradiation ? The World As Computation
> 
> ...



You're not gonna find the answer to this Physics question searching Back-Radiation.. Because that's a recent term SPECIFIC to the GreenHouse argument as IanC pointed out.... 

There are 20 someodd textbooks SPECIFICALLY on Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics. IN FACT ---- you COULD search those because they all show BIdirectional calculations for radiative flow.. 

But the pages of simple THERMO texts  are EXTRACTED in the last link I provided to ScienceofDoom.. The guy went and photocopied at LEAST 8 cites to calculating BIDIRECTIONAL FLOW for radiative heating.. That's the calculations shown.. ALL BODIES becomes sources for radiative calculation.. Find the link --- the Thermo textbooks descriptions are right there..  Or buy a Radiative Thermal Physics text... 
(one or two free online. One from MIT I believe)..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Bottom Line:
> 
> If the mechanisms that you warmers claim are at work were actually at work, the tropospheric hot spot would be found in the real world rather than only in the models which believe the same mechanism is at work.
> 
> You would think that at least Ian and flacaltenn would at some point wake up and see that if what they beleived were true, it would be evident out in the real world.  The rest of the warmers, I doubt will ever wake up.



I'm just trying to show you how much fun you and Gslack are missing out on.. There is so much wrong with AGW assertions and theory, that if you waste time on challenging the existence of a GreenHouse, you're gonna lose the opportunity to mock some REAL ridiculous stuff.. Lighten up.. 

There's a parallel to the invasion of Iraq here.. EVERYONE focuses on the WMD issue.. But EVEN NEOCONS missed justifying the invasion on a half dozen valid OTHER reasons.. 
Like getting our bases the hell out of Saudi, The UN out of corruption Oil for Food deals, the DAILY bombings of Iraq and returning to them the keys to their economy that we had snatched. 

I'd like to think the guys watching my sorry ass skeptic back --- were holding focus on the bigger picture...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 17, 2013)

Arctic ice update July 2013.  Despite several warmers' giving doomsday predictions that no Arctic ice would survive the summer of 2013, the official reports show ice melt at a slower rate this year than last year.

So what do the warmers do?  They say that the extent of Arctic sea ice is below the 1981-2010 average as if that is significant.  Below a record kept for 29 years.   Twenty nine years isn't even measurable on a paleontological scale, but we are to base policy and give control over to governments who don't like us very much and who won't have our best interests at heart based on that twenty nine years?

I figure some of ya'll are getting tired of me beating that drum.  But warming and cooling is not really an issue, but how warming and cooling will affect the living species of plants and animals on Earth.  So please forgive me if I insert some policy issues amongst the scientific discussion.   That is what interests me most.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> You're not gonna find the answer to this Physics question searching Back-Radiation.. Because that's a recent term SPECIFIC to the GreenHouse argument as IanC pointed out....



Actually backradiation is a recent fiction specific to the greehhouse hypothesis.  It is nothing more than an ad hoc construct.  



flacaltenn said:


> There are 20 someodd textbooks SPECIFICALLY on Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics. IN FACT ---- you COULD search those because they all show BIdirectional calculations for radiative flow..



Twenty textbooks?  Really?  Wow!! Twenty whole textbooks.  Tell me, if you don't mind....how many textbooks do you think have been written on radiative physics?  And 20 of them preach two way energy flow.  Again...wow...

I am betting that they aren't classical....you know...real as opposed to fictional post modern physics texts, are they?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm just trying to show you how much fun you and Gslack are missing out on.. There is so much wrong with AGW assertions and theory, that if you waste time on challenging the existence of a GreenHouse, you're gonna lose the opportunity to mock some REAL ridiculous stuff.. Lighten up..



Supporting the greenhouse hypothesis but not believing parts of it is like believing in fairies but not believing in fairy dust.  



flacaltenn said:


> I'd like to think the guys watching my sorry ass skeptic back --- were holding focus on the bigger picture...



The picture is that you guys still believe in the magic whether or not you believe it is as powerful as the true wacko warmists.   If you are going to believe in fairies, you may as well go whole hog and believe in fairy dust as well...they are one in the same.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Arctic ice update July 2013.  Despite several warmers' giving doomsday predictions that no Arctic ice would survive the summer of 2013, the official reports show ice melt at a slower rate this year than last year.
> 
> So what do the warmers do?  They say that the extent of Arctic sea ice is below the 1981-2010 average as if that is significant.  Below a record kept for 29 years.   Twenty nine years isn't even measurable on a paleontological scale, but we are to base policy and give control over to governments who don't like us very much and who won't have our best interests at heart based on that twenty nine years?
> 
> I figure some of ya'll are getting tired of me beating that drum.  But warming and cooling is not really an issue, but how warming and cooling will affect the living species of plants and animals on Earth.  So please forgive me if I insert some policy issues amongst the scientific discussion.   That is what interests me most.



Did you see that the guys who were going to row a boat through the northwest passage are hanging it up after not even being able to make it into the northwest passage because it is completely choked by ice?

The wackos were really worried about the ice a few weeks ago....wonder if they will start a thread expressing their relief that it isn't melting as they feared.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You're not gonna find the answer to this Physics question searching Back-Radiation.. Because that's a recent term SPECIFIC to the GreenHouse argument as IanC pointed out....
> ...



I lied.. According to Amazon --- there's 100s of them.. And that's just the search for Radiative Heat Transfer.. I didn't try Thermal Radiation Physics or other varieties.. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=radiative+heat+transfer&sprefix=Radiative%2Cstripbooks%2C334#/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aradiative+heat+transfer&keywords=radiative+heat+transfer&ie=UTF8&qid=1374110340]Amazon.com: radiative heat transfer: Books[/ame]


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Want to stop the red text inside my quotes? It makes it hard to differentiate what you say from what I say for the rest of the forum..  As well as simply being flat-out annoying to have to pick them out in a response...

LOL I cited your questions, see them? Of course you do...

Again, the thermometer shows as you said above.._*"They will read HOTTER or COLDER than the ambient surroundings.."*_ Agreed,now please explain how it is proof of backradiation... Seems like proof of radiation but not back-radiation  Get it yet? The thing measures IR radiation that's it, it doesn't measure raidiation flowing back to it's warmer source.. ANd frankly, You may have them and you may use them, but you obviously don't understand how they work if you think they can show back-radiation..

The devices use blackbody radiation concepts to give a numerical (likie the one you linked to) or visual color spectrum representation of thermal radiation coming from objects. That's it.. It doesn't measure energy re-emitted back towards it's warmer source... Using your logic everything is proof of backradaition. If it radiates it's back-radiation...LOL

You're still not going to answer my question are you... So once more, why isn't this simply shown phenomenon shown in text books? The one you cited from Science of doom for instance, Not a peep on it anywhere... Keep on trying to avoid it and I will keep on asking it...

And your second question was addressed silly person right there plain as day. And again if it doesn't effect change in it's source, how can it warm the surface further? 

Either you are doing the Ian-approved two-step/obtuse diversion or you are unable to follow the claim you're making to it's logical meaning.. IF you claim back-radiation warms the surface of the planet further, than you matter of fact claim that it can effect change in it's source. Following it yet? It's how logic works. 

I think you are caught in the same spot Ian ends up in everytime he tries to sneak a new spencer thought experiment in on us. He talks and claims it fact until he's asked toprove it, or show it in a text book and BOOM! he stops and resorts to playing dumb or deaf, or both... Repeating the same things, whether answered, addressed, or not, he repeats or vanishes to lick his wounds for a while. He will not accept the fact his hero is wrong, or selling his latest book or website. And he certainly will not accept QM as anything but fact, despite the rest of the world calling it theory..

You two are on the same page.. The same page, in a piece fiction that you are convinced is fact...


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Wait... Did you just tell me to leave your man alone??? ROFL..


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > BTW here's a nice link to a decent article on the problem I am talking about...
> ...



The first bolded part... Yeah, LOL we know that. And one of the reasons it's not in any textbooks... Hence my entire point when I asked why there is no back convection, or back conduction, as well as the purpose of the electrical circuit crack... Is this an act or what?

Second bolded paragraph... Your words...*"Radiative Thermal Heating or Thermal Radiation Physics."* Yeah and they do not state proof of back-radiation by either implication or intent, much less directly stating such.. Why do you refuse to accept the fact,  that possibly, is not will? Just because something can mathematically be shown to be a possibility, doesn't mean it's a fact. Especially if the real world observation refutes it...

Simple prove it exists, OR prove it can effect change in it's warmer source. If you can't prove it exists, than it's a theory with holes to say the least. And if you can't prove it can effect change in it's source, than along with the previous point, we cannot call backradiation a source of additional warming of the surface..

No rush, take your time. I've waited years for Ian to prove either case, and all he does is the Ian two-step, and run..


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



And which of those hundreds prove back-radiation? I'll wait...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



WTHell man... It measures IR radiation PERIOD.. What is this "flowing back to it's warmer source" crap? *The meter is recieving radiation energy FROM A COOLER SOURCE. *The cooler source IS THE SOURCE of the radiation.. Doesn't MATTER where the cooler source got the energy from.. It could be from conduction or convection or radiation..  Are you trying to imply that bodies have a memory of the thermal properties that they recieved their energy from?? *I THINK you're saying that the cooler REMEMBERS where it got every morsel of its thermal energy from and if the source was WARMER --- it's NOT ALLOWED to radiate towards it? Is THAT your contention? *

The TEMPERATURE of radiative source doesn't prohibit it from RADIATING towards a warmer body. The net flow obeys the 2nd law because the total thermal flow is the subtraction of the energy from the cooler body from the energy originating in the warmer body.. It's a SIMPLE SUBTRACTION.. Some people call the weaker stream "back radiation".



> You're still not going to answer my question are you... So once more, why isn't this simply shown phenomenon shown in text books? The one you cited from Science of doom for instance, Not a peep on it anywhere... Keep on trying to avoid it and I will keep on asking it...



The simple subtraction I just referenced is ALL OVER those textbooks. It's ACCEPTED that the cooler body by DEFINITION is radiating in all possible directions (as dictated by its geometry) in proportion to the 4th power of its temp.. If you do the subtraction properly -- there is no violation of anything.. EIGHT PAGES of Thermo texts says so --- I gave you the link.. Every TEXT on Radiative Thermal Transfer says so.. 

But to understand ANY of them you have to accept.. 

1) EVERY body (regardless of temp) radiates some amount of IR EM in every available direction. That is derived from BBody laws and Stephan Boltzmann.. 

2) WHERE the energy of that ejected photon originally CAME FROM is irrelevent.

3) Cooler bodies radiate towards warmer bodies and vice versa. The NET FLOW subtracts this amount from the thermal flux of the warmer body and obeys the 2nd law.

4) My warmer IR thermometer is reading photons from a COOLER BODY.. Which demonstrates that direction of exchange.

5) The term "back radiation" is a particular construct of the GreenHouse crowd describing the heat flux from the cooler atmos 
to the ground. It is NOT USED in classical derivations of radiative heat exchange but it is describing the T2 flux that gets subtracted from the blackbody radiation of the earth. 

6) If cooler objects were NOT radiating towards warmer objects, two objects in proximity, having acheived a thermal equilibrium T1 == T2  would have to STOP radiating towards each other according to your view because there is NO NET FLOW. This doesn't happen.. What really happens in the language of GreenHouse theory is that under this condition.. The back-radiation would equal the forward-radiation.. ((T1 - T2) == 0)  Totally consistent with the fact that both objects still HAVE a temp and that they are radiating EQUALLY at each other.. 

((NOTE -- I am not suggesting that the atmos would ever equal the BBody temp of the earth surface. Merely using that terminology to describe another set of general bodies in thermal equilibrium))

*Which ones of those six are you denying?? *



> And your second question was addressed silly person right there plain as day. And again if it doesn't effect change in it's source, how can it warm the surface further?



A body will absorb ALL radiation impinging on its surface that isn't reflected. Where is it written that an IR photon from ANYWHERE "doesn't effect change in it's source"? Are you making that up or can you tell me how SOME photons don't contain energy?



> I think you are caught in the same spot Ian ends up in everytime he tries to sneak a new spencer thought experiment in on us. He talks and claims it fact until he's asked toprove it, or show it in a text book and BOOM! he stops and resorts to playing dumb or deaf, or both... Repeating the same things, whether answered, addressed, or not, he repeats or vanishes to lick his wounds for a while. He will not accept the fact his hero is wrong, or selling his latest book or website. And he certainly will not accept QM as anything but fact, despite the rest of the world calling it theory..
> 
> You two are on the same page.. The same page, in a piece fiction that you are convinced is fact...



I'm not caught in any spot.. I have a comfortable acquaintance with Radiation Heat Physics that doesn't cause me to have EXCUSE some photons from doing their job or remember where they came from.. It's a lot simpler and more consistent than the excuses you're making for denying that ALL OBJECTS (above abs Zero) radiate IR EM heat.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2013)

gslack said:


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



They ALL agree that radiative heat transfer (not conduction or convection) is a process that has to account for the radiation flux FROM EVERY OBJECT that has a line of sight photon path to the others.. REGARDLESS of the relative temps of those objects. And the NET EXCHANGES are calculated by subtracting the ABSORPTIONS from all the other objects from the EMISSION of the object being analyzed.. Right now, your KEYBOARD is bombarding you with IR RADIATION. If you COOLED IT --- It would STILL bombard you with IR EM photons --- only less. Doesn't matter WHERE the keyboard got that thermal energy from.. It's gonna EMIT the same fashion towards every object in it's line of sight.

To determine how much heat you're losing, you'd have to add in the photons from the cooler window in front of you that you are recieving and photons from that cup of coffee by your side.. And then SUBTRACT ALL OF THAT from the agreed upon skin emission that you are presuming.. 

According to the Radiative Thermal texts --- that's how radiative heat transfers are calculated.. Only with more partial differentials and integrals and shit...


----------



## IanC (Jul 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > physics is 75% manipulation of mathematical equations to understand the relationships between things. are you against the rearranging and replacing of equal terms for the equation F=ma ?
> ...




I am having a hard time believing that you have taken any physics at any level. elegant? I guess so. it is meant to highlight the relationship to (temperature to the fourth power). as with many formulae it takes the ugly complexities and sticks them into the constants. have you looked at what the alpha entails? dont even get started with the emissivity derivations! even the area is a lot more complicated than it appears in a simplified formula.

I am also having a hard time understanding why you are upset over a mathematical property that is taught in what, grade 5? there is no difference between k(T1^4-T2^4) and kT1^4-kT2^4. none

any general physics text from high school on has at least a basic preamble to thermo that describes radiative heat transfer as (output minus input equals net transfer). are you so upset with the term 'backradiation' that you have lost your mind????


----------



## IanC (Jul 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



this is good example of what I have to deal with when conversing with you. you dont quote my comment, then you accuse me of saying something that I did not. virtual photons in back conduction? is it your poor comprehension skills or are you at a point where you are so rabidly in attack mode that you are willing to stoop as far as lying?

it is also obvious that there is 'backconduction', because radiative thermal interactions are part of conduction. kinetic mechanical events produce thermal radiation, whether it is a solid liquid or gas. kinetic transfer is very efficient in solids (variable to how tightly the electrons are bound) and less efficient in gases (variable to the density). the thermal radiation produced in kinetic events is always in a random direction though, so some energy is always 'bucking the tide' but that does not mean the SLoT is being violated because the net flow is always warm to cool.

if you dont like the term 'virtual photons', sue me. I use it as a shorthand to differentiate between radiative photons that are created to shed energy, and reactive photons that transfer force, either attractive or repulsive, between two charged particles. an electric field 'costs' nothing until it interacts with a charged particle because the photons cease to exist if they cannot find a partner.

from your link to wiki on virtual photons-


> Some field interactions which may be seen in terms of virtual particles are:
> 
> The Coulomb force (static electric force) between electric charges. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for electric force. Since the photon has no mass, the coulomb potential has an infinite range.
> The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse cube law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range.
> ...



do you actually read your links? your comprehension seems awfully low


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Just wth do you think back-radiation is? Seriously you just tried to claim radiation proof of back-radiation and it's not the first time... So please what do you think back-radiation is if not radiation flowing back to it's source? I said it time and again and yet now you suddenly notice it? LOL, how much of these posts do you actually read?

Your own words answer defy your logic... *"The meter is recieving radiation energy FROM A COOLER SOURCE."*

Yes receiving radiation, not back-radiation. Or more specifically radiation that has been emitted by and object, say the ground, and then absorbed by the cooler atmosphere or air, and then re-radiated back to the ground where it warms it further.. That's the nutshell version of AGW theory's claim on it... See the problem yet? You trying to claim the fact all things radiate, to mean they all can effect change in their warmer source. Again just because something radiates, and mathematically it can be shown it happens in all directions at once, it does not mean that cooler body's radiation can effect change in the warmer body or source..

You assumed an insulator is backradiating, well science says otherwise. Now you assume since everything radiates, if it's cooler and still radiates, it's proof of back radiation, and again there is no scientific real world proof that happens.

I think you need to get a grasp on what back-radiation is first, You seem to think a cooler body radiating at all is back-radiation and that's just patently silly..

BTW, the silly Ian-esque nonsense regarding *"EXCUSE some photons from doing their job or remember where they came from."* is a bit annoying now.. Seriously you keep avoiding the question and dancing..

I ask it again, please try and answer it.... 

*Just because something radiates, why do you think that radiation can effect change in a warmer object or it's source?*

I made it big because you keep missing it somehow...


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I quoted your post Ian, no reason to lie.. I hit the quote button and quoted you.. Now if there is something missing it wasn't anything I did and you know it...

Yes, yes all well and good you can cut and paste... NOW show where it states a case for back-conduction...

Freaking dancing bear...LOL, It's not the term I have issue with, its your attempted false use of it, to prove your BS.. It doesn't prove back-conduction silly, and if you actually knew half what you pretend, you wouldn't have even tried that claim.. It's silly and ignorant, and only a person who has no concept of what an equation or mathematical concept actually means in real world application, would think it proves your nonsensical back-conduction..

But hey, as I said before. If it's so factual and obvious, and so easily proven, why isn't it standard in all physics text books?

LOL, for all your BS and all of your SPencer worship,the fact remains it's not in any science text books, and not taught anywhere but "climate science".. WHy is that? Why is it you don't learn back-radiation in the standard first year physics? Or back-conduction?  LOL...

Please, it's silly and you're silly for trying so hard to prove what nobody outside of Spencer and IPCC science accepts...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> ]
> 
> I lied.. According to Amazon --- there's 100s of them.. And that's just the search for Radiative Heat Transfer.. I didn't try Thermal Radiation Physics or other varieties..
> 
> Amazon.com: radiative heat transfer: Books



That was my point.  Hundreds of books.on the topic and 20 of them preach two way energy flow.  All post modern where the standard of proof is practically non existent I'd wager.


----------



## IanC (Jul 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???




this is the question you have been ranting for the last few pages. let's analyze it.



> because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once



are you talking about a CO2 molecule or the atmosphere? one molecule can only emit one radiative photon at a time, in a random direction. where would the energy come from to radiate in every direction, all at the same time? needless to say, I dont think that. even if you are talking about the atmosphere, there is not an infinite amount of radiation, which is what your statement implied. perhaps you are still confused by wirebender's bizarre ranting of a few years ago.



> means it can and will effect change in its greater source



what is it? what is its greater source?

OK, enough of making fun of your incoherence. I will shrewdly piece together a likely scenario and question from your disjointed words. did you mean....

even if the atmosphere sends radiation back to the surface, how can you be sure that it will raise the temperature?

excellent question, if I say so myself. radiation returning from the atmosphere is low energy and highly disordered therefore it has little capacity to do work. just about the only thing it is capable of is to cancel out energy that would have escaped from the surface. because this escape route is somewhat blocked, the solar input has to find extra ways to bypass this bottleneck so that the output still matches the input. while the IPCC and CO2 theorists believe that all of the extra returning radiation goes into raising the surface (edit-surface temperature) of the earth (incredibly they even think it has positive feedbacks which triple the effect) to increase outgoing radiation, and thus having more radiation escape even though the percentage escaping is lower than before , but I disagree. 

the world has a heat pump system composed of water, vapour, clouds, and precipitation. the sun's input heats the water, evaporation takes place causing the air to become lighter, this causes convection which lifts the water laden air until the adbiatic lapse rate cools the water enough to form clouds, release latent heat, and return the water to the surface as precipitation. any extra surface energy (heat) simply turns on the heat pump sooner. not only this, but there are other systems as well that pump heat into areas that are more favourable for energy loss. 

got that? change of equilibrium from back radiation simply shunts solar input into other avenues of escape. of course there will still be _some_ increase of surface temperature, otherwise that energy would _already_ be making more use of the alternate routes.


----------



## IanC (Jul 18, 2013)

f you want me to answer anymore questions will you at least return the courtesy?

perhaps you could start with why the earth's surface isn't cooling dramatically because of the large discrepancy between solar input and surface output. 


gslack- will you answer the question or do I have to put it in an extra large font, or perhaps all-caps?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



This would be easier if you had told me WHICH of the six items I listed above you are rejecting.. But clearly you're bugged by #2 because of the size of you font... Here's the six..



> But to understand ANY of them you have to accept..
> 
> 1) EVERY body (regardless of temp) radiates some amount of IR EM in every available direction. That is derived from BBody laws and Stephan Boltzmann..
> 
> ...



Let's do #2.. For IR EM radiation, the total amount of RADIATED energy depends only on  the AMOUNT of thermal energy possessed by that object. NOT where it came from. When addressing this "back-radiation" term.. The molecules of CO2 don't know whether the energy came from direct sunlight or the Ground OR from a fellow CO2 or H2O molecule.

If ANY object RECEIVES and ABSORBS an IR photon -- it WILL effect change in that body. It will RAISE the thermal energy of that body.. Again, in the specific argument about "back-radiation", this means that the surface heat loss is calculated by finding it's gray body emission rate and then SUBTRACTING FROM THAT all the incident Absorbed IR coming from ANYWHERE.. The net result will be a REDUCTION in the loss rate (cooling rate) of the surface. NO VIOLATION of the direction of flow. If there IS ONE --- please tell me where.

It's a simple subtraction man..  If the GHGases were not there, the cooling rate of the planet's surface would be determined by SOLELY by the BBody loss rate.

As for your screaming at me above --- The SOURCE of that energy usually is MULTIPLE sources and furthermore -- it doesn't MATTER what the source was when a photon is ejected. The GHGase is only providing a radiation stream in the back direction that is WEAKER than what it is recieving from the surface. THerefore the  *CHANGE THAT IT IS EFFECTING is only a reduction in the magnitude of the cooling rate of the planet..* Doesn't violate the 2nd law, Doesn't change direction of net flow.. The reason this causes the surface of the planet to eventually equalize and slightly rise is --- nobody turned down the thermostat when they restricted the cooling rate.. 

If photons are being aimed at the surface from the cooler atmos (and they are) --- what makes you think they have NO EFFECT?

*Give me an example of a mostly ABSORBING surface being hit with IR photons and NOT having its thermal storage raised.. * We cannot go to the textbooks if you REJECT everything in the first chapter... 

 We can forget the thermo textbooks for now until we get the First Chapter definitions of Radiative Heat Transfer down.. So --- Have we resolved #2 ??? Which other ones need addressing? 

If we continue this --- you should realize that I believe the TrenBerth diagram of this thermal exchange is ENTIRELY F-ed up for back-radiation.. No freaking way the 'back-radiation' is that high a % of the surface radiation... There is still plenty of room TO DOUBT the MAGNITUDE of numbers asserted by AGW.... 

We'd do more good for the cause spending time CALCULATING the emission rate of the planet and the emission rate of the GHGas layer --- than arguing about the simple rules for the GHouse effect..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2013)

Why is understanding the GreenHouse from a physics standpoint so hard?

I don't get it.. 

1) You take a warm blue ball (like God did) and put it in a heat-sucking near abs Zero, vacuum.. 
It has a cooling rate that FAR exceeds any ability of the Sun to warm it to life.. 

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth  (as calculated by gray body analysis, excluding convection)

2) To reduce that fatal cooling rate you add a layer of gases capable of retaining heat around it. 
(That and you've created convection cooling effects at the same time)..

3) The gases have the property of allowing BROADBAND radiation from the sun to heat the earth (while absorbing primarily in the IR)
The earth converts this EM radiation to heat. Heat causes the earth to glow in PRIMARILY the IR bands.
The gases retard outward flux in these bands.

4) The cooling rate is NOW REDUCED by the IR radiation from those gases that hits the surface acting to simply reduce the magnitude of heat outflow from the earth..  Calculate the body emission from the gaseous layer and call Trate_atmos_toground. Or as demigods called it --- backradiation... 

ElectroM cooling rate = Trate_earth - Trate_atmos_toground

5) Final step is to calculate the new stable surface temp.. Since the solar engine for all this is at the same warming rates --- the surface will warm. 

You just taken the surface temp from about -15degC to +18degC.. Life is good. Whatzza problem eh?

You wantta get out of the space ship and see what YOUR cooling rate would be in space?? 

I pretty much guarantee the LACK of back-radiation would EFFECT CHANGE on your core body temp...


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > NOW can you please explain how it is you think that because an object can radiate in any and all directions at once, that it automatically means it can and will effect change in its greater source???
> ...



LOL, Ian you keep altering the your claim.. WHy is that? ROFL.. Your previous defense for back-radiation was all things radiate. When asked how that fact shows backradiation, you claimed it does.. WHY? Who knows you think it does anyway.. LOL.

You just don't understand anything BUT an equation do you.. The reality behind it or what it means is lost to you.. 

Energy radiated from the sun warms the surface, then that surface radiates which warms the atmosphere, and then the atmosphere radiates back to the surface warming it further. Is the AGW/GH theory claim... You ask whats the source? Well the surface source is the sun, while the atmospheres source is partially the sun but also and predominately the surface. SO in the case of back-radiation as claimed by your pet theory, the surface would be the source and the back-radiation would be from the atmosphere to the surface.. Surface would be warmer in most cases, and the atmosphere cooler, of course we consider all things being equal as far as weather and so forth.

Want to play obtuse now Ian? Knock yourself out, we expected it from you. Now you don't know what back-radiation is fine... You're an imbecile, or a child who can't stand being wrong, either way..

ROFL,you're a moron Ian..

Your list answers your own questions and shoiws how little you actually understand...

1. Yes we know that no shock...And no backraidation needed..

2. Again Known and still doesn't prove back-radiation...

3. Yes and radiating bodies do not have to effect change in warmer bodies. No matter how you try and rationalize it and how many theoretical concepts you pull out of spencers butt...They don't have to because first IF they did we would have perfect machines.. OR in the very least a simple heat engine would almost automatically be better than 99% efficient. Think... If you can reuse radiation from a heated object, by simply placing another object next to it, and allowing that objects radiation to further fuel the other or source object, what would stop you from adding more objects and creating an infinite heat source at the source object? LOL, dude! It's a silly concept.. Mathematically possible but in observation and practice Completely false.. 

4. LOL, no it shows the amount of IR coming from that object alone. Not the amount of energy re-radiated to an object that is warmer. It's the object's internal state which causes the radiation you read. Damn  man how ignorant are you.. It's reading radiation from an object dues to the internal temperature or state of that object. Dude it's silly to claim it does anything else. If it did it wouldn't function like it's supposed to and give false readings constantly. It's retarded Ian ...

5.Yes we know and the fact it's not taught in physics should be a lesson to you.. Idiot...

6. And if cooler objects could add to the temperature of warmer objects we would have infinite heat... LOL, it's silly..The warmer objects don't use the radiated energy from cooler objects so back-radiation is not warming anything.. Jesus dude, use your damn head.. That concept would mean infinite heat from finite sources..


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Why is understanding the GreenHouse from a physics standpoint so hard?
> 
> I don't get it..
> 
> ...



Yes, yes and not one part of that relies on back-radiation.. Not a single point... The mere act of the gases slowing heat loss does not require back-radiation, nor does it prove it.. LOL you two are funny now.. You assume it's back radiation and why? Because you were told so by people who need it to prove a false theory...


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> f you want me to answer anymore questions will you at least return the courtesy?
> 
> perhaps you could start with why the earth's surface isn't cooling dramatically because of the large discrepancy between solar input and surface output.
> 
> ...



ALready did several times, you are the one dancing schmuck... Your theory is flawed Ian, and you can't accept it. We know already. You can claim your thermometer proves it all you want but thankfully science knows better, hence it's not being in text books.. Your thermometer measures IR radiation from an object, nothing else... But hey you know better so go and publish this brilliant find and have all the text books changed.. ROFL


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Why is understanding the GreenHouse from a physics standpoint so hard?
> ...



Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws.  Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



He's a perfect example of why there is a problem with knowledge without guidance. He knows the math well enough, can even spout off correct theories and tidbits regarding the thing, but he cannot understand what it means in reality.

To him the math says so, so it's correct. Sure if the math's correct, and if our understanding of that math is correct. How can we know the math's correct if the we can't prove the theory is correct?

In science math is used as one tool, to him it's the only tool needed ever.. To him physical proof isn't even a factor, or if it is, it's secondary to the math. Modern education at it's finest..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss... 

Tell me the rationale GSlack style for that change of effective rate of cooling... 

BTW: I read you comments to Ian ridiculing the way that Radiation Physics actually works and claiming that it borders on belief on perpetual motion. This is not true.. It's possible to slow the heat loss of a body to a flow approaching zero.. That's just good materials design. That's NOT perpetual motion.. And I don't see anything ridiculous about retaining heat. If you then attempted to do that AND put the heat to work at the same time --- call the patent office in the morning.. 

I'm breathlessly awaiting the physics of atmos gases slowing the earths cooling rate. Remember -- it's accepted that radiative flow is the primary mechanism here -- so if you use the words convection or conduction -- please cite the justification for ignoring such evidence as in Trenberth work or classic views of the relative contributions of the conductive, convective and radiative components of heating the lower atmos..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2013)

Here's a very interesting gem that I previously filed.. Seems like the Federation of American Scientists ought to get this simple radiative heating thing correct --- RIGHT???? When I rediscovered this... I was thinking that it sounded pretty much like what I've been writing (fruitlessly) here for a couple days now.. 



> https://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/atmos-U1.htm
> 
> Radiative equilibrium temperature
> 
> ...



Now before you whine about the format of that FAS study brief --- it's part of an active FAS project with the cooperation of military to educate personnel working on space systems.. Mostly Air Force.. The link for the program is at ----

Space Policy Project

Would be totally embarrassing if FAS was passing off bogus educational material wouldn't it????


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



NO radiation physics doesn't border on belief in perpetual motion, his interpretation of it does.. See the difference?

ANd the slowing of heat loss is due to the constant transfer of that energy as it is transferred through the gas.. Your own link in your next post gives an example just before it turns into a "climate science" bit of nonsense..


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Here's a very interesting gem that I previously filed.. Seems like the Federation of American Scientists ought to get this simple radiative heating thing correct --- RIGHT???? When I rediscovered this... I was thinking that it sounded pretty much like what I've been writing (fruitlessly) here for a couple days now..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your link,interesting.. Now can you tell me why it's from this site... *Air Force Weather Agency Doctrine*

Yes a climatological reference.. As we said it ONLY appears or applies to climate science, hence the problem..

But hey fine, you say it's factual, fine then show it in a text book and we can end this... Still waiting on that... And by text book we mean standard physics text book, not a climate science online blog or whatever...

Please, we both know by now it's not a fact by any measure.. It's a theory that doesn't hold water in observation..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2013)

gslack said:


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



RE: the bolded above.. This does not agree with the view that CONDUCTIVE heating is a miniscule contribution to earth surface heat loss.. Perhaps you have a reference saying the conduction and convection are the PRIMARY source of surface heat loss??? Doubt it.. 

I even mentioned that in the my quote above.. Do you know the diff between conduction and radiation?? 

Bxzzzzt --- Try again..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a very interesting gem that I previously filed.. Seems like the Federation of American Scientists ought to get this simple radiative heating thing correct --- RIGHT???? When I rediscovered this... I was thinking that it sounded pretty much like what I've been writing (fruitlessly) here for a couple days now..
> ...



Seems like you should working a fraction of the effort that I'm making here to back up the bolded part of your statement... Have YOU produced any links or reference material in about 6 pages now?? No --- not at all... And yet --- you mock me.. 

That educational series was AUTHORED by FAS as a program study with the military.. The Federation of American Scientists take that shit seriously.. 
We can't really go to textbooks UNTIL you tell me WHICH of the 6 issues I raised you are denying.. They are different chapters of PREREQUISITE knowledge.. So PLEASE tell me which ones you are denying.. 

And oh --- go get me a reference to your IMAGINED theory of atmospheric heat loss.. Preferably in a book on Atmospheric Physics.. Plenty listed to choose from...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2013)

How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics.. 

Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics  David G. Andrews  pub 2000 Cambridge))

From somewhere in the 1st Chapter... Close to the front. 






See the down arrow from the atmos in the illust. above?? That's the back-radiation.. The pages
describe the intimate calculations for EACH of those terms. Models the earth as BBody.. Models a BIDIRECTIONAL flow of radiative heating due to the atmos.. Everything I've told you for days now... 

Continuation directly below the 1st snippet above.. 






Want to see it in an Atmos. Physics Guide from HARVARD??? 



> CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
> 
> 7.1 RADIATION
> 
> ...









*NOT ONLY DO BOTH THESE BOOKS LAY OUT THE BI-DIRECTIONAL radiation from the atmos to the ground, (and the atmos to space) ---- they actually BOTH CALCULATE the equations for all components and end up with a reasonable number for the Earth's surface temp... *
I don't fault you if you can't follow the math.. But it's there. And on that -- you'll have to trust me.. 

Done playing here.. YOU GOT appropriate pages from *EIGHT* different physics at scienceofdoom.. I'm not retrieving them for you.. Can't help it if you ignore them.. 

Good luck with cred on this issue when you have no alternate physics for explaining why the Earth's surface
isn't closer to -4degF.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Don't need one, We see it every day and the fact we have varied weather proves it. But of course you think energy emitted by the surface can be re-used to warm itself further, so it's no surprise.. SLice it any way you want, you are still re-using the same energy...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...



Last try for what?  To build a proper strawman?  Where the hell did you get the idea that I believe that gasses are slowing down heat loss?  I said: 

"Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?"

and from that you get the idea that I am claiming that gasses are slowing down heat loss?  I even stated that the comment was directly related to the idea gas laws.  I don't guess you are aware that repeatable experimental proof has been achieved in a laboratory that further supports the atmospheric thermal effect as stated by N&Z?  

The temperature is warmer at the base of a column of air because of pressure, not some trace gas's magical ability to block the escape of heat, or backradiate heat, or whatever miraculous ability you are giving it on any particular day.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..
> 
> Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics  David G. Andrews  pub 2000 Cambridge))
> 
> ...



Yes, yes we have established it's taught in climate science already.. Is this thing on?

Taught in climate science got it... What you have found is a link to a book on climate science..Nice, now please show me that first, it is established fact, and second that it is standard in PHYSICS.. Not climate science version... But no matter here's a part of your book you didn't cite..

PROBLEMS



> *PROBLEMS*
> 
> 7. 1	 Climate response to changes in ozone
> 
> ...



That comes at the last part of the chapter you cited from.. It seems they admit there are issues with the theory. Enough issues to warrant an entire page to point them out.. Issues concerning absorption and emission discrepancies to name just one.. LOL, kind of a let down huh... ROFL..

What's more from reading the chapter we find it's a fine example of IPCC making science for you... Nice.. Tell ya what, go make a CO2 powered miracle heat engine then..LOL


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> *As CO2 and water vapor selectively absorb infrared radiation, they also selectively emit infrared radiation in all directions. Some of this energy is radiated back toward the Earth&#65533;s surface where it is absorbed and heats the ground. At this point, the process of the Earth radiating infrared wavelengths continues.*
> 
> <<  RUh ROh.. Sounds like back-radiation don't it?  >>



In case you were confused, typing in big and bold doesn't make it true.  I have never argued that some people don't believe in backradiation.  In fact, I have provided the titles to several physics texts that do.

The fact remains, no matter how many clips you post of people agreeing with you, that none of you can provide any actual evidence of backradiation.  You just prove that you aren't out there all alone making claims based on faith rather than hard evidence.



flacaltenn said:


> Would be totally embarrassing if FAS was passing off bogus educational material wouldn't it????



Any more embarassing than GISS and the other big surface temperature gatekeepers passing off bogus temperature data to make the past look cooler than it was in an effort to make the present look warmer?  Any more embarassing than the crazy shit innumerable other government agencies pass off in order to get their share of the funding for those who can demonstrate that they are paying passengers on the AGW crazy train?


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...
> ...



LOL the book wasn't a text book at all. It was a book published by the university press, and NOT a physics text book. The thing is full of theory posed as fact. The thing speaks of GH theory as fact for christ's sake... It's a PR fluff piece posing as science.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> That educational series was AUTHORED by FAS as a program study with the military.. The Federation of American Scientists take that shit seriously..



Are you really operating under the idea that the military has never been taken in by bogus data before...or that no one ever gave the military bogus data before...or that the military would gladly jump onthe crazy train as well if it meant more funding money?  Believing any of those is as goofy as believing in AGW in the first place.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..
> 
> Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics  David G. Andrews  pub 2000 Cambridge))



You were asked specifically for a classical hard physics text preaching backradiation...not a soft text used to teach the soft science of climate science, so what do you provide?


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

Interesting point here...

It seems MIT views quantum theory as a theory and states so categorically.. If that is a theory, then so is the concepts derived from it including GH theory..

Physics | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials

Please scroll through the courses material listed there and look at it.. Quantum Field Theory I and II.. THEORY.. Not fact...

Here's an interesting tidbit...

Syllabus | Quantum Physics I | Physics | MIT OpenCourseWare



> Course Description
> Quantum Physics I explores the* experimental* basis of quantum mechanics, including:



Yes experimental.. As in not a proven fact...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..
> 
> Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics  David G. Andrews  pub 2000 Cambridge))



You were asked specifically for a classical hard physics text preaching backradiation...not a soft text used to teach the soft science of climate science, so what do you provide?  And even providing one, or two, or three doesn't really mean anything since the vast majority of them don't preach backradiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Post modern science strikes again...anyone who believes in the magic is qualified to teach the magic.  Now lets all join hands and sing from page 243


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> Interesting point here...
> 
> It seems MIT views quantum theory as a theory and states so categorically.. If that is a theory, then so is the concepts derived from it including GH theory..
> 
> ...



That's one of the real crimes perpetrated by post modern science...the attitude that theories no longer need proof if they can be proven mathematically (even if the math requires some torture first).

And did one of them say earlier that he believed that he was measuring backradiation with an IR thermometer?  I haven't had much time lately but I thought I caught a bit of conversation suggesting that...excuse me if I am wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack always seems to be accusing me of back peddling or changing my story, when he is not gratuitously insulting me. it is unfortunate that he cannot understand that I am just adding different ways of looking at the problem, pointing out different aspects and trying to show how the whole thing comes together no matter which side you examine. gslack doesnt have the brainpower to understand physics but he is sure that all the main physicists from both the warmer and skeptic camps, are wrong. if a world class physicist from MIT who is an avowed skeptic, Dr Lindzen, cannot make gslack even consider that the basic mechanism of CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant, who can? certainly not internet posters. gslacks' loss I suppose.

SSDD is a different case. he is under the sway of a different paradigm. he wants to analyze surface temps by gas pressure laws (too simple but that is the gist of it). I concur that his side has a legitimate point. unfortunately he is missing the point. the earth has had a few billion years to come to an equilibrium. his focus of interest doesnt explain the changes like the MWP and LIA any better than CO2 theory. on of his complaints is that the earth's surface is treated like it is always illuminated by twilight. OK, what does _his side_ come up with for a number that describes average solar input? they wont say. his side is a general theory that does not change with small inputs like changing the composition of the atmospheric gases so I suppose they dont think CO2 does any thing at all. I have repeatedly asked SSDD to start a thread about all this but he hasnt so far, perhaps he doesnt understand it well enough to be confident that he can defend it.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack always seems to be accusing me of back peddling or changing my story, when he is not gratuitously insulting me. it is unfortunate that he cannot understand that I am just adding different ways of looking at the problem, pointing out different aspects and trying to show how the whole thing comes together no matter which side you examine. gslack doesnt have the brainpower to understand physics but he is sure that all the main physicists from both the warmer and skeptic camps, are wrong. if a world class physicist from MIT who is an avowed skeptic, Dr Lindzen, cannot make gslack even consider that the basic mechanism of CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant, who can? certainly not internet posters. gslacks' loss I suppose.
> 
> SSDD is a different case. he is under the sway of a different paradigm. he wants to analyze surface temps by gas pressure laws (too simple but that is the gist of it). I concur that his side has a legitimate point. unfortunately he is missing the point. the earth has had a few billion years to come to an equilibrium. his focus of interest doesnt explain the changes like the MWP and LIA any better than CO2 theory. on of his complaints is that the earth's surface is treated like it is always illuminated by twilight. OK, what does _his side_ come up with for a number that describes average solar input? they wont say. his side is a general theory that does not change with small inputs like changing the composition of the atmospheric gases so I suppose they dont think CO2 does any thing at all. I have repeatedly asked SSDD to start a thread about all this but he hasnt so far, perhaps he doesnt understand it well enough to be confident that he can defend it.



Yes, Yes, I am a big meany.. I insult you and of course your asinine attempts to insult my intelligence are just witty banter on your part..

I insult you Ian because you are a spineless asshat, who refuses to answer any direct questions but stomps his foot and demands people answer his, even if they already have. Or how about all of the times you play stupid rather than respond to a post fairly? Those are always fun.. We have all seen your BS far too many times for you to try and play the innocent victim shithead..

You're a coward Ian. Be intellectually, or otherwise. When the clones where regurgitating the sequestered CO2 nonsense and treating CO2 as an element, what did you say? NOTHING.. Not a word.. And why not? Because you liked the fact they were arguing everyone else but you. A fine example of how you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, a true cowards motto, it will serve you well. ANd that wasn't the only time I have seen you do that.. You let people ramble nonstop BS pseudo-science so long as they are arguing with certain people, no matter how idiotic they may be, or how wrong their claims, you say nothing. Yet let someone you don't like say anything you deem unscientific and you're on them like white on rice.. A true save-ass opportunistic punk..

Feel insulted now? Good.. Please make another plead to the forum post, we love those..ROFL.

BTW, as far as my brain power, I don't know, I think I must be doing alright, I have caught you in BS so many times it's becoming old hat.. I remember when you didn't know what Fermat's last theorem was.. ROFL. Too funny.. Mr. Big Brain math expert caught being full of shit by the guy he claims is lacking brain power.. Dude what's that say about you??


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting point here...
> ...



LOL, yes both did in one way or another. First flac said that precisely, then Ian chimed in a bit later implying the same thing or at least supporting flac's claim. Either way it was a silly claim, and coming from two people trying to play scientific authority here, it was even more so..


----------



## IanC (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack always seems to be accusing me of back peddling or changing my story, when he is not gratuitously insulting me. it is unfortunate that he cannot understand that I am just adding different ways of looking at the problem, pointing out different aspects and trying to show how the whole thing comes together no matter which side you examine. gslack doesnt have the brainpower to understand physics but he is sure that all the main physicists from both the warmer and skeptic camps, are wrong. if a world class physicist from MIT who is an avowed skeptic, Dr Lindzen, cannot make gslack even consider that the basic mechanism of CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant, who can? certainly not internet posters. gslacks' loss I suppose.
> ...



I can't help it if Mother Nature pulled a cruel trick on you by giving poor gslack an inferior brain.

I answered your question, you answer mine. how do you explain the discrepancy between solar input and surface radiation? if you dont what to repeat it just bump the comment or even just give us the comment number. otherwise you are just using wirebender's old excuse.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You didn't answer my question crybaby, you never do.. All you do is cry, stomp your foot, call me dumb and ask another question.. 

Prove there is a discrepancy first..You are using an admittedly inaccurate budget to make a claim... WTH? LOL, dude it's a bogus budget, we all know it is. You yourself don't have faith in the climate models,yet here you are trying to make a claim using the very basis the models are built on.. WTF.. A discrepancy found, based on an inaccurate energy budget, is as factual as the budget..In other words BS..

And that's why I know you are full of shit Ian.. You aren't a skeptic.. Are you some sort of plant designed to play a part or something? Seriously man, you defend everything about AGW, BUT the interpretation of data by some, and then use that interpretive BS to defend your position whenever you chose..

ROFL, Give him a hand folks, Ian the dancing bear!


----------



## IanC (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> You're a coward Ian. Be intellectually, or otherwise. When the clones where regurgitating the sequestered CO2 nonsense and treating CO2 as an element, what did you say? NOTHING.. Not a word.. And why not? Because you liked the fact they were arguing everyone else but you. A fine example of how you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, a true cowards motto, it will serve you well. ANd that wasn't the only time I have seen you do that.. You let people ramble nonstop BS pseudo-science so long as they are arguing with certain people, no matter how idiotic they may be, or how wrong their claims, you say nothing. Yet let someone you don't like say anything you deem unscientific and you're on them like white on rice.. A true save-ass opportunistic punk..
> 
> Feel insulted now? Good.. Please make another plead to the forum post, we love those..ROFL.
> 
> BTW, as far as my brain power, I don't know, I think I must be doing alright, I have caught you in BS so many times it's becoming old hat.. I remember when you didn't know what Fermat's last theorem was.. ROFL. Too funny.. Mr. Big Brain math expert caught being full of shit by the guy he claims is lacking brain power.. Dude what's that say about you??



bump the relevent post on sequestered carbon. if there is one. I dont read comments that are just ad hom attacks by you, or fitz and pms.

as far as Fermat and his column margin theorum...I answered you in real time that it was an old time mathematician. when I asked you at the same time what happens to the pH of water as it warms you refused to answer. same old, same old. you probably _still_ dont know what happens to the pH even though it was answered by others. it actually takes knowledge of concepts rather than memorization of old mathematicians' names.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > You're a coward Ian. Be intellectually, or otherwise. When the clones where regurgitating the sequestered CO2 nonsense and treating CO2 as an element, what did you say? NOTHING.. Not a word.. And why not? Because you liked the fact they were arguing everyone else but you. A fine example of how you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, a true cowards motto, it will serve you well. ANd that wasn't the only time I have seen you do that.. You let people ramble nonstop BS pseudo-science so long as they are arguing with certain people, no matter how idiotic they may be, or how wrong their claims, you say nothing. Yet let someone you don't like say anything you deem unscientific and you're on them like white on rice.. A true save-ass opportunistic punk..
> ...



Liar... Ian, now you know better the thing was in a few threads and over tens of posts.. Don't lie...

And again, you asked me about ph of water INSTEAD of answering my question.. See the problem yet? Of course you do.. The true weasel way.. Yes, yes, a math wiz and science expert on all things physics like yourself, can't be bothered by trivialities like Fermat and any of the other things the rest of the lesser mathematicians spend careers working on. You have a web forum to troll and pseudo-science to post... Yes, Ian you're a genius.. A genius with no clue what is a fact and what is a theory... Wow, you are amazing...LOL


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



THERE --- you just SAID IT!!!! "you are reusing the same energy".. 

That's true -- It's NOT high-tailing it into space. In other words

* the cooling rate is reduced*.  And what happens if you reduce the cooling rate but keep the exact SAME conditions for the warming rate?? Go on man --- say it.. I know you can do it !!!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Wouldn't that depend on what the cooling rate was to begin with and what it is over time?  If I put a warm roast, say 100 degrees, in the refrigerator set at 40 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will be temporarily raised somewhat but the roast will cool at a certain rate.  If I put the same size roast at the same temperature in the fridge set at 45 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will rise a bit more than before and the roast will not cool as rapidly, but it will still cool.

And we are assuming that there are no other variables to add to that scenario too.  And I am guessing that we don't have the means to guage all the variables in warming and cooling in climate science as much as we can guage the controlled conditions in a refrigerator.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...
> ...



In order to discount that trace gas's ability to re-radiate heat to the surface, you'd have to also dismiss the ability of water vapor to be a major player in the reason the planet isn't a sno-cone.. And I don't want to do this "CO2 can't store no heat" biz with you again.. 

Certainly adiabatic heating exists. That's what causes local heat waves.. But unless you got a chart showing that the STANDARD barometric pressure has increased since the late 18th century --- I don't think you've even got a conspiracy theory worthy of N&Z going on Art Bell (or whoever is doing that boogeyman show now).. 

The primary heat retention mechanism is radiative EM heating. I DO BELIEVE it's currently WAAAAY overrated about conduction and convection --- but that's gonna have to wait til I fund my own sabbatical to go back into academia to correct the TrenBerth mess...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *As CO2 and water vapor selectively absorb infrared radiation, they also selectively emit infrared radiation in all directions. Some of this energy is radiated back toward the Earth&#65533;s surface where it is absorbed and heats the ground. At this point, the process of the Earth radiating infrared wavelengths continues.*
> ...



I need the same thing from you as I need from GSlack.. ALL of what appears in BOTH those Atmospheric Physics is supported in the Radiative Physics books.. Books going back to the 19th century are consistent.. HOWEVER -- the concepts INCLUDED in "back radiation" span several chapters in the more primary references. 

I don't know if you stuck on radiation from cold to hot --- or BBody calculations --- or the wavelength conversion that allows Broadband in and LongWave only out.. 

So you need to tell me which of these SIX you are rejecting... 




> But to understand ANY of them you have to accept..
> 
> 1) EVERY body (regardless of temp) radiates some amount of IR EM in every available direction. That is derived from BBody laws and Stephan Boltzmann..
> 
> ...



You have so many unfounded peripheral objections (like CO2 is NOT a GreenHouse Gas) that I haven't really put any energy into discussing this with you.. 


But if you want to see that the more fundamental texts back up those assertions from Harvard and the Atmos Physic book -- tell me which of the six above you have a problem with.. 

I've got the patience of a freaking saint.. 
To the point where I get mocked for my effort...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..
> ...



THose are just homework questions chief.. If they were truly unexplainable issues, they wouldn't be given to the reader to solve.. I'm certain that the Ozone question is explainable from contents of the previous chapter.. I didn't read the 600 pages.. 

Can you explain why EVERY atmospheric physics text I checked has the SAME diagram showing AND CALCULATING (very accurately for the crude assumptions) the surface temp of the earth?? Was the HARVARD study guide a product of the IPCC?? 

I've presented pages from 9 thermo books, 2 radiative physics books and 2 atmos physics books..  *As well as a tutorial prepared by the Federation of American Scientists on Atmos Physic for dummies that verifies EVERYTHING I'VE ASSERTED*..  As well as knocking myself out for 4 days ----- while YOU ----
poke fun, wise crack, and make unfounded assertions.. 

Tell me -- are you INTERESTED in resolving this? Or are you just being entertained? 
You want to be spoonfed physics or ya gonna take a bite?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..
> ...



Beg to differ... Atmos Physics IS NOT climate science. THey don't give a rump about history of the climate, or tree rings or guessing a "GLOBAL albedo" or even interpreting minute swings of a degree or two..

It IS a hard science required for advance meterology, and analysis of space borne instrumentation.. Darned if I know what else.. 

Tell me which of the six issues you have with "back-radiation" and we can walk back from Atmos Physics all the way to straight High School Physics with NO NADA ZERO conspiracy theories..

I reposted the 6 issues in contention at this recent post..   http://www.usmessageboard.com/7561845-post2245.html


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yep.. The main heating and cooling paths have to be accounted for. Assumptions are made that solar insolation is NOT changing, and the drain rate to cold space is not changing. You might even dismiss convection and conduction as minor when calculating the radiative part of the heat budget... 

This is what you do in a textbook.. You make simplifying assumptions so that the BASIC concepts are isolated and presented coherently. You cannot "teach" a comprehensive model of something like the atmos in a text. That takes a room of supercomputers and several man-years of programming. 

Part of the problem with this "conspiracy" revolt is that the standard Thermo texts virtually ignore radiative heat transfer. Because it DOESN'T behave like the heat flow due to molecule flow thru materials. That connection is never really made until the students are exposed to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves or never. 

That's WHY you find this problem of GreenHouse in Atmos Physics books and not really in classic Thermo. In classic thermo -- you MIGHT find a 2 body problem involving radiation. And I've shown multiple examples of that. But then -- they don't use the term "back-radiation" to describe the TWO-WAY exchange of photons between those bodies. 

The problems with GreenHouse theory have to do EXACTLY with your observation about what assumptions are being made in the cheap ass climate models. And MOST of the models for AGW have been designed TO SHOW the predominant effect of CO2. You get what you program.. And I'd rather be arguing about that -- than dealing with "rogue skeptics" who deny that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas or claim that the GreenHouse effect is somehow a "perpetual motion scheme"...


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



OH.. so they are problems for a student to figure out then... That explains a lot... But not why it was put up as simply "problems".. Seems odd for a text book.. Oh that's right,it's not a text book it's an introduction to IPCC atmospheric climate science... My bad...Sorry, the format was a bit ridiculous..

Point still remains though.. You submitted pages from two climate science books and as far as their being text books actually used, we don't know that. After all they are web published books. Not exactly a guarantee they are legitimate text books at all...

But hey, you believe that we can re-use the same energy naturally so,what you call a text book might be something else..

So you and Ian go make your incredible CO2 energy recycling miracle device working and patent it quick before someone else does... LOL,the things been a theory for how long now and not one device capitalizes on it???? Not even one? A hair dryer even? How about a soup warmer? NADA.. not a thing...

It has to be the most amazing thing never capitalized on... But you two got this I'm sure ..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> In order to discount that trace gas's ability to re-radiate heat to the surface, you'd have to also dismiss the ability of water vapor to be a major player in the reason the planet isn't a sno-cone.. And I don't want to do this "CO2 can't store no heat" biz with you again..




I acknowledged that CO2 can store heat.  Of course it can't store it at a temperature above 0.01675K or -459.63985 F at atmospheric pressure, but I am not sure how that helps your argument.

Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't.  It can't store heat in its gas form.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And, to go back to the refrigerator analogy, just some of the variables affecting the rate at which a warm roast will cool will also be affected by whether the refrigerator is empty or whether there are other already chilled substances around it, where it is placed in the refrigerator, how it is wrapped or whether it is covered, etc. etc. etc.

In climate science we can easily argue that we all share the same pool of air and mostly the same sea water, and yet there are huge variables in the temperature of air and water depending on where it is located on the planet.  So warming in the arctic does not produce an equal warming in the Anarctic region etc.   Water in the gulf stream will be even of a somewhat different chemistry than that in the Bering Sea.  The air in the jet streams behaves much differently than air over the Equator, etc.

Unless ALL possible variables are entered into the climate models, and that would be humanly impossible to accomplish with the technology we have at this time, to put all our faith in those climate models to determine our fate as a people is foolish at best; criminal at worst.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2013)

> Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't. It can't store heat in its gas form.



You often talk about enthalpy and heat capacity as if they're the same thing, switching back and forth between them. You have to, to make your crazy theory work.

Let's look at your "Deserts get cold at night because there's no water vapor in the air to store heat!" line of reasoning.

If you're strictly talking heat capacity, water vapor has a heat capacity about double of dry air. Water vapor makes up about 1% of the atmosphere at 50% humidity. Thus, moist air will have a heat capacity of 1.01 times that of dry air. 1% more. Simply not significant. Heat capacity can't explain your theory.

So, you'll have to jump back to enthalpy to explain it. To release the heat you're talking about, the water vapor in the atmosphere in humid regions would have to be constantly condensing all night long to release the stored heat. But I can go outside at night at my house on a hot night, and water isn't condensing on me or falling from the skies. The condensing isn't happening, and the heat is clearly not from enthalpy.

Your theory only works if you take the very large value of water vapor enthalpy and secretly pull a switcharoo and shove it into the equation in place of the small value for water vapor heat capacity. Nonsense junk science on your part.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> > Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't. It can't store heat in its gas form.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice.  Units and quantities are everything.  Without them, qualities get mixed around as being synonymous and scale is entirely ignored.  Sure, there are potential effects that, when the scale is properly attended to, are entitely inneffective.  

Thanks.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > > Water actually can store heat at atmospheric pressure...CO2 can't. It can't store heat in its gas form.
> ...



Yes and if BS and boot-licking your sock was useful, you would be forum president..

LOL get a room socko..


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

Just wanted to point out a few things..

1. The so-called links to text books.. So far only one was actually to a text book, and that one did not even mention backradiation, and despite the claims of flac, it had a very robust section on radiative transfer. In fact the books title was, "the fundamentals of heat and mass transfer".. LOL yeah it was on heat transfer specifically.. And no mention of backradiation. Just radiation...

2. GH gases in their natural state on earth do not store heat. A gas in our atmosphere lacks the extra molecular bonds to effectively store heat for any noticeable amount of time.. HOWEVER, gases thermal and thermodynamic properties change with their temperature and density. Meaning high or low pressure and higher or lower temps change their properties. ALSO, the more complex the gas compound at the molecular level, the greater it's ability to slow heat transfer. More molecular bonds means more bonds to react with and so on. Hence GH gases in particular stronger reactions to IR.

3. A nice graphic and explanation from NASA..






Now IF that is true, than any incidental back radiation effecting any of the objects is bogus..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > In order to discount that trace gas's ability to re-radiate heat to the surface, you'd have to also dismiss the ability of water vapor to be a major player in the reason the planet isn't a sno-cone.. And I don't want to do this "CO2 can't store no heat" biz with you again..
> ...



OMG --- Not this again.. So if I try to impart a calibrated temp to a container of CO2, the stuff will NOT heat above 0.016K ?? Holy Jesus --- that's a MIRACLE.. The ultimate HEATSINK. Returns to abs Zero when you try to raise it's temp.. Please contact the Vatican.. 

Oh and tell THESE folks too...

http://www.durr-cleantechnology.com/environmental-and-energy-systems-products/co2-heat-pumps/


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



This is exactly why it's juvenile to reduce the entire AGW argument to ONE FREAKING number.. That "global mean surface temp anomaly" --- entirely rubbish.. It's been packaged for general public consumption.. 

There are other single numbers of convienience that are purposely there to "dumb-down" the climate science for public consumption.. The largest offender is trying to come up with a SINGLE number (again) for "climate sensitivity".. That's the multiplier that gives CO2 warming it's SuperPowers.. Any thinking person knows that the response of the Arctic to a 1degC change is gonna be different than the tropics. In fact Climate Sensitivity varies HOUR by HOUR and SEASON by SEASON. That snow cover changes the albedo and the "climate sensitivity".. When you average ALL of these variant functions together into a SINGLE number --- you get noise and confusion.. 

The Trenberth diagram is yet another sparse model of energy exchange. It doesn't know day from night, winter from summer, median lattitudes from tropics. 

YET --- THOSE 3 things are what we fight about... And except for skirmishes like this one -- we almost NEVER get into the details of the science behind the simplifications...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> Just wanted to point out a few things..
> 
> 1. The so-called links to text books.. So far only one was actually to a text book, and that one did not even mention backradiation, and despite the claims of flac, it had a very robust section on radiative transfer. In fact the books title was, "the fundamentals of heat and mass transfer".. LOL yeah it was on heat transfer specifically.. And no mention of backradiation. Just radiation...
> 
> ...



Not expending any more energy on this with you unless you tell me which of the six issues in contention is bugging you.. I've posted the list THREE TIMES now.. 

You are playing 2 of the issues here in this one post.. That because backradiation is mentioned in basic thermo --- it can't exist.. And the other is that objects in thermal equilibrium CEASE to radiate at each other under thermal equilibrium (DSlack Physics).. That's your HS level NASA diagram.. Radiative Physics says those objects are STILL back radiating at EACH OTHER in equal and opposite directions.

Right now you're lying about what I've given.. There were 8 THERMO texts quoted in Scienceofdoom and no EARTHLY reason why I or anyone else would have to go and independently retrieve those references.. YOU just ignored them.. with no comments..

Comment on the six issues, put them in YOUR ORDER of wrongness and we can continue..


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Just wanted to point out a few things..
> ...



It wasn't basic "thermo" it was a proper text book.. Hell you brought it into the discussion. You just don't like it now that it defies your logic.. Sorry but that's the difference between pseudo-climate science and real science..

I already addressed your list specifically in a previous post, but if you feel taking the Ian route is best be my guest. Just deny it was addressed and keep on dancing..

The graphic and simple rule under it, explains a great deal.. For instance, how can backradiation effect change in that graphic if the rule is correct? IF correct, then there could not be any heat gain from incidental backradiation from any of the three objects.. Otherwise the rule is wrong. IF backradiation exists and does as you claim, then the rule cannot be correct... SO which is it? IF as we all know all things radiate, and as you state they cannot decide which direction to radiate or not radiate in even if one direction is warmer, and that backradiation does effect change in other objects around it, than this thermodynamic equilibrium rule here cannot be so. In fact the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium is put into question if your claim is correct as you state it..

How could things ever reach thermodynamic equilibrium between 3 objects if backradiation from each object warms the other object and so on?

See what happens when you actually apply your BS theory? It creates havok. You claim it doesn't violate any laws but in practice it clearly does. Re-using the same energy for the same purpose and in the same system creates an infinite feedback loop..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Please provide the post link where you told me WHICH of the 6 issues were a problem to you... 



> The graphic and simple rule under it, explains a great deal.. For instance, how can backradiation effect change in that graphic if the rule is correct? IF correct, then there could not be any heat gain from incidental backradiation from any of the three objects.. Otherwise the rule is wrong. IF backradiation exists and does as you claim, then the rule cannot be correct... SO which is it? IF as we all know all things radiate, and as you state they cannot decide which direction to radiate or not radiate in even if one direction is warmer, and that backradiation does effect change in other objects around it, than this thermodynamic equilibrium rule here cannot be so. In fact the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium is put into question if your claim is correct as you state it..
> 
> How could things ever reach thermodynamic equilibrium between 3 objects if backradiation from each object warms the other object and so on?
> 
> See what happens when you actually apply your BS theory? It creates havok. You claim it doesn't violate any laws but in practice it clearly does. Re-using the same energy for the same purpose and in the same system creates an infinite feedback loop..



We don't even know if those 3 objects are in a vacuum or air or water.. Would make a diff as to the major component of thermal prop being conduction or radiation.. 

Point is --- according to BBody Physics --- those objects are STILL radiating photons.. If you DENY this --- please provide me a reference that says that a BlackBody radiates CONDITIONALLY depending on what surrounds it.. That statement doesn't exist in science.

So from the appropriate RADIATIVE thermo view.. The bodies are exchanging the appropriate amount of photons to make EQUAL AND OPPOSITE changes to their temp. ((Excluding considerations of the MUTUAL loss rate to the world outside of the cartoon))

If that WASN'T true, you could not read their temp with an IR thermometer in equilibrium.. QED... 

No havok. No BS.. Now be a good little whiner and go show me a single reference that says BBody RADIATION of EM IR STOPS when it reaches equilibrium with it's surroundings.

That BI-DIRECTIONAL exchange INCLUDES "back-radiation" from EACH of the bodies. 

I'd appreciate if you save the victory dance on my mangled corpse til you actually land a punch.. My patience is about gone... 

If you DON'T link to where you the discussed the six issues --- I'm pretty much done with the tutorial part of this thread..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 19, 2013)

It PISSES ME OFF that you accuse me of lying about giving you 8 classical text references to Bi-Directional radiative heat transfer.. This was given to you PAGES ago and REPEATEDLY.. 

Had you GONE to the link I gave you --- you would have certainly seen these excerpts along with the title pages of the text books in which they appear.. 

Bi-directional radiative flow is the BASIS for the modern coinage of "back-radiation".. 






































Still need help understanding "back-radiation" ???
Or is handing you a pile of textbooks -- a big waste of my time???


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It's in this thread do your own leg work. If you had been actually reading and responding fairly to my posts instead repeating the same thing and claiming no one answers your questions, you would know.. I'll give you a hint, it's the one where I cited the post you speak of..

Frankly I don't care if you are done with anything you arrogant ass.. Get over yourself, you're a forum poster no better than any of us. Keep your condescension, I for one have grown tired of it.. 

LOL, the fact you think I was claiming something about radiation stopping somehow,is either testament to how little you understand this, or how dishonest you can be when you don't like how it turns out.. Please try and stop the BS.. No one claimed radiation stops, or that it decides not to radiate in a certain direction, or checks the temperature before radiating... That's Ian BS and you are parroting it.. Either that or you don't understand what is meant when I say "just because something radiates, it doesn't mean it can effect change in it's source or warmer object.."

So which is it? DO you really not understand it, or are you just not liking what it means and playing the obtuse game?

I Don't know anymore, I used to think you just didn't know. Wouldn't be the first time a person solid in math and concepts didn't grasp the reality of their hypothesis... But now, I think you are just playing obtuse rather than follow it to it's logical end. And that's cowardly. You talk down to people long enough, can't get upset when they test your right to do so..

The graphic from NASA is sound.. You know it I know it... AND further if you were intellectually honest you would know what it means.. It doesn't mean radiation stops once it reaches equilibrium and nobody, not me or anybody here to my knowledge claimed it did. What happens is the energy is equal to energy out meaning no change in the two or in this case 3 objects. They radiate but so what? They do not alter one anothers temperature, especially not through re-used energy from one another..

Once more, just because something cooler can or does radiate to another object that is warmer, it does not mean it will alter the temperature of that object... How many times do I have to repeat it before you actually understand or acknowledge it? LOL

P.S. Don't tell me what I must do, you don't dictate to me.. If you want to know where I responded look it up or here's an idea, read what you respond to fairly... Now please go stomp your foot at someone else,it doesn't cut it with me...


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> It PISSES ME OFF that you accuse me of lying about giving you 8 classical text references to Bi-Directional radiative heat transfer.. This was given to you PAGES ago and REPEATEDLY..
> 
> Had you GONE to the link I gave you --- you would have certainly seen these excerpts along with the title pages of the text books in which they appear..
> 
> ...



Wait please tell me where you got the idea that radiation is automatically back-radiation???

Please, I'd love to know where that was taught or who told you that.. It's an asinine and completely WRONG idea... You are assuming since all things radiate they must effect change in everything,be it warmer or colder than the other object. and that is just not so. The Graphic from NASA showed this, but you seem to disagree anyway..

BTW, the graphic shows the Zeroth Law.. Figured you would have spotted it right off.. Being so quick to speak down to people, hoped you had some reason or some ability to at least make it seem like impatience or something.. But no, it was just arrogance...

ZEROTH LAW... It's kind of a big thing ya know...

If you want to believe that back-radiation is radiation, or that things radiate and they must effect change in another warmer object, because they radiate, or for whatever reason you think, be my guest... BUT, don't try and force it on me, and certainly don't try and talk down to people who disagree.

I think the theory is flawed. For one the claim requires near lossless energy transfer if not perfect. Two, it in the very least bends the laws of thermodynamics so badly they are barely appear laws by the time they are done. And three, its validity calls into question other areas of the same theory it was born from. Lastly, the entire thing is based on a theory that is admittedly incomplete even by it's own creators... Incomplete theory as basis for another theory with this many discrepancies??? And you call it fact???

ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2013)

I won't be on much for a few days.  If I don't respond in a reasonable time it's because of work travel..


----------



## IanC (Jul 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



maybe I should argue with you , flac. at least I know I'll get ideas rather than insults back.

while I am not necessarily agreeing with Trenberth's numbers, I think as a first estimate they are probably in the ballpark.

160w solar input at the surface goes out as 40w through the atmospheric window and 26w other radiation, but the rest leaves the surface (to the cloud top) as thermal and evapotranspiration. that is hardly miniscule. radiation only really takes over past the cloud top, and of course is the only way to actually escape the earth. 

the whole water cycle thing is what regulates our climate, and has done for billions of years, even when the Sun's output towards the Earth was considerably lower. fewer clouds means more solar insolation, which leads to warming. warming leads to evaporation and more clouds, which in turn reflects some solar input. a smooth functioning governor that works especially well in the tropics where most of the energy from the Sun is received.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

Flac's posted pages from 'textbooks' actually come from a blog entitled Scienceofdoom.  No idea who prepared the 'textbook' pages or their origin.  That is an interesting blog though dedicated wholly to the subject of climate science.  I was interested that the owner and primary director of the blog seems to have an open mind on the subject and rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote.   An open mind is a very good thing.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Part 1. One way to classify a human population would be to put them on a scale where at, say, the left end, would be folks who believe explicitly and always in the discoveries of science. That science is the truth, and nothing but the truth, including the certainty as portrayed by any current science. At the right would be those who believe that all science is a sham and the real truths of the universe are beyond mankind's reach. 

If one would put the US population on such a scale, I would predict a bi-polar normal distribution. The biggest peak would be well skewed to the left as befits a group with a modern STEM education. The smaller peak would be closer to the right and would be those who generally believe in science, but who make some exceptions because of their environmental politics.

At this forum, those at that smaller peak would be those who argue against AGW using science. That is they accept much climate science, and use it to support and explain up to what they accept as true, then veer to the right when approaching the current scientific conclusions that demonstrate the inevitability of AGW, what they don't want to be true. 

Like science might be a Queen or Jack, but no match for the Ace of politics. 

Part 2 to follow.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

And this probably deserves a mention in this thread.  Two days ago on July 18, the Senate held a hearing on climate change with scientist witnesses invited by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) and Sen. James Inhofe (R).   This was reported in Forbes:



> However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years.  Storch told Der Spiegel that 98 percent of IPCC climate models cannot replicate the prolonged pause in global warming, and IPCC may need to revise its computer models to correct their apparent warming bias.
> 
> During yesterday&#8217;s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, &#8220;Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama&#8217;s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?&#8221;
> 
> ...



And of course this interesting story has been essentially non existent in the MSM or on the warmer religionist blogs and message boards.

Sometimes what is not reported is even more interesting than what is.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

Bi-modal?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Heat transfer in a refrigerator is much more convection and conduction. Very little radiation.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bi-modal?


Correct. Thanks. Brain fart from too much vacation.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Let me guess.  You didn't take highschool chemistry did you.  And you haven't had any physics classes either.

If you had you would know:  all matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Part 2. Of course the paradox of the bi-modal distribution mentioned above comes from the fact that the conclusion of AGW comes from the simplest of radiative thermodynamics. 

That a body in space can only be heated and cooled by radiation. That if the heat in is constant and the heat out is reduced, no matter the cause, the body must regain equilibrium by increasing its temperature. There are simply no other possibilities. 

That the earth has always been warmed by GHGs. In their absence in our atmosphere, there is a good chance that life as we know it would never have happened. 

And the degree to which GHGs reduce or increase heat out is proportional to the number of their molecules in our atmosphere, their concentration as an atmospheric component. 

Of course how the earth, oceans, atmosphere and life forms interact to achieve the different temperature required by changes in GHG concentration is a hugely complex process that requires the utmost of science and tools to predict. 

While the fact of it is unarguably simple.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I agree. 

My point is that if two bodies are contained in an atmosphere, and are at nearly the same absolute temperature, the transfer of heat between them and the atmosphere, by convection and conduction, will be much higher than by radiation. 

On the other hand the transfer of heat between the filament of the light bulb in the refrigerator, when the bulb is on, would be a higher percent by radiation.

And the filament would be warmed by even the the cold food, and the food warmed more by the very hot filament. 

That's why LED refrigerator lighting is such a good idea.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Flac's posted pages from 'textbooks' actually come from a blog entitled Scienceofdoom.  No idea who prepared the 'textbook' pages or their origin.  That is an interesting blog though dedicated wholly to the subject of climate science.  I was interested that the owner and primary director of the blog seems to have an open mind on the subject and rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote.   An open mind is a very good thing.



With respect.. I provided a link to the page that shows those textbook excerpts. 

I reprinted in USMB only the text references that mattered.. But I gave EVERYONE the link to the scienceofdoom page that did the research.. SEVERAL TIMES..

Amazing Things we Find in Textbooks ? The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom

On that page you will find NOT ONLY the stuff I snipped but also the TITLE PAGE FROM EACH OF TEXTS and the authors.. I am NOT making a special trip to Vanderbilt moldy book stacks to pull each one of those when someone else ALREADY did the work.. 

Don't CARE what Dr. scienceofdoom really thinks. The statements from 6 classical Heat Transfer texts says.. 

1) That radiative heat transfer is MULTI-DIRECTIONAL. That means EVERYTHING radiates and absorbs to some extent.. 

2) The math shows calculations for BI-DIRECTIONAL objects such that COLDER objects contribute to the NET FLOW. 

3) The NET FLOW does not violate any primary law of thermo for radiative heating. 

WE on the other hand are not conversing on a "science blog". We are on a HORSESHIT public forum with NO controls on truth. Which means that I can show 6 excerpts from traditional physics and be MOCKED FOR IT ---- while some geezer in his underwear can tell me he won't READ or UNDERSTAND the textbooks --- but that his ALTERNATE interpretation of physics is the truth.. 

Pretty tired of the petty objections to sourcing.. If you believe those texts are wrong. Then tell me WHY they are wrong.. Not because of WHAT BITSTREAM they were acquired over.. 

Not sniping at you FoxFyre.. I'm just tired of defending science against mere stupidity and speculation.. SOMEBODY better start debating the PHYSICS and not the conspiracy theory around it...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

> *Unless ALL possible variables are entered into the climate models*, and that would be humanly impossible to accomplish with the technology we have at this time, to put all our faith in those climate models to determine our fate as a people is foolish at best; criminal at worst.



Well, now that just isn't true.  We put our confidence in thousands upon thousands of models without putting all the information into them.  If we hadn't, we wouldn't have ever left the cave.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Flac's posted pages from 'tex
> tbooks' actually come from a blog entitled Scienceofdoom.  No idea who prepared the 'textbook' pages or their origin.  That is an interesting blog though dedicated wholly to the subject of climate science.  I was interested that the owner and primary director of the blog seems to have an open mind on the subject and rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote.   An open mind is a very good thing.



"rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote."

The science of AGW is what it is as the current knowledge of mankind in the field of the impact of GHG concentrations on climatic temperatures. 

What has religion to do with that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



We SHOULD argue about something.. That's a great idea.. MAYBE -- something would get resolved between 2 REASONABLY informed people.. You go first. Pick a fight... 

Reducing the surface radiation ESCAPING the atmos to only 40 seems like something of a miracle to me, BUT --- after sifting thru those texts that GSlack and SSDD required, I'm feeling a bit better about that.. 

Funny comment I ran across in the Atmos Physic text.. The guy lays out the "simple GHouse" model (thin atmos -- homogenous properties) and calculates the S-Boltzmann deal for the earth and the BACKRADIATION component of the GH layer. Does the math and comes up with EXACTLY a surface temp in the right ballpark.. 

But the comedy comes from his statement in brackets after the numbers.. From memory --

((This result is a bit of unexpected serendipity since our model ignored convection and conduction heating from the surface and adiabatic and thickness effects in the insulating layer.  It should not be as accurate as it seems..))

I think that pretty much describes my problem with Trenberth's grand result..


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook.  It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.  I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change.  I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that.   I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that.   Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category?  I don't know.  Do you?  Not getting on your case.  Just observing that huge globs of cut and paste are usually not useful for those of us interested in the realities and policies related to climate science.

It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.

And all the stuff that some are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to some.   For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And this probably deserves a mention in this thread.  Two days ago on July 18, the Senate held a hearing on climate change with scientist witnesses invited by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) and Sen. James Inhofe (R).   This was reported in Forbes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do any of those links have a Video? That needs to go into the FlaCalTenn archives..

Hysterical...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Ah now you are back pedaling which generally happens when somebody is talking about stuff they have no clue what they are talking about.  You didn't make the point re objects near the same 'absolute temperature'.  I was specific about what the temperatures were in my illustration.  You got caught making a statement that was flat out false and now are trying to unembarrass yourself.  Won't work.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook.  It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.  I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change.  I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that.   I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that.   Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category?  I don't know.  Do you?
> 
> It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.
> 
> And all the stuff that some of you actually are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to you and some others.   For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.



"It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy."

What policies are you worried about not having adequate scientific support?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



"You got caught making a statement that was flat out false and now are trying to unembarrass yourself."

A absolute lie. I didn't make any statement that was in any way false. You made some statements implying that radiative heat transfer explained what happens to roasts in refrigerators when it doesn't.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

From the Senate hearings this week:  (bolded emphasis mine.)



> Judith (Vitter) notes that this is particularly clever, a good way to blunt the 97% consensus meme being thrown around. Hey, you could put me in that 97%, as Ive written before. I do believe Mankind plays a small role in heating, mostly through agriculture, ocean pollution, and landfills, when it comes to true global impacts, but the urban heat island effect plays the most part in anthropogenic forcings, meaning it is localized.
> 
> *The lack of statistically significant warming in the last 15 years is sometimes glossed over with the claim that the global temperature record has a number of examples of no warming (or even cooling) over fifteen year periods. But this claim is disingenuous, because the IPCC presumed radiative forcing of the climate system from increasing CO2 has been at its supposed maximum value only in the last 15 years. In other words, when the climate stove has been turned up the most (the last 15 years) is also when you least expect a lack of warming.
> 
> ...


I took this from the PiratesCove site because they took the time to extract it from all the testimony at the hearing which is almost certainly already available for perusal on the Senate website.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Prove that it doesn't.  I have proved that my observations are absolutely spot on by cooling a roast in the refrigerator.  I also have had a chemistry class or two AND a physics class or two which you obviously have not.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

> > Heat transfer in a refrigerator is much more convection and conduction. Very little radiation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See, that is where * you* throw out actual reasoning.  * You* ignore context for the sake of being argumentative. *You* demonstrate *yourself* to be an obnoxious and horrible person, lacking in any sense of consideration and empathy.  *You* lack any solid grasp on objectivity, can't see *yourself* for the incidiously evil person *you* really are, succumbing to the very nature of ingroup/outgroup thinking and the actor/observer effect.

Five instances of the second person pronoun, in responding to an objective statement.  And, if the response is equally personal, *you* would be completely oblivious to having started it.

It is the "when I do it, I have a good reason. When you do it, it hurts my feelings" effect. (actor/observer)

In a refrigerator, convection and conduction are everything.  They have fans for a reason, to keep the air flowing, force "convection".   The effect of radiant energy is so low as to be negligent by comparison to the air flow.  It is a closed system and refrigeration depends on the air flowing across the cooling coils, not on radiant energy hitting them.


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



LOL, a post where the only thing discussed was how reasonable, smart, correct, whatever you and I an Are...



ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yes, yes,you are reasonable and because flac agrees with you, and doesn't call you out when you are being a douchebag, you two are reasonable together... 

LOL, and when you insult peoples intelligence, play obtuse rather than legitimately respond to others posts, and generally turn into a weasel after you can't concede a point, you are only doing that because you are so perfect and brilliant...

Get over yourselves already..ROFL..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook.  It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.



With my last ounce of patience here.. 

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB *AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books*..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted *are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.*. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook... 



> When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises......



This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here... 

A)  That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B)   That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C)   To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D)  No violation of any other law occurs.. 
E)  ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same.. 

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please.... 
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation".. 

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said.. 



> I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change.  I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that.   I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that.   Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category?  I don't know.  Do you?  Not getting on your case.  Just observing that huge globs of cut and paste are usually not useful for those of us interested in the realities and policies related to climate science.



What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science.. 

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked.. 



> It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.
> 
> And all the stuff that some are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to some.   For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.



Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> > > Heat transfer in a refrigerator is much more convection and conduction. Very little radiation.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



Gee.  Who knew?   And here I thought the refrigerator fan was to cool the compressor, force outside air through the coils, provide a more uniform temperature inside the appliance, and evaporate the water that forms in the automatic defrosting process, all which is not necessary in small refrigerators that don't have fans at all.  All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a warm roast will warm the environment inside the refrigerator until it cools to the temperature the refrigerator will work to reattain.  Because the fan does draw in outside air, though, which provides one of the variables, I don't think you can call a refrigerator a truly closed system.

Is there any reason to believe that on the massively larger scale of the planet Earth, that there are forces that also work to rebalance and reattain temperatures but all factors, including time frames, are on a massively larger scale?

And do you concur with those scientists testifying before the Senate this week, not one of which would say that President Obama's claim that global warming has accelerated in the last 15 years was accurate.  Despite the fact that there has been a significant increase in CO2 in locations where it has been measured?

The climate models are not proving accurate again and again and again.  Why should we depend on them to direct what our liberties, options, opportunities, and choices will be?   The climate models cannot predict even all the variable that exist re warming and cooling inside a refrigerator.  Why should they be trusted to predict the future of climate on Planet Earth?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2013)

If any of the pseudo-science skeptics  wants to argue with anything I just posted to FoxFyre. Feel free. 

Whatever objections have been made are pretty useless. 

1) It's USELESS to try to imply that someone would forge textbooks.. 

2) It's USELESS to imply that just because you see don't see the term back-radiation in a text, that the words about transfer from ALL bodies and TO all bodies doesn't mean you can't call the flow from a cooler body to a warmer body ---- back-radiation.. 

3) It's USELESS to assert that objects in thermal equilibrum "stop radiating at each other".. Every textbook cited corrects that misconception. 

4) It's USELESS to assert that energy can't flow from a cooler to warmer body as long as the NET flow is in the proper direction... 

So --- be a USELESS skeptic if you insist on it.. But I'm not getting tarred and feathered over your stubborness to learn the basic physics of radiative heat flow.. 

And I'm NEVER gonna sit by and watch a mob of cultish folks who even deny the basic GreenHouse theory try to take down and eat the best and brightest of the anti-AGW crowd..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2013)

BTW:

The term "GreenHouse Effect" itself is a travesty of science. Doesn't even APPROACH the way the earth is heated.. A greenhouse works by restricting convective flow primarily.. The glass has no ability to selectively filter and absorb long wave IR differently going in than coming out.. THAT's the real GHouse effect. 

Some of the choices for terms are AGAIN to dumb this AGW crap for public consumption. 

And it's clear that what's been promoted is a fairytale void of rigorous science..


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook.  It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.
> ...



I don't want to take the time to research the textbooks because I honestly don't have the interest to read all that stuff.  I was hoping you had read what you posted and could highlight the part you thought pertinent to the subject at that time and how it was pertinent to the debate re climate change.   (Several have already demonstrated that the quadruplets don't understand and can't explain the big masses of cut and paste that they post.)  

 But as I said, I am not on your case.  I'm just protesting huge masses of cut and pasted material that don't seem to be important in any way to the discussion of whether climate change is occurring and what policies should or should not be adopted.

And I don't HAVE a side in this debate.  I am interested in honest science regardless of where it comes from.  I have had an open mind from the beginning and still do.

And I still don't want to hand over my liberties, opportunities, options, and choices to idiots or morons or political opportunists who look to take more and more power and/or enrich themselves and who are not adverse to using bogus or flawed science to do it.

So far I have not identified any skeptics who are attempting to do that.  I have identified a LOT of AGW religionists who are attempting to do that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Let me try to motivate you here.. 

We cannot allow OUR campaign to be based on patently false allegations and bad science. 

There have been multiple sources calling some of the most valued LEADERS of our AGW efforts on the carpet for even acknowledging that the GreenHouse effect works the way that it does. It got SOOO bad that 1/2 of the energy from our side of blogosphere is absorbed with correcting all these bad misconceptions before WE ALL GET LABELED as ignorant cranks.. 

The PRO-AGW side does there policing by PEER PRESSURE and CENSORSHIP.. We need to do ours with solid scientific truth.. 

Of course you've seen skeptics here on our side trying to use flawed science. 

We have one that denies that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas. 
We have at least 3 that don't understand how the atmosphere re-radiates energy back to the surface. 

And all these guys are gonna be lightning rods to mock and ridicule ANYONE (including us) who doubts the tenets of AGW.. If we don't speak up and out them --- we lose. No matter how good our other arguments might be.. That's why scienceofdoom and WUWT other major AGW folks are trying to counter these dangerous misconceptions.

If only the AGW side DID THAT --- we'd be a lot further along in the REAL understanding of Climate Change.. ClimateGate would have led to REAL REFORM of the publishing process and hysterical hiding of data. 

Just like the GOP and DNC --- if they HAD principles.. They would correct some of the most dangerous mistatements of their membership... And show how those statements CONFLICT with the core party principles..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Part 3. First some math for part 2.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan&#8211;Boltzmann_law

We've burned lots of fossil fuels for a 100+ years putting all of the GHGs back in the atmosphere that had been removed and sequestered during the formation of fossil fuels in the Carboniferous period. 

The AGW that they created then, they recreate again now. Who would expect anything different?

Only thing is mankind has built an entire civilization around the climate created by their absence. In their returned presence, things are no longer in the right place. Our cities are too close to the rising seas. Our farms are too far from the new parcipitation patterns. Our mobile homes are where the big winds now blow. 

While these problems are fully predictable what we can't get a handle on is where the earth is in its transition from the old climate to its new one. Because weather is how the earth handles energy imbalance we know the correction to today's GHG load is underway, but is it 10% or 50% or 90% where it needs to be? And how much worse will burning the dregs of remaining fossil fuels make it?

The problem is that we are facing a hugely expensive future. Rearrange civilization to adapt to a new environment. Accomplish the largest project mankind has ever undertaken. The move to sustainable energy. Move against the tide of mega business trying to squeeze the last dollars of profit from the dregs of remaining fossil fuels. 

Our biggest global, political, economic, scientific, business, government challenge ever. 

We'll get 'er done because we have to. It won't be a pretty process though.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2013)

To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong.  Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of.  And I still get it wrong now and then.  There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then.  Are you 100% certain that you don't?

And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.

Now it is true that whether CO2 has ability to radiate heat is pertinent to whether it is classified as a GHG.  Since I believe it does have that capability, it is a bonafide GHG.   But then you read this from the EPA website:



> Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA



And yet we know that water vapor is the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere to the tune of something over 95% of all GHG that exists in the atmosphere.  Does the EPA really want us to believe that humans are creating more CO2 than water vapor?  Of course the AGW argument is that more water vapor increases the warming effect of more CO2 even as they argue that water vapor is short lived in the atmosphere while CO2 is much longer lived, yadda yadda.

The bottom line is that more than 99% of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring.  Is it not then reasonable to question whether anthropological CO2 production is having a catastrophic effect on the climate or even if it is possibly having a positive effect on the climate?

We know we cannot trust the AGW climate models to predict that.

In my view, the EPA is being blatantly dishonest in order to promote justification for government to take control of more and more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

If the debate does not include THAT, it really doesn't matter which side is spouting the most scientific nonsense.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



There are no PRO-AGW scientists. It's an artifact of civilization that is all bad. There are only those who accept, and those who reject, the science that explains and quantifies it to the degree that it can be now. 

There are also doers and whiners. The doers go with the science and will ultimately save the whiners from themselves. 

It's only a political issue because government plays some necessary roles in finding the least cost way to sustainable civilization. It's not associated with either party or left and right. It's merely the choice between science or faith in miracles. 

That's reality. Not very dramatic, just important. 

As is always true the strong will carry the weak, the doers, the whiners. The educated, the ignorant. The future, the past. 

The stakes may be higher than we've faced in the past but the solution will still be the product of the same people who solve all of mankinds self created issues.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong.  Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of.  And I still get it wrong now and then.  There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then.  Are you 100% certain that you don't?
> 
> And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.
> 
> ...



Without global warming from GHGs there would probably be no life on the planet. That's one of the reasons that science knows the effects of GHGs and has for a long time. 

The issue is what is predictably changing now, and what will be the impact of the resulting change in weather, on our civilization infrastructure. 

The answers are, the CO2 that we are dumping into the atmosphere, and the changes that that fact will require in the location of many cities, many farms, and many population centers. 

Everything else is just noise.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong.  Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of.  And I still get it wrong now and then.  There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then.  Are you 100% certain that you don't?
> 
> And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.
> 
> ...



"The bottom line is that more than 99% of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring"

I believe that 100% "of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring".

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


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong.  Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of.  And I still get it wrong now and then.  There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then.  Are you 100% certain that you don't?
> 
> And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.
> 
> ...



Doesn't matter to the politicians and general public.. They just react out of SELF-INTEREST.. Science is not suppose to hold a self-interest. 

So it does matter what nonsense gets babbled. That's why we took apart Al Gore's screed. It's like disarming a bomb. 

If everyone is just bomb-throwing --- the truth is irrelevent. If you want a society that can fabricate and promote "a good story" --- keep thinking that the science doesn't matter.

You get blasted just by saying that the warming has functionally ceased for at least 12 years. Someone is right --- someone is wrong. Does it matter? In the court of public opinion, you bet your ass it matters.. Does it matter to the BIG picture of the forecast? 

Probably not. But it DOES say that all the models used to gin up this farce were woefully lacking.. You can WAIT until the models blow up --- or you can point out NOW where they are lacking -- but you have to get deep into theory to do that. Pro-actively, I'm not willing to be buffeted by surprises in order to test my opinions. You pretty much have to make an investment in understanding..

I did what I did here because I don't want to side with OUR bomb-throwers and pretend they are on my side. Especially not when they target the anti-warmers leaders that I value and admire.  Just like I'd expect the hysterical warmers to throw Al Gore under the bus when he abuses and subverts science for the cause..

BTW: We KNOW what the effect of the added Anthro. CO2 is.. IT's been calculated and agreed on by most of both sides. But the imagination of the IPCC and the "sustainable" movement has blown that number out of proportion with their catastrophic theories of how fragile the climate and the earth are.. If this was only about the 1.1degC from doubling CO2 in the atmos --- wouldn't even have made it to the evening news..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong.  Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of.  And I still get it wrong now and then.  There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then.  Are you 100% certain that you don't?
> ...



Unfortunately science departed from politics on this topic quite a while ago. If you want to evaluate the situation using political thinking, ditch the science. If you want to use science, ditch the politics. That simple.

The science does say that the warming due to fossil fuel use and land re-purposing is, as you say, 1.1degC from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. However, there have been several positive feedbacks uncovered in addition. Like the melting of ice reducing earths albedo. Like the release of additional CO2 from thawing permafrost. The net result being 4 to 12degC from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. Why would any scientist ignore that assertion?

In addition, the earth has not stopped warming. It just needs to be measured completely instead of just looking at the thermometer out side of your window. 

As shown here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Reality is tough on your politics. Some would notice that and rethink their politics. You seem to prefer rethinking science. It will be tough to get away with that here.


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook.  It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.
> ...



OH my god you are full of yourself aren't you... LOL, YOU can't stand bye and let me lynch Spencer??

WHo the hell are you to decides what's valid science and what isn't? In fact who made you lord of AGW skepticism?

You arrogant ass, YOU are not the science police..

The fact is the entire THEORY, is based on another THEORY.. 

Let's call out your list... You said _*"This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here... "*_

First what math? There was no math following it, all there was you stating this is so..

A. Why are you trying to inaccurately use Kirchoff's law?  

Kirchoff's law.*."For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power."*

That is referring to Idealized perfect blackbodies and NOT representative of anything else. IS a gas a perfect blackbody? NO.. IS there such a thing? NO..ALso your analogy ignores one thing. Convection. The air molecules do not sit still and radiate back, they move, and that movement costs some of that energy, and that alone shows that any incidental back radiation would be minuscule at best. Take out warming other gas molecules near bye, and some energy heading out to the upper atmosphere and space, and the fact it was already used  by the surface and you have a hard time showing any noticeable warming of the surface, and that's IF the theory is sound, which I doubt..

B. NO emission is due internal temperature of that body. IF emission flow were the case you wouldn't even have a claim.. Actually WTH is emission flow anyway?  My assumption was you meant the direction the emission flows in. IF that were as you claim than it would oppose your claim altogether. The higher temp object wouldn't absorb the energy from lower temp object because your "emission flow " wouldn't allow it... Jesus.. 

C. SO what? You are again reciting half understood concepts and using twisted logic to sell them.. What does net emission have to do with proving any incidental back-radiation headed to the surface can actually warm that surface? NADA.. Again just because something emits, doesn't mean it has to absorb everything that's emitted. The fact the atmosphere is transparent to incoming solar by your own theories claims, proves this...

D. Re-using the same heat energy is violating the 2nd law.. No matter how you try and justify it..

E. Again, you cited a websites take on a text book, stop exaggerating what you posted.. I have that text book here, it does not state what the website tries to imply. it states facts as far as they know them. The website takes those facts and uses them to give an impression.. That's it...

Basic "thermo" text's do not exist.. Climate science pushes a theory based on an interpretation of Kirchoff and the works of Arrhenius, Tyndall and a few others, using QUantum physics to make it's case. The reason it wasn't pursued until the last 50 years or so is because Quantum Physics wasn't trusted well enough until then. 

You assume theory is fact, and take whatever suits your purpose as proof, even IF it's twisted..

You can't claim you understand wave-particle duality, and ignore the wave-like properties to suit your theory. It will catch up with you, and it has now in GH theory.. 

Now try and reign in your arrogance for a bit.. It's starting to annoy...


----------



## IanC (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




the 40w is through the 10 micron window of direct escape, there is another 26w that supposedly pachinkoes through as well to the top of the clouds. the latent heat released in the clouds adds to the direct escape through the window, and because there is little water vapour left, and the density of the atmosphere is less, other wavelengths of energy can now also escape less impeded. 

my contention is that....back radiation to the surface is used up to produce more evaporation (it cannot penetrate water past the surface) and more water vapour simply activates the convection heat pipe and latent heat alternate route for shedding surface heat. CO2 theory considers more water vapour a potent positive feedback but I cannot see how that is possible because the water cycle is controlled by available heat, and available heat is in turn controlled by the water cycle. less clouds, more solar heating. more clouds, less solar heating because it is reflected.

I do not vouch for Trenberth's numbers, there is a considerable chance that they have been shaded to promote his position, but he is a scientist first and although he may suffer from tunnel vision, I dont think his numbers would be substantially off although there may be some effects exaggerated, discounted or just not considered.

boundary skin layer of the oceans would seem to be a profoundly important area of study, with important ramifications, especially for GHG interaction because the temperature differential is so small. while I have seen some papers that mention it, I would like to know more because it is specific areas like that that usually hold the surprise findings that unravel the mystery. on of the problems with GCMs is that they can only deal with large and general spacial areas, so they lose out on localized effects.


----------



## IanC (Jul 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Flac's posted pages from 'textbooks' actually come from a blog entitled Scienceofdoom.  No idea who prepared the 'textbook' pages or their origin.  That is an interesting blog though dedicated wholly to the subject of climate science.  I was interested that the owner and primary director of the blog seems to have an open mind on the subject and rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote.   An open mind is a very good thing.



better yet, he accepts criticism, admits mistakes, and fixes them to the best of his ability.


----------



## IanC (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook.  It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.
> ...



all of the major skeptics agree with GHG warming by  back radiation, in principle if not magnitude.

I also argue with the 'deniers' on the skeptical side because we need to be solid on our science, and inventing new definitions for the SLoT isnt going to help our cause.


----------



## IanC (Jul 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook.  It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.  I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change.  I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that.   I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that.   Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category?  I don't know.  Do you?
> ...



In the early 2000's every household in Canada was mailed a brochure detailing the govt position on Kyoto and global warming, and what we should do about it. first and foremost was a picture of Mann's hockey stick and the claim that 1998 was the hottest year, the 90's was the hottest decade, etc. this was presented as scientific FACT.

that brochure is what started McIntyre on his quest to understand MBH98&99. since then we have found out that the science behind paleoreconstructions is weak, distorted and often scientifically incorrect. the simple request for data led to a decade of shame for climate science, the behind-the-scenes corruption used to bolster Mann's fallacy led to climategate, and the stench of rotten statistical methodologies remains to this day as even egregious errors like the upside-down Tilljander cores stand uncorrected, with honest scientists shaking their heads in shame.

clean house and return scientific principles to climate science and you will have less people skeptical. but of course with realistic science rather than exaggerated claims of doom, the question of how, when or even if something needs to be done will be a different scenario all together.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You have declared yourself to be not objective. That, to my way of thinking, is a major disqualification in credibility. 

Science, which is by definition objective, has determined the scope of the problem up to, but not including, the magnitude of the weather changes, and their impact on civilization, that we must mitigate. While I don't think that it will be possible in my lifetime for more certainty, what's been concluded is sufficient to spur action, which is underway. 

We will get to sustainable energy. We will adapt civilization to the new, now unavoidable climate, and it will all be very expensive but necessary.

Your non-objectivity is perhaps of academic interest but has no practical application.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



People who are educated and informed who share their hard won knowledge are not arrogant in any way. It's only those who loudly insist that the world accept their ignorance who are arrogant.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



And who are YOU again to call me an arrogant ass?  I let the TEXTBOOKS decide and unfortuneately from your comments below -- that isn't possible for you to follow along.. 



> Let's call out your list... You said _*"This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here... "*_
> 
> First what math? There was no math following it, all there was you stating this is so..



Go up find where where my quote is.. Refers to a particular textbook page that I presented from Eckhardt.. If you don't see the math --- Call an optometrist IMMEDIATELY.

I CLEARLY STATED where the quote came from.. References this TEXTBOOK page I previously posted... 






See the quote I referenced?? 


> _When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises_......



In fact --- HAD YOU READ IT or been even mildly following along you would have found that the END OF QUOTE (the part I didn't snip) went like this.. 



> _When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises_...... *which will be calculated in the following paragraphs..*.


  Meaning --- the math follows..

And indeed --- immediately below that Eckhardt starts to do the SAME CALCULATIONS that are layed out in the other FIVE references that got snipped.. 

So having demonstrated your lack of interest or ability in USING anything I've presented here.. I have NO interest at this point in addressing the REST of your mangled post.. Take that any way you want.. You wait 3 pages to pick a fight about a non-existant issue.. 

And you mock all the efforts to show that back-radiation in the GreenHouse theory is supported by basic laws. And you attack me. You are as said above doomed to be a "useless" skeptic.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 21, 2013)

All I have said on that subject Flac, is that you would have made a much more useful post had you highlighted the pertinant passage in the textbook you were referencing along with the title and publisher of the book.  I am frankly too lazy to search through a large block of cut and pasted material trying to figure out what another member is talking about.  I don't expect others to do that from my post.

But again, going back to my refrigerator illustration, we are talking about a microscopic speck in the grand scheme of things, yet there are so many variables involved in cooling that roast, that it would take pages of math to factor all them and precisely judge the exact time the roast would be cooled to the temperature that the refrigerator is set.

Using your black objects analogy, the quantity of heat transfer is calculable accurately ONLY if there are no variables.

And in the grand scale of Planet Earth and her massive astmosphere, think how many more variables exist than what the puny models can include?

That simply has to be a part of the debate on climate science or there really is no debate at all, but simply pronouncements of people who have their minds made up based on incomplete information.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 21, 2013)

It's actually about the same complexity doing the roast calculation and the AGW calculation.  The roast involves mostly conduction,  dead easy,  with some convection.  Negligible radiation. 

The AGW for systems earth,  only radiation.  Radiation in from the sun,  constant enough.  Radiation out,  reduced according to GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.  The reflected heat energy out must be compensated for by the fourth power of the earth's absolute temperature rising. Slide rule stuff.  

The only thing that is nearly impossibly complicated is how long until equilibrium is achieved.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 21, 2013)

I already provided an argument that blows your silly theory out of the water PMZ.  But of course you didn't read it.  Or if you did, you didn't understand it.  So you keep making yourself look foolish by repeating the same nonsense.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 21, 2013)

The good thing about being both honest and informed is that they allow confidence.  There is no other option for systems earth when outgoing radiation is reduced by increased GHG concentrations. Energy balance requires warming.  

You are trying to sell cooking your roast in the refrigerator which just doesn't happen no matter how much you wish it would. 

The earth was in equilibrium,  now it's not.  What changed is GHG concentrations. The consequence is global warming. You are free to wish differently if that floats your boat but you will still be wrong until you accept reality.  If you have never learned enough to realize and comprehend that reality you have a learning opportunity staring you in the face.  Just do it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> All I have said on that subject Flac, is that you would have made a much more useful post had you highlighted the pertinant passage in the textbook you were referencing along with the title and publisher of the book.  I am frankly too lazy to search through a large block of cut and pasted material trying to figure out what another member is talking about.  I don't expect others to do that from my post.
> 
> But again, going back to my refrigerator illustration, we are talking about a microscopic speck in the grand scheme of things, yet there are so many variables involved in cooling that roast, that it would take pages of math to factor all them and precisely judge the exact time the roast would be cooled to the temperature that the refrigerator is set.
> 
> ...



Not only is the pertinent stuff HIGHLIGHTED in posts directly above.. I provided a link to the page where I got these textbook quotes. And on that page -- the TITLE PAGE IS ALSO THERE.. Do you think I should need to do more??  If so -- WHY? Nobody else here lifts a pinky.

DO YOU NOT SEE THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHT in the image in my last post? Do you not see where I LABORIOUSLY re-typed it out for all to read (because you can't and paste easily from a xerox)? 

Don't know why that is the larger issue here.. The larger issue is that NO ONE ELSE seems to be interested in discussing science.. 


The "black objects" clause is only invoked for tutorial purposes in a textbook... When you're teaching a subject -- you make assumptions that chucks variables to reveal the basic stuff.. Then you add back one at a time.. 

The only reason BLACK bodies come into this --- is that the first calculations you want to do for radiative heating have to IGNORE REFLECTION... (because a black body is a pure absorber).. 

This effects only the MAGNITUDE of the calculation result. Not the general form of the equation. The net flows proceed to be calculated just as they would with a grey body only taking into account the percent reflection from the surface..


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 21, 2013)

And now you are making yourself look foolish by posting lies about even my illustration, PMZ.   And you have provided no credible basis for the Earth being out of equilibrium.  We have studied the subject for far too short  a period and utilizing far too inadequate computer models to arrive at such a conclusion with any degree of confidence.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I am only quoting FoxFyre because PMZ is the only USMB poster I have on ignore.. 

Just to address the bolded part above of PMZ's "guess".. The reason that isnt true is that the atmos is pretty darn thick.. Several MILES thick and the portion that is in contact with the earths surface and AVAILABLE for conduction is rather small.. 

On the OTHER HAND,, radiative heating (yes back-radiation) from the atmos is NOT LIMITED BY DISTANCE. And nearly every energetic photon from that thick layer directed at the earths surface WILL hit and be absorbed. THAT'S why radiative heating dominates in Atmos Physics.. 

Why is the heatsink on your Pentium all wrinkly?? To increase the surface area available for conduction.. Short of making the earth's surface more "wrinkly" --- radiation of IR energy will dominate..


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



So then when you say "following math" you meant the math that is in the pictures you posted from science of doom? Okay got it.. Might want to clarify what is going to be your work, and what's going to be someone elses...

So then we already know that.. And that is not proof of backradiation, it's proof of radiation. BAckradiation would be if the bodies continued to get hotter due to radiation returned to them from the other body. OR more specifically, a hotter body would get hotter due to a colder body next to it..

But the pages you posted don't support that claim...IN fact they support mine...

Now please get a grip.. Radiation of all objects does not prove back-radiation, and it's a silly claim you are making to that effect.. By your standard all radiation is backradiation and that's completely false.. BAck-radiation as it states would be radiation coming back to it's source. Not radiation from another source, but it's source. Another example would be a source radiating to an object and that object radiating enough heat back to it's source of heat, to warm it further...

See the difference yet? WHat you are doing is claiming some very vague definition of back-radiation to argue it's merits, when in reality it is a very specific thing, and not a vague or general interpretation.

I hope it's not intentional, but to be honest It is starting to look that way because I have explained the difference several times and you keep posting the same nonsense anyway..

If you aren't sure the difference and don't trust me, ask Ian or somebody you trust. IF they tell you that your definition of back-radiation is sound, get another opinion because the rest of the world has a different view on it.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 21, 2013)

If you question the effect of GHG,  you are way behind the times.  We've known for a long time that life owes it's existence to them.  Without them we'd be 30+ degrees colder and wouldn't have anything to worry about.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



babble... warmer getting hotter due to cooler.. That's all babble.. 

warmer DOESN't get hotter EVER unless it's being pumped with energy like the earth. It's rate of emission decreases with other radiating surfaces present.. 

Considering only the blanket and NOT the sun --- it's the COOLING RATE of the earth that is changed by the presence of the "cooler" atmos.. It's a matter of degree.. The atmos is a much "warmer" choice than being bare-ass naked to space isn't it?

Got More Babble?

I ain't making it up... All right there in the textbooks.. Perhaps you want to show me a textbook on RADIATIVE transfer that says 

"cooler emissive bodies cannot radiate towards warmer bodies"

OR 

"if they do --- that energy doesn't count"...  

I'll take anything with a textbook cover... that SPECIFICALLY discusses radiative emissions ---- *not conduction or convection*.. Happy hunting pal..

If you think the references I brought to the table prove YOUR point (whatever the fuck that is).. Just recircle the references.. (won't happen guarandamteed)...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 21, 2013)

Those cooler bodies have to be constantly on the alert for hotter bodies to shut off radiating towards.  And what if there was a 1000 degree body in between a 900 degree body and a 1100 degree body?  It would go nuts.


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



LOL, it's not babble it's the concepts you are citing. You just don't understand them. You want a way out, take it, just don't lie about what I wrote...

You haven't a clue, and that's obvious... I called you arrogant because you act it on here. We see it in your posts. You can't abide me? LOL, get over yourself...

Until you can realize the difference between radiation and back-radiation you're arguments are going to remain BS...


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Those cooler bodies have to be constantly on the alert for hotter bodies to shut off radiating towards.  And what if there was a 1000 degree body in between a 900 degree body and a 1100 degree body?  It would go nuts.



Stop trying be a kiss ass socko... One thing everybody agrees on is you are an idiot, and a sock...


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...

If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?

In other words, if it's acceptable to believe that the same energy can be reused to do the same task again on the same source, what prevents the thing from doing the same thing a third, fourth, fifth or even an infinite number of times? After all if energy is neither created nor destroyed and only changes form, and yet in the case of back-radiation it's actually able to be re-used in the same system for the same task (warming the surface), then what stops it from doing so indefinitely?

Can that back-radiation effect be applied from the surface to the atmosphere as well? And then again from the atmosphere to the surface? Losses shouldn't be an issue because evidently the same energy can be re-used to do the same tasks on the same objects...

So where does it end? How many times can we re-use the same energy in the same system for the same task before we can say enough? One time? Two times? A hundred?

If the process actually is like it's claimed, we could have infinite energy from finite sources yet we don't see that in nature. Even stars die out eventually.. But using warmer logic we can argue that they won't ever die out. One could easily claim that the core of a star radiates out to the corona and the corona radiates some of that heat back to the core and the entire thing starts over and over... But we don't see that happening..

So why not apply this concept to other areas as well? How about electricity recycling? Why isn't "back-conduction" a serious issue in electronics? Seems Ian believes in it...LOL


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...
> 
> If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?
> 
> ...



That's how motors work moron.. Ever hear of Back-EMF??? Wanna deny that too?

You're insistence that re-radiating energy is somehow illegal is childish.. Why did you not give me a reference of ANY TEXT that supports your deluded thinking??? JUST ONE that says cooler objects are PROHIBITED BY LAW from radiating at warmer objects? 

JUST ANYTHING DUDE.. As long as it refers SPECIFICALLY TO RADIATIVE heating and not conduction.. 

You're still here mocking the physics of EM heat radiation.. Let's do this carefully.. One more time.. 

At NIGHT --- no sun.. No heating.. The earth will ALWAYS lose heat.. That loss is somewhat counteracted by a downward "blanket" of heat flow in the form of IR from the ATMOS.. It's the ONLY THING keeping your ass from freezing from exposure to SPACE. 

The NET flow VIOLATES NOTHING.. In fact --- 6 textbooks tell you to calculate the NET flow that way.

The back radiation part is the IR ENERGY COMING FROM THE SKY.. This must be SUBTRACTED from the heat flow from the surface (Big math challenge there for you dude --- can you handle it?)  NOTHING get created. If you want to call that recycling fine. It's NOT illegal.. Happens when your mom tucks you in every night. The Blanky TRAPS and RE-RADIATES thermal energy.  Put in some numbers.. (160W/m2 UP) - (120W/m2 DWN) = 40W/m2 lost to the heavens. Decrease the temp of that atmos --- MORE GETS lost.. 
Boy --- if you can't handle that.. I'm out of ideas to spoonfeed it to you unless you start linking to some proof that I'm the whacked one.. 

The INCREASE in surface temp comes the next morning when the sun starts kicking in the same energy it did yesterday.. If the NET UP flow was less (assuming more GHgases), the surface temp starts out higher at sun-up and there is a NEW higher equilibrium temp for the surface. 

Where is this alternate theory of GreenHouse located? Is it at "the Onion"? Is it on Art Bell?
Did you get it from the Russians?? 

10 pages now --- WHERE IS IT?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's actually about the same complexity doing the roast calculation and the AGW calculation.  The roast involves mostly conduction,  dead easy,  with some convection.  Negligible radiation.
> 
> The AGW for systems earth,  only radiation.  Radiation in from the sun,  constant enough.  Radiation out,  reduced according to GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.  The reflected heat energy out must be compensated for by the fourth power of the earth's absolute temperature rising. Slide rule stuff.
> 
> The only thing that is nearly impossibly complicated is how long until equilibrium is achieved.



Even better if you disconnect the coolant pump, install a 100W light bulb, break the door switch so the light stays on, and put dry ice in the lower drawer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Those cooler bodies have to be constantly on the alert for hotter bodies to shut off radiating towards.  And what if there was a 1000 degree body in between a 900 degree body and a 1100 degree body?  It would go nuts.
> ...



Actually I was checking up on old PMZ and HE GETS THIS.. I would have thanked him for that cogent example of confused bars not knowing who to radiate at.. Those bars would have to radiate ONLY Left to right -- or right to left depending on who's on first... And then you drop in a cool LADY bar at the end barstool next to Mr 1100Degrees --- and back off Stan.. The pandemonium of them radiating all over each other to get at the cool lady bar would get ugly quick.... 

But I put him back on ignore too soon.. Maybe ONE day...


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...
> ...



LOL,NET flow of energy is not the same thing as individual heat transfer dumbass...

Back EMF 



> Counter-electromotive force
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The counter-electromotive force also known as back electromotive force (abbreviated counter EMF, or CEMF)[1] is the voltage, or electromotive force, that pushes against the current which induces it. CEMF is caused by a changing electromagnetic field. It is the effect of Lenz's Law of electromagnetism. Back electromotive force is a voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field. One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position.[2] Counter EMF is a voltage developed in an inductor network by a pulsating current or an alternating current.[1] The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage.[1][3]
> In a motor using a rotating armature and, in the presence of a magnetic flux, the conductors cut the magnetic field lines as they rotate. The changing field strength produces a voltage in the coil; the motor is acting like a generator. (Faraday's law of induction.) This voltage opposes the original applied voltage; therefore, it is called "counter-electromotive force" (by Lenz's law). With a lower overall voltage across the armature, the current flowing into the motor coils is reduced.[4]
> ...



Not even CLOSE to the same thing is it silly? LOL, you just pull whatever you want out of your hat don't you? Doesn't matter how valid it is in context does it?

Just like your assumptions regarding all radiation being back-radiation.. You don't have any alternative, because you really don't know what the hell it is anyway..

LOL, please don't ask me to provide a source to prove a negative. It's as dumb as your last excuse..I don't need to provide a source to prove the standard back-radiation claimed by GH theory, you already state it. The trouble is you associate all radiation as back-radiation.. ROFL..

Please show me where it is you can re-use the same energy to do the same task..

And your asinine claim that all things radiate back to there warmer source and can effect warming of that source is getting worse now.. The blanket analogy? Brilliant, the fact it slows heat loss and doesn't require any form of backradiation doesn't even enter your mind does it? LOL.. SLowed heat loss, means the heat coming from your body backs up, and bingo you get warmer. There is no need for any back-radiation,reflection and slowing of heat loss as it transfers through the blanket material does a fine job, in fact if it did do as you claim the blanket would become unbearable almost immediately.. Your body is the heat source silly. Heat coming off your body, add in that reflected by the blanket, and then add in the slowed time in escape through the blanket and you get a fine example of reality. Again no back-radiation necessary and none happening.

Please explain which is back-radiation? What us it by your logic? You seem to call everything back-radiation so I think we need clarification from you. I know what the texts you suppliedfrom Science of doom.com say about RADIATION now, so what do you call back radiation specifically..

Please clarify your definition of back-radiation...


P.S. I have asked you several times to stop writing inside quotes to me. It makes it hard for others to distinguish my words from yours. The light red thing doesn't do much to help it either. It's unnecessary and only makes things harder for others to follow. I have asked and you have refused. SO from here on out I will assume they are pointless and treat them as such. To this point nothing you have written in the quotes was worth the time anyway.


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Ian would be so proud of you..he supports known trolling liars and socks when it suits his story as well. whatever happened to those "principles" now? LOL.. 

LOL, so I'm not allowed in your club because I have cooties?

ROFL.... Get a life..

What are you 10? LOL


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I did --- previous post --- in detail.. You're supposed to tell SPECIFICALLY what I said that was wrong.. Go back to my post at 7:47 and tell me all about what I said that was wrong with the nightime energy flow analysis and the relationship between back radiation and surface temp equalizing to a new equilibrium if the sun doesn't change.

Show me how stupid that plan is.. And STILL waiting for ANY links or support on how the GreenHouse works with GSlack Physics.. Why is that taking so long??

BTW: Did ya miss the Wiki part where 



> *This voltage opposes the original applied voltage*; therefore, it is called "counter-electromotive force" (by Lenz's law). *With a lower overall voltage across the armature, the current flowing into the motor coils is reduced*



You're comprehension of "re-using energy" consistently sucks.. By the very definition, it's a back-generated source of energy that gets re-used. BECAUSE it lowers the power needed to turn the motor.. Deeper and deeper man... Dig !!



> LOL,NET flow of energy is not the same thing as individual heat transfer dumbass...



Can't decide which gem of wisdom is funnier.. Denying the back-EMF concept has similiar math to it.. Or the nonsensical rejection of almost everything in the quote above.. Isn't the whole purpose of being able to model and calculate "individual (whateverthefuck that means) heat transfer" to CALCULATE net flow of energy? 

For your sake --- let's just let this slide... You're not playing fair anyway..


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



LOL cherry picking statements out of context to prove your twisted idea of something is lame...



> Back electromotive force is a voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field. One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position.[2] Counter EMF is a voltage developed in an inductor network by a pulsating current or an alternating current.[1] The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage.[1][3]



Want an example? They give one on there as well.. You overlooked that because it showed how ignorant your claim was...



> To experience the effect of counter-electromotive force one can perform this simple exercise. With a window closed, lift the switch of an electric window in a car that is running at idle, and hold it momentarily and notice the idle RPM drop. The electric motor in the door is stationary and therefore the inrush current will be very high. The alternator will try to provide for the large current which subsequently drags down the engine. As soon as the power window motor overcomes its inertia and starts spinning, back EMF will be produced, exerting less load on the alternator. Hence, the engine speed will return to normal.
> In motor control and robotics, the term "Back-EMF" often refers to using the voltage generated by a spinning motor to infer the speed of the motor's rotation.[5]



The entire concept is based on another force (in example a spinning armature, part of the motor but not necessarily part of the same electrical circuit) creates an opposing EM field.. Which of course opposes the incoming current.. More along the lines of TWO heat sources acting against one another. Like that whole equilibrium thing I got from NASA that you didn't understand either. You know, to paraphrase, two objects in equilibrium are in equilibrium with a third and they are in equilibrium with each other? They stay in equilibrium because the radiation from each one no longer effects the others temperature..In this case the opposing EM field is from another source and is not flowing in the reverse of the circuit, but rather simply opposing the oncoming electricity..If it actually flowed back down the circuit it could ruin the electronics attached or simply refuse to work or work in reverse if it managed to overcome the incoming electrical currect....Ever wonder why things are shielded? To prevent outside interference in a circuit as well as prevent any undue EM escaping...   LOL

But hey you obviously know better.. Wikki means what you say it means. ROFL.

If Ian had a spine he would have corrected your ignorance by now, but we all know he lacks one....

The fact is once again you start rambling before you understand what you are rambling about... The problem is you want to prove me wrong, and don't care what the truth is. If you had read the wikki page with that intention you would have seen that and maybe understood it but maybe not...LOL

Still waiting on your definition of back-radiation.. I got work to do can we expect that some time soon?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 21, 2013)

Unfortunately for you,  with a body in space,  same incoming energy,  but less outgoing energy,  always produces the same effect.  Warming until energy balance is again achieved.  No other possibilities.


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Unfortunately for you,  with a body in space,  same incoming energy,  but less outgoing energy,  always produces the same effect.  Warming until energy balance is again achieved.  No other possibilities.



Yes and no backradiation required. Just radiation.

Socko, please.. You believe CO2 is an element, spare me..


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...
> 
> If the act of back-radiation claimed by AGW (not the whack-a-loon type that Flac keeps portraying) the actual type claimed in AGW theory.. Which is; radiation radiated by the surface is absorbed by the GH gases and the radiated back to the surface effecting more warming of that surface.. Okay if that is true, what stops the thing from happening again?
> 
> ...



WOW!!!! a reasonable scenario and question from gslack! keep it up!

first we have to break up the situation into areas. for now let's just imagine all energy exchange is radiation.

the surface skin radiates ~400w of blackbody radiation according to its temperature. the sun adds 160w radiation to the surface. uh-oh. the surface should be cooling at 240w. that's not happening so we must be missing something.

Trenberth says that the atmosphere from the cloud top down is (back)radiating 335w according to its effective blackbody temperature (flac and others disagree about the quantity). now the balance is +160w (sun) - 400w (surface) + 335w (atmosphere) = plus 95w. uh-oh. the surface isnt heating at 95w so we must be missing something.

Trenberth also shows that 95w are taken airbourne via evaporation and convection. now everything adds up. the input from the sun (160w) is matched by the net radiation (65w) plus evaporotranspiration and convection (95w). this budget is only to the cloudtop but it is the area between the surface and the clouds that we are concerned with. while I am not convinced that the numbers attached to various pathways in Trenberth's cartoon are perfectly accurate, I am sure that the basic functioning is representative of what is happening. would anyone be complaining if Trenberth's cartoon only showed the 65w net loss by radiation and _directly_ showed the 95w water/convection route? personally I wonder where the 95w came from, if not from the 400w surface blackbody radiation. I also wonder how the atmosphere with considerably lower average temp, and lower flux because of lower density, can present 335w downward. unfortunately Trenberth is not here to explain. but we do know that there is an equilibrium present because the surface temp is amazingly stable over long periods of time.


on to gslack's question about reusing the same energy. he is ignoring the non radiative energy transfers. while the 400w up equals the 335 down plus 65w escaping, the 95w non- radiative energy movement  comes from both, subtracted from the combined system, powered by the high energy low entropy sunlight.

as far as the lower temp atmosphere sending back energy? every iteration sees more energy leave the surface than comes back, how does that lead to lead to runaway warming? the only similar type scenario that I can think off is  Willis' steel greenhouse. a subteranneanly heated planet has a metal shell built around it supportted by insulated pillars, and no atmosphere. Willis said that the surface temp would rise to two times the original temp because the shell would have to receive 2x radiation so that it could radiate at the original temp (half forward, half back). as the heat sink fills the surface is receiving half of what the shell radiated, so Postma incorrectly calculated (1.5)^n which leads to infinity forinfinite n. but the correct formula is 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 +...= which converges to 2.

if gslack is specifically talking about 2xCO2 causing 4w of radiation to be choked off from escaping....some will come back to the surface and warm it, most will become thermalized into the atmospheric temp. the increase in surface temp (much less than 4w worth) will then produce BB radiation which is only 8% reactive to CO2. even if the full 4w went into heating the surface (and it doesnt), 4w + 0.125(4w) + 0.0156(4w) +..... is not going to converge on 5w, let alone runaway warming. 

CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant.


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately for you,  with a body in space,  same incoming energy,  but less outgoing energy,  always produces the same effect.  Warming until energy balance is again achieved.  No other possibilities.
> ...





if the term backradiation offends thee, simply pluck it out and insert the word radiation.

post the comment # where PMZ or itfitzme called CO2 an element. sounds hilarious.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> WOW!!!! a reasonable scenario and question from gslack! keep it up!
> 
> first we have to break up the situation into areas. for now let's just imagine all energy exchange is radiation.
> 
> ...



So what do you believe has caused the last 150 years' warming??


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a simple question all the back-radiation believers out there...
> ...



LOL, thats funny because you have avoided the thread until you found something you could argue easily enough..

And a reasonable post by your own estimation, yet you did not respond to any part of it directly...WHy is that? Come now Ian we both know why, it's because it's your usual when you can't argue something logically, or you can't cut and pate an answer.. All you did was write a praise to Trenberth.. Yes, yes we know all about your little man-crushes on spencer and now obviously Trenberth..LOL warmer.. You are a warmer Ian plain and simple. You praise trenbetrth, and considert he theory fact, the only thing you disagree with about any of it, is the IPCC claims. You're a warmer dude, you just lack the balls to admit it.. In true Ian save-ass fashion you are going to do a spencer until the answer is undeniable, at which time you will come out in full support of it no matter which way it goes. ROFL..

Don't worry Ian I didn't expect anything else from you anyway..

Let me know when you are planning on responding to my post..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

IanC said:


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



You post it. And have a couple of great days trying to find it, because it never happened.  Lying is when you make statements that you cannot back up and are, in fact, false.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

IanC said:


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



You and SlackSack have this inability to recall reality. *SlackSack has made the same BS comment.



gslack said:


> You just made some crazy claim that CO2 is a base element. Gimme a break man..



Yet, Siagon notes;



Saigon said:


> Gslack -*
> 
> The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.*
> 
> No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.



All the while, repeating the same absurdity of plants not getting carbon from CO2.

Perhaps you're remembering one of your deniers who said;




Boss said:


> "For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element."





http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-dioxide-to-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-25.html



gslack said:


> LOL, dude you just made some pretty ignorant claims and now you talk about people being willfully ignorant...
> 
> *You just made some crazy claim that CO2 is a base element. *Gimme a break man..






Saigon said:


> Gslack -*
> 
> The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.*
> 
> No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.




http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/302499-earth-will-die-from-lack-of-co2-2.html



Boss said:


> Okay, so now we've resorted to nitpicking common spelling errors of words which sound similar? Wow... talk about desperate to make a point? Sad!!*
> 
> *For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element.* On earth, it's natural state is gaseous, but it can also be found in solid form (dry ice). This is also a common error, but I will not take the opportunity to insult you over it and call you and idiot for this, because people commonly make this mistake. Instead, I will call you an idiot for claiming this is "right wingers" parroting Fox News, when there are people who would have needles stuck in their eyes before watching Fox News, who have totally rejected this nonsense.





gslack said:


> BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..
> 
> 
> LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...
> ...




*XXXXXXXXXX If you are going to make a claim about what another Poster said, back it up with a Link. Misinformation is a 4 Point Infraction.*


*Kinda goes both ways, don't it?*


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



The first part.. What in the hell are you rambling about now? Ian believes in the magic backradiation  nonsense, I do not... Moron..

The second part.. Please post a link to my words socko..LOL you don't know what it means when we refer to base element either I see... Here's a clue; it's when you take a compound and break it down into the elements it is made of, or their "base elements" .. You've never heard the expression? LOL probably not, considering how much you actually know... Would "basic elements" suit you better socko?

LOL moron..


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Hahaha. So you got caught lying and misrepresenting another poster's words again, gslack? Par fort the course with you.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





gslack said:


> LOL, dude you just made some pretty ignorant claims and now you talk about people being willfully ignorant...
> 
> *You just made some crazy claim that CO2 is a base element. *Gimme a break man..






Saigon said:


> Gslack -*
> 
> The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.*
> 
> No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.




http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/302499-earth-will-die-from-lack-of-co2-2.html



Boss said:


> Okay, so now we've resorted to nitpicking common spelling errors of words which sound similar? Wow... talk about desperate to make a point? Sad!!*
> 
> *For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element.* On earth, it's natural state is gaseous, but it can also be found in solid form (dry ice). This is also a common error, but I will not take the opportunity to insult you over it and call you and idiot for this, because people commonly make this mistake. Instead, I will call you an idiot for claiming this is "right wingers" parroting Fox News, when there are people who would have needles stuck in their eyes before watching Fox News, who have totally rejected this nonsense.





gslack said:


> BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..
> 
> 
> LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...
> ...



Did the whiney baby go crying to mommy?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 22, 2013)

The climate that we built civilization around was the one based on the GHG concentrations of the mid 19th century. That was the last time systems earth was in energy balance with the sun.  Since then the steady increase in GHG concentrations has eroded the ability of the earth to radiate enough energy into space to balance incoming  solar radiation. Given enough time at a given concentration, the earth would restore balance again by raising our apparent long term temperature average to what it would need to be to force enough out through the GHG molecules to restore balance. Some day we will reach atmospheric stability again and the dynamics will settle down and a new average global temperature suitable for the  new long term GHG concentrations will be reached. 

Nobody knows what that long term concentration of GHGs will be,  or when it will be reached. Or how long after that, stability will be reached. Or what the weather will be like at that average global temperature. 

Until then, for sure mankind will be dealing with some nasty consequences. And continuous changes in weather. 

All of the while building a brand new sustainable energy infrastructure. 

And adjusting to a new reality.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yep, par for the course.  Completely out of touch with reality.  Can't remember what he says. Just makes it up. Can't remember what other's say, just makes that up. Won't bother proving it, referencing a post.  Can't remember what the science says, just makes it up.

By his theory, plants get carbon from pencil lead, coal, diamonds, nano-tubes, and buckyballs.  I have told him repeatedly to learn about photosynthsis and leave the advanced biology and physics to the grownups.

IN ALL FAIRNESS... BOSS did change his mind, later. And, it really is an insult to him to say he's a "buddy" of SlackSack.  But it is the oy direct reference to CO2 as an element.  So either they are remembering that or remembering themselves.   Probably themselves.... So my apologies to BOSS, in retrospect.  He was getting hammered in starting a thread, so he got all testy and it stuck out in my mind.  He's way smarter that SlackSack....

But he's a denier


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Could you bump up the post where gslack says plants get thru carbon from pencil lead, diamonds and buckyballs? That sounds hilarious.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



It follows logically.  He says plants don't get it from CO2.  And if you make the effort, you'll find comments of soil carbon.  Of course, plants aren't absorbing complex carbohydrates, like dead plants, bacteria do that.  And, it wouldn't make for much of a carbon cycle, now would it?  So I looked for the forms of carbon in the ground that are CARBON. That logically leaves pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes and carbon nanotubes.  He can't be refering to anything else because there isn't anything else.  He's very instructional.  If I've got his theory down right, bacteria break down the plant matter into soil carbon.  Perhaps he only meant on of them, pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes OR carbon nanotubes... But I presented pictures too, and he never said it was one and not the others.  I can only go on what he says.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

Here we go... See... Plants don't build themselves fromCO2. That is laughable.  CO2 doesn't get gobbled up by plants. It is broken down into oxygen and carbon.  Soil carbon.



gslack said:


> BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..
> 
> 
> *LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...*
> ...





gslack said:


> CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...*Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil * silly socko...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The scientists speaks.  I learn.  Boy, am I learning alot. 

Soil carbon. Plants don't gobble it up. That's laughable.  It doesn't just hang around forever.  It breaks down into oxygen and carbon.  Soil carbon.  Not plants.  Plants don't gobble it up. So not complex carbohydrates .Carbon.  Just Carbon.  That leaves pencil lead (graphite), diamonds, coal, buckyballs, and carbon nano-tubes.  He hasn't explained which ones.  I'm waiting for that.

Oh, almost forgot. I'm a fake scientist tweaker numbnuts idiot.


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, you dumbass tweaker.. What are you trying to claim now? WHat in the world have you dreamed up in your high stupor?

Please show me exactly what part of any of that either disputes anything I said, shows I was wrong, defends your claim, or proves anything beyond what I have said all along?

ROFL.. You moron..


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



He can't because it's a lie much like your pretense of being anything other than cowardly save-ass douchebag... ROFL, your new admiration for the troll is not a surprise.. It's your MO  after all..


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here we go... See... CO2 doesn't get gobbled up by plants. It is broken down into oxygen and carbon.  Soil carbon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good, you should listen..

Now as much as I hate to interrupt your tweaking, please point to the part that is untrue, or anything that disputes anything I have said here?

LOL, you got too high again and screwed up didn't ya socko... ROFL.

And Ian supporting you is as pathetic as it gets...


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

Ian, if you wanted to show how full of shit you were, I can't think of a better way than to support this trolling sock.. ROFL. Please since he's obviously to high, why don't you point tothe part in his spamming that "gets me" in some way?

LOL, I'll wait...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 22, 2013)

Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.



I don't think he likes me.


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.



Not much for reading are you...LOL, and your transparency is as bad as Ians..

How's the solar panel business going ?

ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.
> ...



Nobody likes you socko, oldsocks is solar panel salesman and Ian's a coward willing to be pals with anybody who suits his needs at the time.. Like you.. LOL, he can't argue his point on merit so he jumps on the backs of anybody willing to take the heat off him.. Don't you find it odd he is suddenly treating you with resepct?

LOL I find it hilarious.. Mr. Science authority is convenient butt-buddy to the forum tweaker.. 

Any plans on explaining what your thread spamming accomplished? What part "got me"?

No of course not because you don't know anyway. In your tweaking haze you just thought posting evidence that I said the same thing then as I do now is somehow going to damage me... ROFL..


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2013)

Thanks for sharing your breakdown Ian.. LOL it was truly good to see. You just confirmed everything I said about you here.. You not only got busted talking in a circle, but you just embraced the most anti-scientific poster on the board all to save yourself having to actually stand up...

ROFL


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> Good, you should listen..
> 
> Now as much as I hate to interrupt your tweaking, please point to the part that is untrue, or anything that disputes anything I have said here?



Not likely.  In the first place, they don't grasp the topic well enough to understand that everything you posted is right...in the second place, they won't take any topic on directly because doing so might actually require some knowledge on the topic and when an idiot tries to speak intelligently, his ignorance can't help but show.  Like the claim from ifitzmpmz that Prictet's experiment proved backradiation.  Just one claim on his own that wasn't cut and paste and what does he do?  He references Prictet's experiment as evidence for backradiation.



gslack said:


> And Ian supporting you is as pathetic as it gets...



If Ian weren't so detatched from reality he might see that becoming butt buddies with a couple of wacko socks who are clearly first class passengers on the crazy train is a pretty good indication that he is also riding the crazy train.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.
> ...



Rocks isn't much for science either.  Don't hold your breath for him to actually discuss a topic either.  Short meaningless statements and clips from the cultists bible are all you are likely to get from him.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> Thanks for sharing your breakdown Ian.. LOL it was truly good to see. You just confirmed everything I said about you here.. You not only got busted talking in a circle, but you just embraced the most anti-scientific poster on the board all to save yourself having to actually stand up...
> 
> ROFL



Sleep with dogs and you wake up with fleas..


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> Thanks for sharing your breakdown Ian.. LOL it was truly good to see. You just confirmed everything I said about you here.. You not only got busted talking in a circle, but you just embraced the most anti-scientific poster on the board all to save yourself having to actually stand up...
> 
> ROFL




What an odd little man you are.

I asked Fitz the same question as you, in the same words. 

It appears that you really don't understand the circle of life. Plants use sunlight to build sugar from low energy H2O and CO2. Animals use that sugar for energy, releasing H2O and CO2.

Posting up links that you either don't read or understand is a waste of time.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here we go... See... Plants don't build themselves fromCO2. That is laughable.  CO2 doesn't get gobbled up by plants. It is broken down into oxygen and carbon.  Soil carbon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Thank you very much, fitz, for taking the time to reference the relevant post. I appreciate it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No one said, implied, suggestes or infered, CO2 is an element.

No one even used "elememt" on a more general sense in such a manner that it might mistakenly be taken as refering to CO2 as a chemical element. Element, after all, is derived from the same root as elementary and used in the context of "elentary particles".  So it could be used in such a manner. It seems it wasn't, at least Siagon seems to have taken the time to look and report no reference.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





I understand your frustration with gslack, I feel it too. Just be careful of putting words in his mouth that he didn't say or you stoop to his level.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Don't worry guys.. The EPA has problems confusing carbon with carbon compounds too... 

That's why we are litigating CO2 as a pollutant.. 

Carbon is pretty reactive, so even with all the elemental decomposition going on in the soil, it would be rare.. Think Jurassic Park and the 6 ft pile of dino dung (or this thread).. Plenty of POTENTIAL carbon in that for sure...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I gave him considerable opportunity to pick on or more of the list of allotropes. I even gave him "Carbonite", which he did reject. I figured that seeing he is so hung up on the word "carbon", he might go with "Carbonite".  That he spat out. He was quite happy, didn't reject the allotropes. I didn't "put them in his mouth", as you put it.  I put it on his plate, pictures and everything.  He then detailed his carbon cycle hypothesis and, in doing so, accepted the allotropes as being "soil carbon".  

If you say, "Go to the backyard and take one of the geese, ducks or chickens" and I return saying "I didn't take a duck or chicken", you may appropriately infer that I took a goose.

I had a long convo with SlackSack, of which that referenced post is just part of. There is no "putting words in his mouth".  He made it perfectly clear, in no uncertain terms, he means that plants get carbon from carbon allotropes in the soil. And given every opportunity, he rejected none of them, not even diamonds.

So, while I do have every right to "stoop to his level", in fact it is a logical requirement to do so, I, in fact, did not.

And, at this point, having gone through the effort to show his exact reasoning which leads to the undeniable conclusion that he considers carbon allotropes as being the form of carbon in soil that plants use, I am of no obligation to further demonstrate the remainder of my real and precise understanding of his insanity.

At this point, as he first attributed a false statememt regarding "CO2 is an element" to PMZ, was corrected by someone else, then proceeded to attribute it to me, I have every right to attribute anything I want to him. When it comes to him, I need only meet his standards.  I am, in fact, obligated to treat him by his standards, as you say, "stoop to his level."

He sets his standards to which he is treated.   FauxFire set the standards by which Fauxfire is treated.  When it come to you, you set the standards by which you are treated.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 23, 2013)

As for breaking down CO2, I doubt that occurs automatically without some process forcing it to happen.  However. . . .



> Mar. 10, 2010  A recent discovery in understanding how to chemically break down the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into a useful form opens the doors for scientists to wonder what organism is out there -- or could be created -- to accomplish the task.
> 
> University of Michigan biological chemist Steve Ragsdale, along with research assistant Elizabeth Pierce and scientists led by Fraser Armstrong from the University of Oxford in the U.K., have figured out a way to efficiently turn carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide using visible light, like sunlight.
> 
> ...



The article goes on to explain that while carbon monoxide, in fairly small quantities, is toxic to humans and animals, which CO2 is not, and therefore must be carefully managed, there are enormous practical industrial uses for carbon monoxide.  It logically follows that instead of trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere just to get rid of it, why not develop ways to extract the excess and convert it into something that is practical and useful?  Even if CO2 is the hazard the warmers seem desperate to prove that it is, that solution would require no infringement of human liberties whatsoever.

There are so many possibilities out there that the warmers don't even want to discuss, much less consider, in this whole equation.  But then, there is the pesky possibility that the purpose of global warming politics has been to give more control and power to opportunists all along.


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Let's see, how about the fact I don't do that? As we just saw, he made the crap up and has tried to sell the lie every time he get's embarrassed by his own stupidity.

LOL, he's so high he keeps forgetting what happened and what the posts show.. Thanks for showing SOME character Ian...


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for sharing your breakdown Ian.. LOL it was truly good to see. You just confirmed everything I said about you here.. You not only got busted talking in a circle, but you just embraced the most anti-scientific poster on the board all to save yourself having to actually stand up...
> ...



LOL, and there we see your true nature again.. Rather lie about what I said and posted than have to eat crow... One post you call him the liar, and the next you call me the liar... LOL can't make up your mind?  Pathetic..... A true save-ass..


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yes, yes, you would rather kiss the ass of a liar and known troll, than actually man up and defend your position.. We all see what kind of save-ass you are Ian.

Just as I said before no less...LOL I am batting .1000 about you so far... ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL, you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels socko. Not carbon CO2. WHen we told you that CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen and does not remain CO2 forever you went on trying to prove it.

ROFL,so please... We all know you are an idiot and a liar...


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I know from abundant personal experiences with you that you misscharachterize other people' statements and refuse to quote the pertinent sentences. I don't know how you rationalize your boorish behsviour to yourself but it is inexcusable.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





Funnier than watching Duck Dynasty... 

You sho is battin about *0.1000 *on most everything...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 23, 2013)

B]_"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."_[/B]-Roy Spencer

All of the photons emitted from earth that strike GHG molecules in the atmosphere are absorbed,  adding energy to the molecule. The molecule then returns to its stable state by emitting the energy it just acquired.  Half of the energy goes down,  half up.  

With zero GHG,  all of those photons would escape into space.  With some GHG,  any photon that happens to strike a GHG molecule,  half is remitted up,  half down.  Whatever doesn't go up goes down to  warm the earth,  which then emits more energetic photons,  until energy balance is re-achieved with incoming energy. 

AGW is a necessary and unavoidable consequence to higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs. The only other consideration are the temporary dynamics of systems earth leading up to the new steady state.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





Hahaha. You actually think coal or oil is only made up of carbon?  The CO2 loses the O2 in the live plant, to make sugars. Burn the plant with the same O2 and you get CO2 and energy. Perhaps I should add water into the mix as well but you should already know that from your links.


You are as foolish as you are arrogant.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 23, 2013)

Hmmm.   It seems that at least one of the guadruplets is also operating under the illusion that carbon comes from pencil lead, diamonds, coal, et al or from CO2 rather than carbon existing before all those other things.

That probably happens when somebody hasn't even taken a basic introduction to science class in school, much less chemistry


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*"you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels sock"*

He lives in his own imaginary world as I have never spoke of CO2, the carbon cycle, sequestration of CO2, or anything remotely like it.

He is quite psychotic which is why I have him on ignore and only become aware of his ranting when someone else, of sane mind, responds to him.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> B]_"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."_[/B]-Roy Spencer
> 
> All of the photons emitted from earth that strike GHG molecules in the atmosphere are absorbed,  adding energy to the molecule. The molecule then returns to its stable state by emitting the energy it just acquired.  Half of the energy goes down,  half up.
> 
> ...




That's okay as far as it goes. The Earth also has heat pump mechanisms. What happens when you turn on the heater and air conditioer at the dame time? Your energy bill goes up with nothing to show for it.


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You're a liar Ian, you got any proof of that claim? NO? of course not...
LOL so much for character..


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Only an immature ass would really bother over a misplaced decimal point.. LOL, really? That's all you have? All of your High handed nonsense and down talking to me and anybody who disagrees with your claim, and since your obvious screw up a few posts ago you have resorted to fussing over a decimal point?

LOL..Oaky I'm batting 1.000 ,or actually more like .9999 because nobodies perfect. Happy?


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



And there we see you do exactly what you just tried to tell the sock not to do..

You just lied about my position Ian. My post was explaining the socks claim.. Might want to put aside your desire to save face and read something before making a fool of yourself again... Schmuck..LOL


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Who are you this time? PMZ or ifitsme? Does it matter? He says something and you swear by it or vice versa.  So he said it and you swore by it , you denying you agreed with it now?

LOL your re-posts in this thread in the last page proves you for the liar you are..

Get into detox tweaker, you're looking worse with every post..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 23, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



No... Keep digging.. I can get happier... Jerk.


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Yes, but you can't can't defend your claim anymore, and it shows.. That's okay, we know..

That's the problem with the theory.. When it's followed to it's logical end, we find it relies completely on unproven, theoretical concepts that are in the very least incomplete if not fundamentally flawed. And the more you try and defend it using proven methods and proven concepts, the more you find it defies them....

You can't defend it, can't justify it and now you resort to making up lies and patting the backs of known forum liars and trolls... Tell us again about those principles...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 23, 2013)

Weather is  what happens due to the daily and yearly energy fluctuations on various parts of the earth.  Weather is also how the earth finally achieves the AGW required by increased  atmospheric GHG concentrations. There is a significant but undetermined time delay between increases GHGs and the final resolution of restored energy balance. Maybe years.  I think that it will take years before those dynamics can be finally modeled.


----------



## gslack (Jul 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Weather is  what happens due to the daily and yearly energy fluctuations on various parts of the earth.  Weather is also how the earth finally achieves the AGW required by increased  atmospheric GHG concentrations. There is a significant but undetermined time delay between increases GHGs and the final resolution of restored energy balance. Maybe years.  I think that it will take years before those dynamics can be finally modeled.



Yes we know the models suck socko... Why all the BS to say something so simple in the end? Just say you concede we can't model the climate accurately yet and be done with it. BS doesn't  make it sound any better..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 24, 2013)

The model that says that AGW is an inevitable consequence of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations is right on. The long term weather forecast that predicts how long the time constant is for energy stabilization is still several years away.  If ever.  No problem.  We know what has to be done.  And it's underway. While you're whining, responsible people are doing.  They'll carry you,  don't worry.


----------



## gslack (Jul 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The model that says that AGW is an inevitable consequence of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations is right on. The long term weather forecast that predicts how long the time constant is for energy stabilization is still several years away.  If ever.  No problem.  We know what has to be done.  And it's underway. While you're whining, responsible people are doing.  They'll carry you,  don't worry.



LOL, in your last post in this thread you conceded we can't model climate accurately enough, now in this post you say ? What is it exactly?

Now you say, The model that shows AGW warming (you obviously don't know what one or "ones" those are exactly, is correct despite the fact you just previously stated we can't do it well enough yet, is correct anyway..  

ROFL, please dude sober up...

I don't know which is more pathetic, your stoned ramblings, or the childish and oh so sad way Ian and Flac patted you on the back just a few posts ago.. LOL


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The model that says that AGW is an inevitable consequence of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations is right on. The long term weather forecast that predicts how long the time constant is for energy stabilization is still several years away.  If ever.  No problem.  We know what has to be done.  And it's underway. While you're whining, responsible people are doing.  They'll carry you,  don't worry.



What is your best quess at the temp level the earth will achieve before stabilization and how long will it last?

There is the question.  And do you think you can hold out long enough to see it?  

You know you want to... You know you have a mobid curiousity that just begs to be around to see it...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 24, 2013)

4 to 12 degrees C per CO2 concentration doubling. For one thing I have no idea what the concentration will be when we stop adding,  or when it will be reached,  or how long after steady state will be realized.


----------



## westwall (Jul 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The model that says that AGW is an inevitable consequence of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations is right on. The long term weather forecast that predicts how long the time constant is for energy stabilization is still several years away.  If ever.  No problem.  We know what has to be done.  And it's underway. While you're whining, responsible people are doing.  They'll carry you,  don't worry.










  No climate model has ever predicted anything accurately.  Thanks for playing but you're pathetic.  Keep on blabbing though.....it clearly makes YOU feel good.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

IanC said:


> > The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> >
> > This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:
> >
> ...



Don't you think that you've embarrassed yourself enough quoting someone like Roy Spencer?  

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

To account for warming Spencer's favored alternative theory is that it's due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation; yet the PDO shows no [long-term] trend, and therefore...is not responsible for the trend of global warming.

Scientifically, the crucial point in Spencer's position is that of climate sensitivity. Spencer suggests in his blog that climate sensitivity may be low, due to mainstream climate scientists underestimating clouds, and he claims that satellite data will support him.

Rebuttal


"Roy Spencer has come up with yet another &#8220;silver bullet&#8221; to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods&#8211;inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC&#8217;s central estimate. ... while Spencer&#8217;s latest effort doesn&#8217;t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder."

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## gslack (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
> ...



I don't agree with spencers methods, he is the token skeptic. Still on board with the BS, just not willing to agree with the IPCC completely. He wants to able to jump ship when it sinks which he knows it will.

HOWEVER, the IPCC is as unscientific as it gets.. Given the choice between science by political design, and spencer's science by intelligent design, but save-ass manner, I'd look for  a third choice..

Spencer believes in intelligent design, where as god created everything but not necessarily the way the bible tells it. The IPCC believes in whatever keeps them (the UN) in power..I don't see either as being a good choice.. A save-ass or a oligarchy? LOL no thanks..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> What is your best quess at the temp level the earth will achieve before stabilization and how long will it last?



There is really no need to guess.  All you need do is look back at the history of the earth.








itfitzme said:


> There is the question.  And do you think you can hold out long enough to see it?



So now you have the answer.  Here is a question for you.  Considering the past temerature history of the earth...and the inevetability of the global mean temperatuire eventually reaching a level about 10C warmer than the present...and our present postion in the cycle...why would you buy into a hoax like AGW.  Isn't it obvious that the long term temperature trend is up...just like it has always been?  Isn't it obvious that the earth is not in a warm period right now, but still struggling to get out of an ice age?  Isn't it obvious that the global mean is going to continue to rise without regard to the species that lives here?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> 4 to 12 degrees C per CO2 concentration doubling. For one thing I have no idea what the concentration will be when we stop adding,  or when it will be reached,  or how long after steady state will be realized.



Well, we know that isn't true because there have been ice ages with CO2 levels in the thousands of parts per million.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future?  The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.  Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.


----------



## gslack (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future?  The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.  Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.



Nah the issue is whose sock are you? Mr. New guy who seems to know people...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 25, 2013)

When?


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future?  The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.  Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.









And to show that man is the cause YOU MUST FIRST SHOW THAT WHAT IS OCCURING IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

Which you have failed to do.  

On another note I saw where somebody did a "study" that claims global warming will cost us 60 trillion if we do nothing.  The IPCC wants us to spend 76 trillion so clearly it is cheaper to do nothing.


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future?  The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.  Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.
> ...








Yes, they do create an amazing number of socks don't they?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future?  The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.  Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.



Since there is no current rapid warming, nor has there been, the question is moot.  At best you can claim a degree in 100 years and only if you ignore the heat island effect that is clearly creating a bias in the surface record and that amount of change is hardly unprecedented or unusual.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 25, 2013)

It seems like the point that many here don't accept is that energy balance applies to each system as well as all systems together.

The only way for energy to enter and leave the earth and atmosphere as a system is by radiation. If what is coming in is more than what's going out, the system will get warmer. No alternative. The earth as a system can can only temporarily source or sink heat. 

So while weather exchanges energy between component earth systems, in the end, less heat radiated out with incoming energy held the same, is a trivial calculation. Systems earth warms until energy balance is re-established at a new, higher temperature. 

Weather is complex, climate is not. 

The current weather models are reliably predictive for only a short time frame. To predict the daily weather, overall, for everywhere on earth for, say, the next year, is impossibly complex today. So the details about how all systems on earth react to achieve overall energy balance over time is a very long term goal. 

We know the end of the book, not the entire plot. 

Some here like to pretend that they personally know more than science as a whole does about weather predictions. There is not the slightest chance that that's true. Some here know relatively nothing about science in general, others some about science but still relatively little about energy dynamics among all of the systems that affect energy on it's way through all systems as it comes in from the sun or out to space. 

Just simple reality. 

The best we can do here, which we're all falling way short of, is learn whatever basics are known by some of us, so all of us can move slightly closer to what science knows. The odds of anything unknown to science being arrived at here are zero. 

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards learning.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The evidence for this is?????


----------



## PMZ (Jul 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future?  The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.  Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.
> ...



This is the equivalent of opening the refrigerator, noting that a thermometer in there says it's still cold, and concluding that there must be no harm in leaving the door open all of the time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Smart tactic there jerk.. EVERY one of our own skeptic morons who don't accept the STANDARD science of the GreenHouse theory --- (know anyone?) should throw an academic skeptic under the bus daily.. Just because they try to correct to your wholesale misconceptions of Radiative Physics.. OR -- (God forbid) -- their personal religious beliefs.. 

Good job..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

Except that he isn't a skeptic.  He is a denier.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Except that he isn't a skeptic.  He is a denier.



There is no substantive difference between the two positions.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Except that he isn't a skeptic.  He is a denier.



Thus sayeth the highest priesthood of the Church of Global Weirding... 

Spencer has just spent a year trying to educate jerks that the poorly named GreenHouse works EXACTLY as Atmos Phys. says it does.. I just spent 10 pages back about 8 pages ago trying to explain back radiation to that skeptic poster that just dumped on Spencer.. 

No avail --- we have stupid people on both sides. Spencer is not one of them.. Doubt a "denier" type of sinner would spend his lunchtime defending GreenHouse basic theory.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Except that he isn't a skeptic.  He is a denier.
> ...



He is of the variety trying to walk a tightrope that is incredibly unlikely. That the fact that he was once wrong about AGW, should be forgiven because something that he offers no evidence of, that positive feedbacks are unlikely, makes his former error forgivable. 

AGW in scientifically undeniable. Positive feedbacks are virtually as certain. The IPCC conclusions are entirely justified. Many took initial positions that have been proven, over time, to be wrong. 

Get over it. It happens all of the time. It's as common as rain. 

There are those who guessed right. There are those who guessed wrong. The answer and reality is what it is. All egoes are inconsequential compared to that fact. If your ego got bruised by reality revealed, only you care.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Except that he isn't a skeptic.  He is a denier.
> ...



Actually, no you did not, since I wasn't even a member of this forum 8-10 pages back.  Are there any other lies you want to contribute to the discussion?


----------



## gslack (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



He can have whatever religious beliefs he chooses, but his luke-warmer BS and save-ass tactics are ridiculous. He is not a skeptic. He simply doubts the claims to the extreme. He spends more time defending this failed theory than he ever does disputing the IPCC claims..

His entire site has been a GH theory defense site for years. It's all he does... The reason is he made a career on it. And now some politicians playing scientist have made grandiose and ridiculous claims using it. This shines the light on the theory as well as those who made a career out of it. He knows they are exaggerating it, yet he can't just deny the theory now can he...

He's a save-ass plain and simple... His latest book? He suddenly adopts a more "theoretical" claim over his previous claims of it being a known fact...


The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama?s Global Warming Agenda | Encounter Books



> "*It can be calculated theoretically*, that our addition of more CO2 to the atmosphere has made the Earth's natural greenhouse lid about 1 percent more efficient at reducing energy loss to outer space, compared with preindustrial times.."




Yes theoretical which is what I have maintained all along and that which you have thrown a fit over... Seems spencer is as unsure as anybody now... WTH happened? He spent pages on his website trying to prove this nonsense and now he states "it can be calculated theoretically"... LOL save-ass... Unbelievable...

He admits it's a theoretical calculation, and that means what exactly? That it is as I said it is all along..

Nice of him to come around to reality finally...

Don't worry, you don't have to apologize...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Wow -- you are paranoid.. Did I say it was YOU?? It was someone (i said skeptic) who will show up soon and claim all those textbooks I presented in Spencers defense were forged.. In fact --- there he is now in the post directly above ^^^^^^^^

Lighten up --- we haven't even squabbled much ------- yet..


----------



## gslack (Jul 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





Spencer spent pages on his website calling it a fact and yet in his latest book he calls it calculated theoretically..


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

The fact is that Spencer is a tool.

Roy Spencer - SourceWatch



> "On the (Spencer's) claim that climate alarmism is due to research funding: this incentive exists in all science, yet it's never occurred in the past. And there's no evidence that it's occurring here: there's no way to dismiss the null hypothesis that scientists are worried because the data are worrying.
> 
> On the other hand, there is evidence that climate skeptics (sic, deniers) are truly working off an agenda. ..."[


]


----------



## gslack (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The fact is that Spencer is a tool.
> 
> Roy Spencer - SourceWatch
> 
> ...



Sourcewatch is a lefty PR site.. I wouldn't trust it any further than I'd trust an obvious sock-puppet who although just joined up seems to know the people here...


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that Spencer is a tool.
> ...



Well, you see, that's a huge part of your problem.  You see things as either a left or right issue.  That isn't how science works.  Do I need to spell it out?

Seismic FAQ - Main Page

4. Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science
 Anecdotes - stories recounted in support of a claim - do not make a science. WIthout corroborative evidence from other sources, or physical proof of some sort, ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten. Anecdotes are told by fallible human storytellers. Farmer Bob in Puckerbrush, Kansas, may be an honest, church-going, family man not obviously subject to delusions, but we need physical evidence of an alien spacecraft or alien bodies, not just a story about landings and abductions at 3:00 A.M. on a deserted country road. Likewise with many medical claims. Stories about how your Aunt Mary's cancer was cured by watching Marx brothers movies or taking liver extract from castrated chickens are meaningless. The cancer might have gone into remission on its own, which some cancers do; or it might have been misdiagnosed; or, or, or.... What we need are controlled experiments, not anecdotes. We need 100 subjects with cancer, all properly diagnosed and matched. Then we need 25 of the subjects to watch Marx brothers movies, 25 to watch Alfred Hitchcock movies, 25 to watch the news, and 25 to watch nothing. Then we need to deduct the average rate or remission for this type of cancer and then analyze the data for statistically significant differences between the groups. If there are statistically significant differences, we better get confirmation from other scientists who have conducted their own experiments separate from ours before we hold a press conference to announce the cure for cancer.

5. Scientific Language Does Not Make a Science
 Dressing up a belief system in the trappings of science by using scientistic language and jargon, as in "creation-science," means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration. Because science has such a powerful mystique in our society, those who wish to gain respectability but do not have any evidence try to do an end run around the missing evidence by looking and sounding "scientific." Here is a classic example from a New Age Column in the Santa Monica News: "This planet has been slumbering for eons and with the inception of higher energy frequencies is about to awaken in terms of consciousness and spirituality. Masters of limitation and masters of divination use the same creative force to manifest their realities, however, one moves in a downward spiral and the latter moves in an upward spiral, each increasing the resonant vibration inherent in them." How's that again? I have no idea what this means, but it has the language components of a physics experiment: "higher energy frequencies," "downward and upward spirals," and "resonant vibration." Yet these phrases mean nothing because they have no precise and operational definitions. How do you measure a planet's higher energy frequencies or the resonant vibration of masters of divination? For that matter, what is a master of divination?

6. Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True
 Something is probably pseudoscientific if enormous claims are made for its power and veracity but supportive evidence is scarce as hen's teeth. L. Ron Hubbard, for example, opens his Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, with this statement: "The creation of Dianetics is a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to all his invention of the wheel and arch" (in Gardner 1952, p.263). Sexual energy guru Wilhelm Reich called his theory of Orgonomy "a revolution in biology and psychology comparable to the Copernican Revolution" (in Garnder 1952, p.259). I have a think file of papers and letters from obscure authors filled with such outlandish claims (I call it the "Theories of Everything" file). Scientists sometimes make this mistake, too, as we saw at 1:00 P.M., on March 23, 1989, when Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann held a press conference to announce to the world that they had made cold nuclear fusion work. Gary Taube's excellent book about the cold fusion debacle, appropriately named Bad Science (1993), thoroughly examines the implications of this incident. Maybe fifty years of physics will be proved wrong by one experiment, but don't throw out your furnace until that experiment has been replicated. The moral is that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinarily well-tested the evidence must be.

7. Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness
 They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they laughed at the Marx brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. Wilhelm Reich compared himself to Peer Gynt, the unconventional genius out of step with society, and misunderstood and ridiculed as a heretic until proven right: "Whatever you have done to me or will do to me in the future, whether you glorify me as a genius or put me in a mental institution, whether you adore me as your savior or hang me as a spy, sooner or later necessity will force you to comprehend that I have discovered the laws of living" (in Gardner 1952, p.259). Reprinted in the January/February 1996 issue of the Journal of Historical Review, the organ of Holocaust denial, is a famous quote from the nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, which is quoted often by those on the margins: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." But "all truth" does not pass through these stages. Lots of true ideas are accepted without ridicule or opposition, violent or otherwise. Einstein's theory of relativity was largely ignored until 1919, when experimental evidence proved him right. He was not ridiculed, and no one violently opposed his ideas. The Schopenhauer quote is just a rationalization, a fancy way for those who are ridiculed or violently opposed to say, "See, I must be right". Not so.

     History is replete with tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of his or her own field of study. Most of them turned out to be wrong and we do not remember their names. For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose "truths" never pass muster with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fantastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent. If you want to do science, you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging data and ideas with colleagues informally, and formally presenting your results in conference papers, peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like.

8. Burden of Proof
 Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

9. Rumors Do Not Equal Reality
Rumors begin with "I read somewhere that..." or "I heard from someone that...." Before long the rumor becomes reality, as "I know that..." passes from person to person. Rumors may be true, of course, but usually they are not. They do make for great tales, however. There is the "true story" of the escaped maniac with a prosthetic hook who haunts the lover's lanes of America. There is the legend of "The Vanishing Hitchhiker," in which a driver picks up a hitchhiker who vanishes from his car along with his jacket; locals then tell the driver that his hitchhiking woman had died that same day the year before, and eventually he discovers his jacket on her grave. Such stories spread fast and never die.

  Caltech historian of science Dan Kevles once told a story he suspected was apocryphal at a dinner party. Two students did not get back from a ski trip in time to take their final exam because the activities of the previous day had extended well into the night. They told their professor that they had gotten a flat tire, so he gave them a makeup final the next day. Placing the students in separate rooms, he asked them just two questions: (1) "For 5 points, what is the chemical formula for water?" (2) "For 95 points, which tire?" Two of the dinner guests had heard a vaguely similar story. The next day I repeated the story to my students and before I got to the punch line, three of them simultaneously blurted out, "Which tire?" Urban legends and persistent rumors are ubiquitous. Here are a few:
 The secret ingredient in Dr. Pepper is prune juice.
A woman accidentally killed her poodle by drying it in a microwave oven.
Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a look-alike.
Giant alligators live in the sewers of New York City.
The moon landing was faked and filmed in a Hollywood studio.
George Washington had wooden teeth.
The number of stars inside the "P" on Playboy magazine's cover indicates how many times publisher Hugh Hefner had sex with the centerfold.
A flying saucer crashed in New Mexico and the bodies of the extraterrestrials are being kept by the Air Force in a secret warehouse.
How many have you heard...and believed? None have ever been confirmed.

10. Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable
 Many people are overconfident enough to think that if they cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable and therefore a true mystery of the paranormal. An amateur archeologist declares that because he cannot figure out how the pyramids were built, they must have been constructed by space aliens. Even those who are more reasonable at least think that if the experts cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable. Feats such as the bending of spoons, firewalking, or mental telepathy are often thought to be of a paranormal or mystical natures because most people cannot explain them. When they are explained, most people respond, "Yes, of course" or "That's obvious once you see it." Firewalking is a case in point. People speculate endlessly about supernatural powers over pain and heat, or mysterious brain chemicals that block pain and prevent burning. The simple explanation is that the capacity of light and fluffy coals to contain heat is very low, and the conductivity of heat from the light and fluffy coals to your feet is very poor. As long as you don't stand around on the coals, you will not get burned. (Think of a cake in a 450° oven. The air, the cake, and the pan are all at 450°F, but only the metal pan will burn your hand. Air has a very low heat capacity and also low conductivity, so you can put your hand in the oven long enough to touch the cake and pan. The heat capacity of the cake is a lot higher than air, but since it has low conductivity you can briefly touch it without getting burned. The metal pan has a heat capacity similar to the cake, but high conductivity too. If you touch it, you will get burned.) This is why magicians do not tell their secrets. Most of their tricks are, in principle, relatively simple (although many are extremely difficult to execute) and knowing the secret takes the magic out of the trick.

     There are many genuine unsolved mysteries in the universe and it is okay to say, "We do not yet know but someday perhaps we will." The problem is that most of us find it more comforting to have certainty, even if it is premature, than to live with unsolved or unexplained mysteries.

11. Failures Are Rationalized
In science, the value of negative finding findings - failures - cannot be overemphasized. Usually they are not wanted, and often they are not published. But most of the time failures are how we get closer to the truth. Honest scientists will readily admit their errors, but all scientists are kept in a like by the fact that their fellow scientists will publicize any attempt to fudge. Not pseudoscientists. They ignore or rationalize failures, especially when exposed. If they are actually caught cheating - not a frequent occurrence - they claim that their powers usually work but not always, so when pressed to perform on television or in a laboratory, they sometimes resort to cheating. If they simply fail to perform, they have ready any number of creative explanations: too many controls in an experiment cause negative results; the powers do not work in the presence of skeptics; the powers do not work in the presence of electrical equipment; the powers come and go, and this is one of those times they went. Finally, they claim that if skeptics cannot explain everything, then there must be something paranormal; they fall back on the unexplained is not inexplicable fallacy.

12. After-the-Fact Reasoning
Also known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," literally, "after this, therefore because of this." At its basest level, it is a form of superstition. The baseball player does not shave and hits two home runs. The gambler wears his lucky shoes because he has won wearing them in the past. More subtly, scientific studies can fall prey to this fallacy. In 1993 a study found that breast-fed children have higher IQ scores. There was much clamor over what ingredient in mother's milk increased intelligence. Mothers who bottle-fed their babies were made to feel guilty. But soon researchers began to wonder whether breast-fed babies are attended to differently. Maybe nursing mothers spend more time with their babies and motherly vigilance was the cause behind the differences in IQ. As Hume taught us, the fact that two events follow each other in sequence does not mean they are connected causally. Correlation does not mean causation.

13. Coincidence
In the paranormal world, coincidences are often seen as deeply significant. "Synchronicity" is invoked, as if some mysterious force were at work behind the scenes. But I see synchronicity as nothing more than a type of contingency - a conjuncture of two or more events without apparent design. When the connection is made in a manner that seems impossible according to our intuition of the laws of probability, we have a tendency to think something mysterious is at work.

     But most people have a very poor understanding of the laws of probability. A gambler will win six in a row and then think he is either "on a hot streak" or "due to lose." Two people in a room of thirty people discover that they have the same birthday and conclude that something mysterious is at work. You go to the phone to call your friend Bob. The phone rings and it is Bob. you think, "Wow, what are the chances? This could not have been a mere coincidence. Maybe Bob and I are communicating telepathically." In fact, such coincidences are not coincidences under the rules of probability. The gambler has predicted both possible outcomes, a fairly safe bet! The probability that two people in a room of thirty people will have the same birthday is .71. And you have forgotten how many times Bob did not call under such circumstances, or someone else called, or Bob called but you were not thinking of him, and so on. As the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner proved in the laboratory, the human mind seeks relationships between events and often finds them even when they are not present. Slot-machines are based on Skinnerian principles of intermittent reinforcement. The dumb human, like the dumb rat, only needs an occasional payoff to keep pulling the handle. The mind will do the rest.

14. Representativeness
As Aristotle said, The sum of the coincidences equals certainty." We forget most of the insignificant coincidences and remember the meaningful ones. Our tendency to remember hits and ignore misses is the bread and butter of the psychics, prophets, and soothsayers who make hundreds of predictions each January 1. First they increase the probability of a hit by predicting mostly generalized sure bets like "There will be a major earthquake in southern California" or "I see trouble for the Royal Family." Then, next January, they publish their hits and ignore the misses, and hope no on e bothers to keep track.

     We must always remember the larger context in which a seemingly unusual event occurs, and we must always analyze unusual events for their representativeness of their class of phenomena. In the case of the "Bermuda Triangle," an area of the Atlantic Ocean where ships and planes "mysteriously" disappear, there is the assumption that something strange or alien is as work. But we must consider how representative such events are in that area. Far more shipping lanes run through the Bermuda Triangle than its surrounding area. As it turns out, the accident rate is actually lower in the Bermuda Triangle than in surrounding areas. Perhaps this area should be called the "Non-Bermuda Triangle." (See Kusche 1975 for a full explanation of this solved mystery.) Similarly, in investigating haunted houses, we must have a baseline measurement of noises, creaks, and other events before we can sat that an occurrence is unusual (and therefore mysterious). I used to hear rapping sounds in the walls of my house. Ghosts? Nope. Bad plumbing. I occasionally hear scratching sounds in my basement. Poltergeists? Nope. Rats. One would be well-advised to first thoroughly understand the probable worldly explanation before turning to other-worldly ones.

Logical Problems in Thinking

15. Emotive Words and False Analogies
Emotive words are used to provoke emotion and sometimes to obscure rationality. They can be positive emotive words - motherhood, America, integrity, honesty. or they can be negative - rape, cancer, evil, communist. Likewise, metaphors and analogies can cloud thinking with emotion or steer us onto a side path. A pundit talks about inflation as "the cancer of society" or industry "raping the environment." In his 1992 Democratic nomination speech, Al Gore constructed an elaborate analogy between the story of his sick son and America as a sick country. Just as his son, hovering on the brink of death, was nursed back to health by his father and family, America, hovering on the brink of death after twelve years of Reagan and Bush, was to be nurtured back to health under the new administration. Like anecdotes, analogies and metaphors do not constitute proof. They are merely tools of rhetoric.

16. Ad Ignorantiam
This is an appeal to ignorance or lack of knowledge and is related to the burden of proof and unexplained is not inexplicable fallacies, where someone argues that if you cannot disprove a claim it must be true. For example, if you cannot prove that there isn't any psychic power, then there must be. The absurdity of this argument comes into focus if one argues that if you cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist, then he must exist. You can argue the opposite in a similar manner. If you cannot prove Santa Claus exists, then he must not exist. In science, belief should come from positive evidence in support of a claim, not lack of evidence for or against a claim.

17. Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque
Literally "to the man" and "you also," these fallacies redirect the focus from thinking about the idea to thinking about the person holding the idea. The goal of an ad hominem attack is to discredit the claimant in hopes that it will discredit the claim. Calling someone an atheist, a communist, a child abuser, or a neo-Nazi does not in any way disprove that person's statement. it might be helpful to know whether someone is of a particular religion or holds a particular ideology, in case this has in some way biased the research, but refuting claims bust be done directly, not indirectly. If Holocaust deniers, for example, are neo-Nazis or anti-Semites, this would certainly guide their choice of which historical events to emphasize or ignore. But if they are making the claim, for example, that Hitler did not have a master plan for the extermination of European Jewry, the response "Oh, he is saying that because he is a neo-Nazi" does not refute the argument. Whether Hitler had a master plan or not is a question that can be settled historically. Similarly for tu quoque. If someone accuses you of cheating on your taxes, the answer "Well, so do you" is no proof one way or the other.

18. Hasty Generalization
In logic, the hasty generalization is a form of improper induction. in life, it is called prejudice. In either case, conclusions are drawn before the facts warrant it. Perhaps because our brains evolved to be constantly on the lookout for connections between events and causes, this fallacy is one of the most common of all. A couple of bad teachers mean a bad school. A few bad cars mean that brand of automobile is unreliable. A handful of members of a group are used to judge the entire group. In science, we must carefully gather as much information as possible before announcing our conclusions.

19. Overreliance on Authorities
We tend to rely heavily on authorities in our culture, especially if the authority is considered to be highly intelligent. The IQ score has acquired nearly mystical proportions in the last half century, but I have noticed that belief in the paranormal is not uncommon among Mensa members (the high-IQ club for those top 2 percent of the population); some even argue that their "Psi-Q" is also superior. Magician James Randi is fond of lampooning authorities with Ph.D.s - once they are granted the degree, he says, they find it almost impossible to say two things: "I don't know" and "I was wrong." Authorities, by virtue of the expertise in a field, may have a better chance of being right in that field, but correctness is certainly not guaranteed, and their expertise does not necessarily qualify them to draw conclusions in other areas.

     In other words, who is making the claim makes a difference. If it is a Nobel laureate, we take note because he or she has been right in a big way before. If it is a discredited scam artist, we give a loud guffaw because he or she has been wrong in a big way before. While expertise is useful for separating the wheat from the chaff, it is dangerous in that we might either (1) accept a wrong idea just because it was supported by someone we respect (false positive) or (2) reject a right idea just because it was supported by someone we disrespect (false negative). How do you avoid such errors? Examine the evidence.

20. Either-Or
Also known as the fallacy of negation or the false dilemma, this is the tendency to dichotomize the world so that if you discredit one position, the observer is forced to accept the other. This is a favorite tactic of creationists, who claim that life either was divinely created or it evolved. Then they spend the majority of their time discrediting the theory of evolution so that they can argue that since evolution is wrong, creationism must be right. But it is not enough to point out the weaknesses in a theory. If your theory is indeed superior, it must explain both the "normal" data explained by the old theory and the "anomalous" data not explained by the old theory. A new theory needs evidence in favor of it, not just against the opposition.

21. Circular Reasoning
Also known as the fallacy of redundancy, begging the question, or tautology, this occurs when the conclusion or claim is merely a restatement of one of the premises. Christian apologetics is filled with tautologies: Is there a God? Yes. How do you know? Because the Bible says so. How do you know the Bible is correct? Because it was inspired by God. In other words, God is because God is. Science also has its share of redundancies: What is gravity? The tendency for objects to be attracted to one another. Why are objects attracted to one another? Gravity. In other words, gravity is because gravity is. (In fact, some of Newton's contemporaries rejected his theory of gravity as being an unscientific throwback to medieval occult thinking.) Obviously, a tautological operational definition can still be useful. Yet, difficult as it is, we must try to construct operation definitions that can be tested, falsified, and refuted.

22. Reductio ad Absurdum and the Slippery Slope
Reductio ad absurdum is the refutation of an argument by carrying the argument to its logical end and so reducing it to an absurd conclusion. Surely, if an argument's consequences are absurd, it must be false. This is not necessarily so, though sometimes pushing an argument to its limit is a useful exercise in critical thinking; often this is a way to discover whether a claim has validity, especially if an experiment testing the actual reduction can be run. Similarly, the slippery slope fallacy involves constructing a scenario in which one thing leads ultimately to an end so extreme that the first step should never be taken. For example: Eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream will cause you to put on weight. Putting on weight will make you overweight. Soon you will weigh 350 pounds and die of heart disease. Eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream leads to Death. Don't even try it. Certainly eating a scoop of Ben & Jerry's ice cream may contribute to obesity, which could possibly, in very rare cases, cause death. but the consequence does not necessarily follow from the premise.

Psychological Problems in Thinking

23. Effort Inadequacies and the Need for Certainty, Control, and Simplicity
Most of us, most of the time, want certainty, want to control our environment, and want nice, neat, simple explanations. All this may have some evolutionary basis, but in a multifarious society with complex problems, these characteristics can radically oversimplify reality and interfere with critical thinking and problem solving. For example, I believe that paranormal beliefs and pseudoscientific claims flourish in market economies in part because of the uncertainty of the marketplace. According to James Randi, after communism collapsed in Russia there was significant increase in such beliefs. Not only are the people now freer to try to swindle each other with scams and rackets but many truly believe they have discovered something concrete and significant about the nature of the world. Capitalism is a lot less stable a social structure than communism. Such uncertainties lead them mind to look for explanations for the vagaries and contingencies of the market (and life in general), and the mind often takes a turn toward the supernatural and paranormal.

     Scientific and critical thinking does not come naturally. It takes training, experience, and effort, as Alfred Mander explained in his Logic for the Millions: "Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically - without learning how, or without practicing. People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge players, or pianists" (1947, p.vii). We must always work to suppress our need to be absolutely certain and in total control and our tendency to seek the simple and effortless solution to a problem. Now and then the solutions may be simple, but usually they are not.

24. Problem-Solving Inadequacies
All critical and scientific thinking is, in a fashio, problem solving. There are numerous psychological disruptions that cause inadequacies in problem solving. Psychologist Barry Singer has demonstrated that whn people are given the task of selecting the right answer to a problem after being told whether particular guesses are right or wrong, they:


 A. Immediately form a hypothesis and look only for examples to confirm it.

 B. Do not seek evidence to disprove the hypothesis.

 C. Are very slow to change the hypothesis even when it is obviously wrong.

 D. If the information is too complex, adopt overly-simple hypothesis or strategies fro solutions.

 E. If there is no solution, if the probllem is a trick and "right" and "wrong" is given at random, form hypothesis about coincidental relationships they observed. Causality is always found. (Singer and Abell 1981, p.18)


If this is the case with humans in gneral, then we all must make the effort to overcome these inadequacies in solving the problems of science and of life.

25. Ideological Immunity, or the Planck Problem
In day-to-day life, as in science, we all resist fundamental paradigm change. Social scientist Jay Stuart Snelson calls this resistance an ideological immune system: "educated, intelligent, and successful adults rarely change their most fundamental presuppositions" (1993, p.54). According to Snelson, the more knowledge individuals have accumulated, and the more well-founded their theories have become (and remember, we all tend to look for and remember confirmatory evidence, not counterevidence), the greater the confidence in their ideologies. The consequence of this, however, is that we build up and "immunity" against new ideas that do not corroborate previous ones. Historians of science call this the Planck Problem, after physicist Mac Planck, who made this observation on what must happen for innovation to occur in science: "An important scientific innovation  rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning" (1936, p.97).

     Psychologist David Perkins conducted an interesting correlational study in which he found a strong positive correlation between intelligence (measured by a standard IQ test) and the ability to give reasons for taking a point of view and defending that position; he also found a strong negative correlation between intelligence and the ability to consider other alternatives. That is, the higher the IQ, the greater the potential for ideological immunity. Ideological immunity is built into the scientific enterprise, where it functions as a filter against potentially overwhelming novelty. As historian of science I. B. Cohen explained, "New and revolutionary systems of science tend to be resisted rather than welcomed with open arms, because every successful scientist has a vested intellectual, social, and even financial interest in maintaining the status quo. If every revolutionary new idea were welcomed with open arms, utter chaos would be the result" (1985, p.35).

     In the end, history rewards those who are "right" (at least provisionally). Change does occur. In astronomy, the Ptolemaic geocentric universe was slowly displaced by Copernicus's heliocentric system. In geology, George Cuvier's catastrophism was gradually wedged out by the more soundly supported uniformitarianism of James Hutton and Charles Lyell. In biology, Darwin's evolution theory superseded creationist belief in the immutability of species. In Earth history, Alfred Wegener's idea of continental drift took nearly a half century to overcome the received dogma of fixed and stable continents. Ideological immunity can be overcome in science and in daily life, but it takes time and corroboration.

Pop Quiz at 9:00 A.M.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that Spencer is a tool.
> ...



Your continued prosecution of the bogieman reveals the depth of your science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





I have a much simpler way to "spell it out"... 



> "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, lead author of many IPCC reports
> 
> "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
> 
> ...



I'm not gonna get into impeaching sources.. I find that VERY unscientific.. If it needs REFUTING -- don't be lazy --- do the job.. Don't care if it comes from a Prez who gets a pass spouting nonsense like "and today the warming is accelerating --- beyond all projections" and gets a complete wet kiss from the lefty press. 

Simple fact --- there are MORE statists on the left than the right. Statists see the bloated govt as a source of sustenance and safety and want more.. Would NEVER IMAGINE in their wildest dreams that THEIR POLITICIANS and Govt WHORE scientists would EVER EVER lie to them.. The have no skepticism of govt power... It's consistent with this split.. 

One side is a lot more gullible because they LOVE the liars that run the place... 

Is that YOUR problem?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 26, 2013)

Do you really consider yourself objective vis a vis the role of government? You are a billboard for radical right cult media entertainers.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Do you really consider yourself objective vis a vis the role of government? You are a billboard for radical right cult media entertainers.



Didn't I just tell you I didn't think much of folks who reach FIRST to impeach the source?
Why don't you comment on the QUOTES i gave? Or my thesis about the leftist side of the fence and why they buy this garbage "science"..

Guess I left your cage open.. My fault. I can't ignore what I un-ignored...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really consider yourself objective vis a vis the role of government? You are a billboard for radical right cult media entertainers.
> ...



Why didn't you address the question? Do you really consider yourself objective vis a vis the role of government?

Because that would have required some evidence from you of "bloated government"?

No it's much easier to assume that your cult leaders are something other than political hacks selling scalps to advertisers.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

OMG oreoman: This is hysterical stuff right here.. 

If I didn't know better ---- I'd have thought this was the the IPCC mission statement right here... 



> 24. Problem-Solving Inadequacies
> All critical and scientific thinking is, in a fashio, problem solving. There are numerous psychological disruptions that cause inadequacies in problem solving. Psychologist Barry Singer has demonstrated that whn people are given the task of selecting the right answer to a problem after being told whether particular guesses are right or wrong, they:
> 
> 
> ...



So --- if we ever catch you violating any of these faux pas that you eschew --- I suppose we're obligated to point it out to you so that you seek therapy??


----------



## PMZ (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> OMG oreoman: This is hysterical stuff right here..
> 
> If I didn't know better ---- I'd have thought this was the the IPCC mission statement right here...
> 
> ...



Evidence. Think of how much more likely what you want to be true would be if there was some evidence in support of it. Now it's just whining that you didn't get your way. Nobody cares but you. Grow up.


----------



## gslack (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



LOL, the verbatim posting of the claims of Dr. Bessel Vanderkolk, are relevant how?

Socko, your nonsense is already old, whether it comes from Ifitzpmz,or this latest one... You don't seem to understand that whatever comes from an obvious fake and fraudulent poster (you) is already suspect to say the least... And posting the claims of an "expert"  in psychiatry, (if there is such a thing in psychiatry) as proof of anything only makes it easier to dismiss as so much nonsense...

The FAQ's you took from is the claims of a psychiatrist specializing in post traumatic stress syndrome. Not a psychologist, who actually studies science, but a psychiatrist, who basically follows Freud and a few others who seem to be obsessed with everyone's obsession with their mothers...

ROFL, you people are desperate..


----------



## gslack (Jul 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Persecution? LOL, they are a lefty PR site numbnutz...

Here they even state as much on their parent company's site...

Liberal news outlets - SourceWatch


> Liberal news outlets
> The following are generally considered to be liberal news outlets based either on self-identification or their content, as in news outlets considered to represent a "liberal bias".
> A Pew Research Center for The People & The Press report released March 9, 2005, revealed that "Some 75 million Americans, or 37 percent of the total adult population and 61 percent of online Americans, used the Internet to get political news and information" [1]
> AlterNet alternet.org
> ...



LOL, they even call themselves liberal... That means it's a bias liberal site, and if they are pretending to be a news site, yet display an admitted bias, they are not a news site, but a PR site. When you spin news to suit your agenda, it's called PR....


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I have a much simpler way to "spell it out"...
> ...



Indeed, you appear to have done a reach around impeaching sources (which, by the way, is a legitimate thing to do when the source is not legitimate) and gone for the jugular by quote mining people out of context.  Congratulations.



> I find that VERY unscientific..



Ahem.  (taps foot).

<snipped the whining rant>


----------



## gslack (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Hush organsock....You're a clone, you are in violation of forum rules, as well as my own personal ones regarding borg and the collective...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 26, 2013)

Credibility comes from many personal attributes, of which you've displayed exactly none. 

You just are never correct. None of your bleating is. About anything. 

Given that track record, nobody expects you to ever be. 

It's a fine pickle that you've put yourself in. 

I'll bet you wish often that you had a penchant for learning that allowed you to be at least occasionally right about something.


----------



## gslack (Jul 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Credibility comes from many personal attributes, of which you've displayed exactly none.
> 
> You just are never correct. None of your bleating is. About anything.
> 
> ...



LOL, really socko? Why is it you come back with ever more clones of yourself then?

I sure seem to able to stump your silly ass well enough to cause you to have a breakdown every few posts...

Exactly what have you done here besides ramble and post party rhetoric? You're a useless poster, you do not add anything of value nor do you post with any kind of honesty or integrity. 

You're a sock monkey who feels being a complete moron is a victory if it buries a thread well enough.. Please go and get another clone schmuck.. Sooner or later somebody will HAVE to take notice and we can be done with you and all of your multiples..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 26, 2013)

As long as forums like this have to put up with morons like you,  they will be just like countries like America.  Limited by the least of us.


----------



## gslack (Jul 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> As long as forums like this have to put up with morons like you,  they will be just like countries like America.  Limited by the least of us.



Like america? LOL, what are you from Finland as well?.. ROFL.. Get a life socko


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 26, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > As long as forums like this have to put up with morons like you,  they will be just like countries like America.  Limited by the least of us.
> ...



Says the troll who has a thing for calling anyone who disagrees with him "socko".  Really?  Grow up.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 26, 2013)

American through and through.  That's why I don't have any patience with her enemies. As a country we have been dragged down by entertainers for profit recruiting cultists like you who are not educated enough to defend themselves. Despite us spending trillions on education.  I refuse to live by the lowest common denominator.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OMG oreoman: This is hysterical stuff right here..
> ...



Well when you ask the REAL WIKI (not the one for foot-stompin' kidlets who can't play nice with the rest of the world) what the mission of the FIRST IPCC WAS in 1988.. 



> Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical *and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity*, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects.[4]



Pretty clearly, everything that followed from IPCC statements in 1988 was a CLEAR ENDORSEMENT and modeling of sections A, B, C, and D above.. 

Evidence works for me..


----------



## gslack (Jul 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Grow up? Why not take your own advice? Pretty pathetic you come in here brand new and know peoples style... Brand new? Bull... A recycled sock-puppet is what you are..

I call you and the clones socko because it's obvious that's exactly what you are... Dude you aren't fooling anybody, you didn't as any of your other persona and you aren't now. Pathetic..

I disagree with flac and Ian and I don't call them socko.. Why? Because they obviously aren't clones of another poster.. UNLIKE YOU..


----------



## gslack (Jul 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> American through and through.  That's why I don't have any patience with her enemies. As a country we have been dragged down by entertainers for profit recruiting cultists like you who are not educated enough to defend yourself.  Despite us spending trillions on education.  I refuse to live by the lowest common denominator.



That's nice, shame you have the same anti-quoting policy of a certain Finnish Fraud.. He didn't like quoting people when his previous post harmed his claims.. 

But hey it's fine I'm sure everyone is fooled by your new you...LOL


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

Wasn't Spencer the inventor of that dance (the Alabama Two step)?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

gslack said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Obviously, you don't even know the meaning of that phrase.



> I call you and the clones socko because it's obvious that's exactly what you are... Dude you aren't fooling anybody, you didn't as any of your other persona and you aren't now. Pathetic..
> 
> I disagree with flac and Ian and I don't call them socko.. Why? Because they obviously aren't clones of another poster.. UNLIKE YOU..



This is all you've got?  Really?  Oh dear.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The evidence, as uncovered and processed by science and scientists, instead of political hacks, supports the IPCC all of the way. Some Americans are smart and educated enough to realize that, some not. Of those smart and educated enough to realize that, but who took a contrary position before the truth was known, most have maned up.

The cult of denial has been left behind by history, and that is the cause of their whining.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

Your posting would be improved if you had something, anything,  to say.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

Rush Limbaugh has been prosecuting the case for almost 20 years now, in the court of public opinion, that he instinctively knows the science of climatology better than the IPCC and one of their influential disciples, Al Gore. 

Nobody is surprised of the failure of his case. He's a no nothing political hack arguing science against the best in the world. 

What is surprising though is the number of uneducated political cultists who would side with him, and the persistance of their delusion. 

Can democracy survive ignorance?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Rush Limbaugh has been prosecuting the case for almost 20 years now, in the court of public opinion, that he instinctively knows the science of climatology better than the IPCC and one of their influential disciples, Al Gore.
> 
> Nobody is surprised of the failure of his case. He's a no nothing political hack arguing science against the best in the world.
> 
> ...



The problem is that democracy depends on an informed electorate, that depends on all media reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, but they are businesses following the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others. 

Undereducated people also prefer having their opinions reinforced over learning.

What's at stake now is the future of democracy. Can it be sustained?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Rush Limbaugh has been prosecuting the case for almost 20 years now, in the court of public opinion, that he instinctively knows the science of climatology better than the IPCC and one of their influential disciples, Al Gore.
> ...



What if democracy proves unsustainable because of the above? Is there an alternative that also offers freedom? If there is, I haven't seen it demonstrated in the world. If the people aren't capable of making informed choices about government, who's left? Business? The Military? The oft rumored but never seen benevolent dictator? Computers?

Will we go down in history as the first generation of Americans who were not willing to pay the price of freedom?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> OMG oreoman: This is hysterical stuff right here..
> 
> If I didn't know better ---- I'd have thought this was the the IPCC mission statement right here...
> 
> ...



You can certainly expect that I will point out yours when I see them.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

When the founders were founding, they thought that allowing only those like them, wealthy, white, educated, Christian, men, to vote, would give them the influence that they craved. 

Over many years and much sweat, blood and tears, we, the people expanded suffrage to universal. 

Now that the Republican Party has been purchased by wealthy, white, educated, Christian, men, they would like to return to the founders plutocracy. 

In other words, throw out democracy. 

Many already claim that that has been already accomplished and we, in fact, are no longer a democracy. The NRA says that we need to become armed camps ready to defend ourselves from those "others".

We, the people, have fought tenaciously for the right to govern government and be free of others dictating who and what we are. 

We are, IMO, in grave danger of losing what our predecessors worked so hard to bequeath us. 

Freedom requires effort on our part. We use it or lose it. The informed electorate is critical to freedom.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> When the founders were founding, they thought that allowing only those like them, wealthy, white, educated, Christian, men, to vote, would give them the influence that they craved.
> 
> Over many years and much sweat, blood and tears, we, the people expanded suffrage to universal.
> 
> ...



When the United States was founded, a man could walk out into the wilderness, chop down trees, clear land, build a home, and build a life.  The nature of the economy is no longer the same. Excpet for homesteading in Alaska, a now warming place, that simply isn't how the world works.  The world is more like England of old, the country that the founding fathers broke away from, then it is like the original 13 colonies.  With the exception of the warming tundra, there is no "new world" to go to. And, I tend to believe, the "new world" of old, wasn't as simple as some would like to believe.

This fantacy, of resurecting the "liberty and freedom" of the founding of the colonies is just that, an absurd fantacy.  I'm all for it, except for that one little problem, it's a fantacy that has no bearing on reality.


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








That's because you aren't smart enough to have an imagination socko.  Funny, before the industrial revolution the average life expectancy was around 40.  After it the life expectancy went down for awhile till they figured out it was bad to work people to death.  Since that little bit of enlightenment the workers lot has gotten progressively better, to the point that they outlive those who employ them for the most part.

Now that we can see the benefits of an industrialized life, you collectivists come along and demand that we give all of that up.  You make wild claims that have no support in historical fact all in an effort to gain ultimate control over people.  Then, as all collectivists eventually do, you figure out a way to kill off those you don't like.

Nope, you collectivists can all go to hell.  Your way has been shown over and over to be terrible for the people and for the planet.  But it always seems to be good for you....till you finally get killed and the cycle starts again...


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> When the founders were founding, they thought that allowing only those like them, wealthy, white, educated, Christian, men, to vote, would give them the influence that they craved.
> 
> Over many years and much sweat, blood and tears, we, the people expanded suffrage to universal.
> 
> ...








The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.  I suggest you learn the difference.....
"Educated" huh.....  But I do thank you for admitting that science has nothing to do with your propaganda, it's all about politics baby as your little diatribe admits.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

We are a constitutional democratic Republic. 

Our consent to be governed is based on the by-laws of government specified by the Constitution. 

We don't have a monarch so we are a republic. 

We make decisions,  including who represents us,  based on pluralities.

You are the one who expects to learn science at the knee of a political hack who knows neither science nor politics. 

All he knows is that people like you will blindly follow anyone who will tell them that they're right.  

You are a threat to our country.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

westwall said:


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



I'm not a collectivist you idiot.  I live in the best governed country in the world and I'm perfectly willing to defend it from you and your cult.  Led like blind sheep by entertainers who know exactly one thing.  That you'll follow anyone who will pat you on the head.  Real people earn respect.  You and the rest of the cult think that you're entitled to it.  

I'm pretty sure that following idiots is the best that you can do. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

"Then, as all collectivists eventually do, you figure out a way to kill off those you don't like."

I think he's craazzzyyy.

Projection?

"....till you finally get killed and the cycle starts again..."

  I fear so.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

My reply above was meant as a comment to Itfitzme above.


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We are a constitutional democratic Republic.
> 
> Our consent to be governed is based on the by-laws of government specified by the Constitution.
> 
> ...









  Yeah, sure.  I work for the poor to be allowed to become wealthy, for the sick to be allowed to live out their lives, for the land to be conserved properly instead of destroyed by global warming fraudsters who care more about political power and money than the environment...and you call me the threat?  That's rich...real rich....


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







Bullshit.  All of your goals are directed at concentrating the power in the hands of a few autocrats who are the "anointed" ones supposedly smarter than anyone else.  They get to make all the decisions over you, what you can drive, what sort of house you will be allowed to live in, who you can visit and when, what you can eat and what you can drink and how much of it....yeah, that's collectivism on steroids, and it's your little wet dream....


----------



## westwall (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Then, as all collectivists eventually do, you figure out a way to kill off those you don't like."
> 
> I think he's craazzzyyy.
> 
> ...






Merely pointing out the life cycle of a Republic.  Read a book you might learn something...though, because it is you, I doubt that highly...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

It's interesting how the cult defends their pathetic trunk to tail follow the leader. They really do think that they're thinking for themselves.  Not unlike the Germans in WWII.


----------



## gslack (Jul 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



LOL, I don't know the meaning of what phrase?  

ROFL, see what you are doing there socko... You're repeating the stupidity of another poster here... Kind of likes to ramble and talk nonsense, usually high... Sound familiar? Sure it does.. But please continue on in your ramblings tweaker..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

People who think for themselves know that our freedom stems from our control over who governs.  The cult has been told that freedom stems from weak government.  The secret is to vote for those who favor weak government.  It's just a coincidence that those who say that they favor weak government are owned by the wealthy going for the return of their favored status like during our founding.

Power to the wealthy instead of the people.  Power to those who pay the political entertainers. Power to the powerful.


----------



## gslack (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> When the founders were founding, they thought that allowing only those like them, wealthy, white, educated, Christian, men, to vote, would give them the influence that they craved.
> 
> Over many years and much sweat, blood and tears, we, the people expanded suffrage to universal.
> 
> ...



Another fine example of the stupidity I spoke of... He just wrote garbage that is not based on any truth, just his stoned circle-logic..

LOL, when the founders were found?????

Get a clue schmuck, they didn't worry about anyone else voting because at the time the only people of color here were slaves,and most who were not wealthy enough to own land or property couldn't read.. Who would they vote for? Candidate "X" ... What's more, at the time most non-native people in this country were from eastern Europe, not a whole lot of other (non-slave) races to be concerned about getting the vote...

Dude seriously sober your silly ass up before you ramble....


----------



## gslack (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People who think for themselves know that our freedom stems from our control over who governs.  The cult has been told that freedom stems from weak government.  The secret is to vote for those who favor weak government.  It's just a coincidence that those who say that they favor weak government are owned by the wealthy going for the return of their favored status like during our founding.
> 
> Power to the wealthy instead of the people.  Power to those who pay the political entertainers. Power to the powerful.



Seriously, just find a twelve step program...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

Clearly,  slack man still has nothing to say but not the sense  to say nothing.  

Pathetic.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's interesting how the cult defends their pathetic trunk to tail follow the leader. They really do think that they're thinking for themselves.  Not unlike the Germans in WWII.



.... and there it is --- the Nazi reference.. The white flag is UP ! and it's good.
You're really not following what's going on here are you? It's like a kid with a Mr Microphone and really heavy case of self-delusion.. 

The troll goes back on ignore..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

The cult still believes that somewhere the fine print says that the ignorant will inherit the earth. That maintaining ignorance by following the ignorant will somehow make them powerful.

Ain't going to happen. Education is the secret to influence. Not following Rush and company who only know what they wish was true.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting how the cult defends their pathetic trunk to tail follow the leader. They really do think that they're thinking for themselves.  Not unlike the Germans in WWII.
> ...



I don't see the difference between the Nazis in Germany, or those in Italy, or those in Japan, or those in Jonestown, or ditto heads. They all blindly follow those who tell them what they want to hear. No thinking required. 

Unlike life. Where those who think for themselves define the future while those who follow only see the tail in front of them. A pathetic life. 

If you're happy to follow, have at it. Just don't pretend otherwise.


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's interesting how the cult defends their pathetic trunk to tail follow the leader. They really do think that they're thinking for themselves.  Not unlike the Germans in WWII.



Godwin's Law!

Who here is following trunk to tail? I spend at least as much time arguing with the extremists on my side as I do against yours. From my vantage point it seems like the warmers are the ones in lockstep following groupthink proclaimss. 

Skeptics disparage their own cranks because they disagree with some of their ideas. Warmers only stop supporting their cranks when they become a liability or embarrassment.


----------



## gslack (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Clearly,  slack man still has nothing to say but not the sense  to say nothing.
> 
> Pathetic.



Coming from the forum rambling tweaker whose own last post was as uninformed as it gets, It means nothing..

Dude you are in love with your own text.. it doesn't matter to you if it is incoherent babble, it came from you so in your mind it's golden..The mind of a tweaker.. How much time do you spend daily telling yourself how brilliant you are? I bet it's 1 of every 2 hours..

You claimed CO2 remains CO2 and even called it a CO2 cycle, yet everyone knew it was nonsense and it is a carbon cycle yet you don't let that get you down, you keep right on talking and try to pretend it was different anyway. LOL, now you try and claim you said carbon cycle all along.. Doesn't matter that we can all read your posts and see you for the liar you are, you can't be bothered by such inconsequential nonsense. You have a forum to convert...

ROFL, an idiot with meth induced delusions of brilliance..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

I know that this thread is about AGW. But AGW is merely one aspect of a much bigger problem. 

Rush Limbaugh has reportedly made over a billion dollars in his career. Is there really anybody out there who think that is based on his contribution to society? No. It's based on his ability to recruit into the cult. Just like the good Rev Jones of Jonestown fame. His secret? He tells those who know little that they are smart. Of course that doesn't make them smarter, it makes him richer. People who need votes to get into power love what he delivers to them, and pay him very well. At the expense of the USA. 

If he was just an overpaid entertainer that would be one thing, but he's a threat to our future. What he promises in exchange for minds is at the expense of our democracy. He's selling our future. 

He, and they, must be stopped. Here and now.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting how the cult defends their pathetic trunk to tail follow the leader. They really do think that they're thinking for themselves.  Not unlike the Germans in WWII.
> ...



Skeptics are not objective. They are closed minded. Why would anyone pay them any attention? People who have a legitimate question raise it. With no bias as to it's answer. The answer will support, or deny, but will move mankind closer to the truth. That's science. Skepticism is faith. Of no use in finding truth.


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I know that this thread is about AGW. But AGW is merely one aspect of a much bigger problem.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh has reportedly made over a billion dollars in his career. Is there really anybody out there who think that is based on his contribution to society? No. It's based on his ability to recruit into the cult. Just like the good Rev Jones of Jonestown fame. His secret? He tells those who know little that they are smart. Of course that doesn't make them smarter, it makes him richer. People who need votes to get into power love what he delivers to them, and pay him very well. At the expense of the USA.
> 
> ...




I'll see your Rush and raise an AlGore.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly,  slack man still has nothing to say but not the sense  to say nothing.
> ...



I am addicted to truth. You are addicted to your ego. Valueless to me.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 27, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I know that this thread is about AGW. But AGW is merely one aspect of a much bigger problem.
> ...



At one time I would have judged you a scientist. I see now that I was mistaken.


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




I can assure you that I am, at the very least, as objective as you.


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Hahahaha. Drop the hypocrisy.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No hypocrisy. Simple truth. You are not what you seem. You build your science on your politics. Your politics are simple follow the leader. The leader being a simple minded, uneducated, blowhard. If you don't have the wherewithal to resist what you are, your scientific value is zero.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Skepticism is the polar opposite of objectivism.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

"on why skeptics are winning the infowars"

They simply aren't. Science is winning the "infowars". As it should. Science is the methodology used by mankind to discover the truth. It's above skepticism, and cynicism, and pessimism and optimism. It searches plainly for merely what is. It has no stake in the answer. All possibilities are equally welcome. But,what is, is what is. Unequivocally because of the rigor of the process. 

It often conflicts with the political here's what I want to be true.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I know that this thread is about AGW. But AGW is merely one aspect of a much bigger problem.
> ...



I got nothing.. A Waxman and a Franken and a pair of UN socialists.... I fold..


----------



## IanC (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And just what do you imagine my political affiliations are? You guys are hilarious with your self righteous proclaimations of other people's intentions. I am a Swedish canadian liberal but that doesn't mean I have to be stupid about it. AGW theory doesn't add up in my reconning so I accept what makes sense and am skeptical of the exaggerations. It's just that simple.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People who think for themselves know that our freedom stems from our control over who governs.  The cult has been told that freedom stems from weak government.  The secret is to vote for those who favor weak government.  It's just a coincidence that those who say that they favor weak government are owned by the wealthy going for the return of their favored status like during our founding.
> 
> Power to the wealthy instead of the people.  Power to those who pay the political entertainers. Power to the powerful.








Think for yourself?  You?  "The science is settled".  How EXACTLY is that thinking for yourself?  You're correct it isn't, but that's YOU.  Not us.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> AGW theory doesn't add up in my reconning so I accept what makes sense and am skeptical of the exaggerations. It's just that simple.



It doesn't add up in your reconning as what?


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Other than it's you who are acting like the NAZI's.  Himmler would be sooooo proud of you!


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I know that this thread is about AGW. But AGW is merely one aspect of a much bigger problem.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh has reportedly made over a billion dollars in his career. Is there really anybody out there who think that is based on his contribution to society? No. It's based on his ability to recruit into the cult. Just like the good Rev Jones of Jonestown fame. His secret? He tells those who know little that they are smart. Of course that doesn't make them smarter, it makes him richer. People who need votes to get into power love what he delivers to them, and pay him very well. At the expense of the USA.
> 
> ...








Yes, according to you and your ilk it is people.  There are too many people on this planet so you want to kill them.  Sounds pretty NAZI like to me.  *HELLO NAZI!*


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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









You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the keester junior!


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








And you are an ignorant fool.....

*Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue. * Robert King Merton

The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age.  Carl Sagan

There are science teachers who actually claim that they teach a healthy skepticism. They do not. They teach a profound gullibility, and their dupes, trained not to think for themselves, will swallow any egregious rot, provided it is dressed up with long words and an affectation of objectivity to make it sound scientific.  Anthony Standen

Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers. - Bernhard Haisch, astrophysicist 

It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young.- Konrad Lorenz

Inquiry is fatal to certainty. - William J. Durant

There is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism. -Nietzche 

*The pressure for conformity is enormous*. I have experienced it in editors rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science. Julian Schwinger, physicist


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> "on why skeptics are winning the infowars"
> 
> They simply aren't. Science is winning the "infowars". As it should. Science is the methodology used by mankind to discover the truth. It's above skepticism, and cynicism, and pessimism and optimism. It searches plainly for merely what is. It has no stake in the answer. All possibilities are equally welcome. But,what is, is what is. Unequivocally because of the rigor of the process.
> 
> It often conflicts with the political here's what I want to be true.








Yes SCIENCE IS winning the info wars.  10 years ago sceptics had no voice.  In ten years we have gained a voice.  As the people have heard our voice and learned how you have perverted science to your political goals they have rejected you.

You think you're winning?  Here's a Euro poll that says you are deluded and need to be committed before you harm yourself or someone else.



New EU poll: Only 4% of Europeans rate climate change as their most pressing concern 



"The new Eurobarometer poll must be depressive reading for EU's überwarmist, climate change commissioner Connie Hedegaard and her fellow alarmists in the European Commission. The number of people who rank climate change as their most pressing concern is barely recognizable. 

* Last year a paltry 5% of all Europeans rated climate change as their most pressing concern. In the new poll the percentage has gone down to 4%.* Most likely climate change will soon disappear completely, despite of the barrage of alarmist propaganda produced in Brussels (and funded by European taxpayers). 

 Only in Malta (22%), Sweden (19%) and Germany (10%) does the number get into double digits. Even in Hedegaard's home country Denmark, only 9% of the people rate climate change as their main concern. And in seven countries - Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Estonia and Greece the number is zero (0%)!" 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb79/eb79_first_en.pdf


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That there is a thing of beauty..  +1 credit.. 

Anyone questioning skepticism as a virtue for scientific enquiry --- hasn't a clue how it works.. 

Objectivism?? Ayn Rand was an optimist? Who knew??


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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







Anyone who questions scientific skepticism is political hack.....pure and simple...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Except that he isn't a skeptic.  He is a denier.
> ...



Just as there is no substantive difference between full cult wacko warmists and Luke Warner's who believe in the magic but just don't think it is as strong as the wackos believe. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

Dittoheads are seldom right but never uncertain.

Where does anyone suppose they get that from?


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > People who think for themselves know that our freedom stems from our control over who governs.  The cult has been told that freedom stems from weak government.  The secret is to vote for those who favor weak government.  It's just a coincidence that those who say that they favor weak government are owned by the wealthy going for the return of their favored status like during our founding.
> ...



"Think for yourself? You? "The science is settled". How EXACTLY is that thinking for yourself? "

The science is settled when science says it is. Which it has. The opinions of political hacks and science quacks have no role in that determination. 

If you wanted a vote you needed to get educated in that field. You obviously didn't. You chose to be irrelevant. You didn't dedicate yourself to do the work that allowed you a meaningful opinion. You are not entitled to any credibility. 

Despite what you thought, ignorance has a price.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You are welcome to your opinions. What I point out is that they are not informed opinions. Which is really what this is all about. Mankind has created serious problems for our future and only a few of us have invested the time and effort to become qualified to seriously address them. Which is underway. You could contribute but choose not to invest the time and trouble to qualify yourself. Your choice. 

Credibility is earned. Nobody is entitled to it.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



"Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue."  Robert King Merton

Science is not an institution. It's a body of knowledge including the methodology require for expanding that body. 

Scientists understand that. Others don't.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

irrationality seems to pass off as a skeptisism.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

You would think that among all of the vitriol expressed here someone,  sometime,  would at least attempt to demonstrate that I am wrong about something specific.  

Dittoheads become such because the cult told them that they were smart.  Not unlike Eliza Doolittle.  Unlike her,  they merely accepted the affirmation but avoided the work of becoming so. 

If they are smart,  they reason,  anyone who disagrees with whatever they want to be true,  must be stupid. Me for instance and you.  

Such a simple,  simple world. 

So easy for their masters to control.


----------



## IanC (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You would think that among all of the vitriol expressed here someone,  sometime,  would at least attempt to demonstrate that I am wrong about something specific.
> 
> Dittoheads become such because the cult told them that they were smart.  Not unlike Eliza Doolittle.  Unlike her,  they merely accepted the affirmation but avoided the work of becoming so.
> 
> ...





Westwall just demonstrated that you were wrong for saying skepticism has no place in science. The quotes were exceptional but you should have known already. Yet you carry on as if nothing was said.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







Science is never "settled" as anyone with even a passing understanding would know.  Furthermore, when scientists who are ethically challenged (to put it mildly)are the source of that assertion, and they aren't credible, their opinion doesn't matter one iota save to those who have a political or monetary dog in the hunt.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


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










You clearly don't understand a thing about science.  This post is just another example of that....


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You would think that among all of the vitriol expressed here someone,  sometime,  would at least attempt to demonstrate that I am wrong about something specific.
> ...








Skepticism IS science.  Anyone who claims otherwise is a religious fanatic.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

Science is a field of study leading to a profession.  The findings of science do not have to pass any popularity contest by people who don't know science.  Thats called politics.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > *You would think that among all of the vitriol expressed here someone,  sometime,  would at least attempt to demonstrate that I am wrong about something specific.  *
> ...



Sorry Ian --- pulled your post to respond to the troll.. 

So many choices.. But the most irritating is your latest insistence that we are all the same.
That we all learned our science, logic and reason from Rush Limbaugh --- or that we think like Nazis... 

Obviously -- as on most of your assertions -- you're completely sucking gas on that assertion.. I could pull another 1 of 1200 of you faulty assertions and reasonings, but I don't really care what you say.. BECAUSE you are so biased and self-absorbed.

We skeptics DISAGREE.. We BATTLE over the science -- as SSDD and GSlack and I know.. I've mixed it up with OTHER skeptics on this board. It's more enlightening and HARDER than swatting down little leftist automatron tyrants like you who haven't had an ORIGINAL political or scientific thought since you read Noam Chomsky.

Why don't you be an annointed LEADER and CARRY ME thru this -- WHO EXACTLY on this thread gets their science marching orders from Rush Limbaugh or is a good Nazi??

Or leave everyone else alone and just slap ME into the reality that Rush takes control of my academic knowledge and principles everyday when I'm not paying attention and directs my posts on USMB... 

YOU seem to get YOURS from a professional clown who became Senator by about 2 votes..


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science is a field of study leading to a profession.  The findings of science do not have to pass any popularity contest by people who don't know science.  Thats called politics.







Leading to a profession?  What the hell are you talking about?  And you are correct about the popularity contest part of the statement.  Why then do the AGW fraudsters ALWAYS appeal to authority?  Which is after all the ultimate popularity contest.

You are amusing to watch flailing away as you do.  You make these broad based statements which in and of themselves are pretty good but then somehow can't connect the dots to the AGW fraudsters EXACTLY what you claim the skeptics to be doing.  It is pretty amazing.


----------



## gslack (Jul 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Ithink I will add that little gem to the list of PMZ stupid quotes on my sig...

WTH? They are complimentary to one another moron....

Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Objectivism, or Objectivist, may refer to:
> Any standpoint that stresses objectivity, including:
> Objectivity (philosophy), realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent
> Moral objectivism, the view that some ethics are absolute
> ...



So I assume you were referring to; "realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent."

If not and you were referring to some concept that all of us seem to follow the teachings of the very strange Ayn Rand, I can only laugh at you and tell you to get a grip.

The problem with an unending supply of information like the internet, is two-fold. First we have information without discipline or perspective. Lefty PR sites disguisedf as "truth" telling ignorant mentally untrained children, that Ayn Rand is the right wing philosophy, is a fine example..

It may seem true, her philosphies were popular with a certain type, and they do seem to fit in with the lefty view of right-wing mentality, but the reality is, not many even care what Ayn Rand thought. She adopted her philosophy from the behavior she had seen in her life. Her belief that all people were basically selfish and driven by nothing more than self preservation and promotion, came from her experiences as a young wealthy child and watching that life taken away by the Bolsheviks. Oddly enough the same Bolsheviks who ruined her wealthy life, also gave women the opportunity to attend college, where she studied Friedrich Nietzsche, another selfish asshole who felt he could justify it with thought.. She felt all people were selfish in nature because that's what she saw at an age when she was most impressionable...

Her philosophy came after the behavior she saw, and she used it to justify any and all behavior she witnessed after that. To her any acts of kindness or charity were in reality selfish acts. 

That is a person who is about as negative as it gets. And not really indicative of what most people might thing or behave, or their reasons for their actions..Beleiver it or not many people give to charity for good and proper reasons. 

I give to St. Judes every month, and I dont do it just because I like the feeling, I do it because it's a good and decent, and proper thing to do with some of the extra money I have left. Sure I could do other things with it that would be more self oriented and give a good feeling, but I don't..I have a friend who gives 10% of his income to the catholic church, simply because his mother was a devout catholic...He isn't BTW...

Those are not selfish acts, and despite what you have read on lefty PR sites, they are the acts of what most would consider conservative or right-wing individuals.

In fact do some checking and you will see a marked pattern of charity among the regualar citizen conservatives.. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher many actually follow. That is the BS told by internet "documentaries" and other garbage..

I bet you watch "Zeitghesit" and others like it for your knowledge... It shows...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

"Westwall wins the prize today with "Science is never "settled" as anyone with even a passing understanding would know. Furthermore, when scientists who are ethically challenged (to put it mildly)are the source of that assertion, and they aren't credible, their opinion doesn't matter one iota save to those who have a political or monetary dog in the hunt."

So this dittohead with demonstrably little understanding of even basic science has been given authority to charge those who've devoted their lives and careers to learning science and studying climatology with being "ethically challenged". 

Ethically challenged.

They, apparently, didn't have his approval to publish the findings of their life's work. Not that he's capable of understanding even the most basic of that work. Not that he contributed anything to that work. Not that he invested even a tiny fraction of the time and work that they have in addressing the most critical problem of our era. 

No, Rush told him that he's entitled to be critical of science because he is a full member of the dittohead cult. That political hacks and science quacks have Rush's authority to question those who have invested themselves in solving mankind's sustainability. 

And other dittoheads jump in in unison saying that people who don't understand even basic science are called upon by science to criticize the findings of science. 

Don't tell me that America's intelligence is not being compromised by those who don't invest in learning and doing, declaring that they are entitled to be more knowledgable than those that do. 

Science has no need to be credible with you Westwall. You chose to run your life in a way that science is beyond you. Accept the limitations that you chose.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

Yeah....


----------



## PMZ (Jul 28, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




'' So, I assume you were referring to; "realism, the conviction that reality is mind-independent."''

Correct.  I frankly have no idea what the rest of your post means.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

"I give to St. Judes every month, and I dont do it just because I like the feeling, I do it because it's a good and decent, and proper thing to do with some of the extra money I have left. Sure I could do other things with it that would be more self oriented and give a good feeling, but I don't..I have a friend who gives 10% of his income to the catholic church, simply because his mother was a devout catholic...He isn't BTW...

Those are not selfish acts, and despite what you have read on lefty PR sites, they are the acts of what most would consider conservative or right-wing individuals."

10% doesn't mean anything, really, not in and of itself, for a host of reasons.  For a little old lady on SSI and Medicare, that would be 10% more than she can even afford and it means she eats 10% less or goes without DirectTV, a marvilous thing.  For someone else, it would be nothing more than a feel good effort as they already bring in 200% more than granny on SSI.  Its kinda relative.  If it were Bill Gates, that is a lot of money and still chump change because he should be donating about 95% of his wealth for it to be really meaningful (which he may or may not be doing).

Then the other issue is that, if your the average earner, you should actually be bringing in twice what your salary is, because that is what your real output contribution is.  Then, that ten percent would be twice what it is now and you would easily be donating 20% without even noticing a change in living standards.

So, really, 10% doesn't mean much, by itself.  Sounds more like an ego stroking.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Oh really? LOL, got caught bullshitting again didn't you.. You were skirting around trying to make another one of your retarded generalizations and once again were found lacking..

Pathetic..


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "I give to St. Judes every month, and I dont do it just because I like the feeling, I do it because it's a good and decent, and proper thing to do with some of the extra money I have left. Sure I could do other things with it that would be more self oriented and give a good feeling, but I don't..I have a friend who gives 10% of his income to the catholic church, simply because his mother was a devout catholic...He isn't BTW...
> 
> Those are not selfish acts, and despite what you have read on lefty PR sites, they are the acts of what most would consider conservative or right-wing individuals."
> 
> ...



LOL, you dumbass... 10% of an income is still 10%... Now no matter how you look at it, it's 10%,.. Only an idiot thinks 10% of a persons income is inconsequential if they make more.. 

You just tried to claim you didn't know what I was talking about and yet here you are trying to belittle 10% of a persons income donated charity based on how wealthy or poor they are... Fraud... Phony ass leftist BS artist...

You keep letting your nature show scumbag.. !0% of a persons income is still 10% whether it's 10% of 100k or 20K.. 

You let us know one thing for sure.. You have never given anythingof substance to any charity. If you had you wouldn't be making such a retarded claim...

The fact is a donation of 10% of ones income is generous by any measure. For you to try and make it seem lees is pathetic and a sign of a true selfish user.. You don't think it'smuch because you have never done anything like it.. Another fine example of lefty BS.. Give to the poor but only if it's someone else's money.. None of you ever truly care for anybody other than yourselves, you just pat one anothers backs and tell us all how selfless you are, but it's all nonsense. Because everyone else is doing the giving, all you do is tell people to do it, and take credit for the thought..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 29, 2013)

Slacksack insists that he is entitled to credibility. That credibility in all things is granted by his media heroes instead of earned through contribution. 

It is a bizarre worldview. A cultural dysfunction.

Plutocracy is rule by the most qualified. It has always failed because those that impose it believe, demonstrably in error, that they are the most qualified, and they get to choose the measure. Usually wealth or family. 

Slacksack believes in the cultural opposite. Credibility granted to the least qualified. 

Culture is supposed to be humanity's behavioral adaptation to environment. That it's passing from one generation to the next, is learning about what behaviors enhance our ability to thrive in the environment that we inherited. 

Slacksack believes in a culture where the least educated, the least knowledgable, the smallest contributors, those that have invested least in the betterment of mankind should be given not their due, but are entitled to dictate to their opposites the terms of success. 

Wow. How's that going to work?

People earn their place in society by their accomplishments. There is a place for everyone, and that place entitles them to respect in proportion to the degree to which they benefit all. 

Those that devote their time and energy to expanding mankind's knowledge in critical fields have earned their place and our respect and speak a language most of us can only aspire to understand better through hard work. That's called specialization and it's the basis for civilization. 

As the amount of education required in all fields continues to expand in proportion to the magnitude of what is known, specialization becomes ever more specific. And our individual reliance on others for knowledge and action in areas that others choose to specialize in becomes more acute. And our personal choice for specialization becomes more narrow. 

I'm sure that Slacksack has capabilities that we don't see demonstrated here. But, what we have seen are mostly demonstrations of areas where he isn't qualified in the least. But he feels entitled to criticize those who are. Cultural rule by the least qualified justified by the notion that science should be as politics. That we are all equally qualified to judge it. 

I can't imagine a less functional culture.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

> Slacksack believes in a culture where the least educated, the least knowledgable, the smallest contributors, those that have invested least in the betterment of mankind should be given not their due, but are entitled to dictate to their opposites the terms of success.



That explains why he believes that McIntyre (despite having no science degrees, or no advanced degrees whatsoever, and despite the fact that he has done no real scientific research) is more qualified to do climate science than a whole host of highly trained and published climate scientists.



> I can't imagine a less functional culture.



Indeed.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Slacksack insists that he is entitled to credibility. That credibility in all things is granted by his media heroes instead of earned through contribution.
> 
> It is a bizarre worldview. A cultural dysfunction.
> 
> ...



Oh joy! another of those rambling posts that drone on and on and not actually saying anything of meaning.. God man, you are love with your own text.. ROFL

no silly socko, unlike you and your non-working but highly qualified clone (ROFL), I don't think I am entitled to anything...

I earn what I get shithead, be it an income I make myself, OR posting here. I don't expect anything from you or anybody else.. Again unlike you mr. Grandstander... YOU and clones seem to think yoiu can win a debate simply buy stating some made up credentials and expecting everyone to accept you as experts.. Sorry socko but life doesn't work that way.. Maybe it's working well for you home-schooled and unsupervised children, but for contributing members of society it's not so easy...

Got any more gems? How about telling us about your issue with CO2 again? LOL, we love that one.. The CO2 cycle is what you said... ROFL... See why I call you a liar socko? because you and your clones are simple as that.. You don't know squat, so you try and pull some made up credentials out of your butts when you get caught.. ROFL


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> > Slacksack believes in a culture where the least educated, the least knowledgable, the smallest contributors, those that have invested least in the betterment of mankind should be given not their due, but are entitled to dictate to their opposites the terms of success.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I beleive that you and your altrer egos have no such degrees, and whats more you prove it with every post..

LOL, a list of BS credentials and you can't do anything but sit on your ass and post on web forums? BULLSHIT... People with far less education than you claim and with far worse health conditions do jobs everyday. 

BTW, Mcintyre has every right to do anything he can. Just like anybody else, even you. If his corrections were wrong so be it, the ones he corrected were and they were so-called "experts".. You think claiming he had no educational background for the task, shows anything but how utterly incompetent the original work was?.

If you had half the education you claim, you would have seen this and STFU.. But no, like all self absorbed sock-puppets on here as of late, you would rather appear right.. MORON..

Please keep talking, you do far more damage to the warmer side, than any of us ever could...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 29, 2013)

The evidence of my assertions. 

Slacksack believes that he is entitled to credibility.  The most dysfunctional culture ever.  

What he is entitled to is to babble on, claiming that someone should pay some attention to what he wishes was true. 

If someone out there wants to grant him the respect on science issues due someone with such obvious shortcomings in the world of science feel free to join his science for dummies cult. 

I think that you would deserve each other. 

Me,  I want to understand what people who are qualified to do the research have uncovered.  No better source than the IPCC. 

While the cult is whining,  the doers of the world move on to solutions.  As it always has been.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The evidence of my assertions.
> 
> Slacksack believes that he is entitled to credibility.  The most dysfunctional culture ever.
> 
> ...



No once again silly socko, I don't think I am entitled to anything... That would be you and the clone who doesn't do shit.... 

I have to earn anything I get, I know this because I have a life.. And life is like that... YOU have a fictitional persona (actually many of them) that you try and live vacariously through in a web forum... One minute you're a former navy nuke, or a finnish journalist, or even an out of work but overly qualified expert on climate science, and the next you're a rambling BS fountain.. Too funny..

Please if you want to respond to my posts, man up and do so. Just repeating yourself and avoiding my response to it, is childish...


----------



## PMZ (Jul 29, 2013)

What's interesting about both your science,  and your insistence that everybody who disagrees with you,  which is everybody,  are what you want them to be.... 

That you are entitled to the absence of AGW,  and your imaginary sock attack. 

I come by my knowledge the hard way.  I earn it.  There are no free rides in my life. 

Try that someday.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What's interesting about both your science,  and your insistence that everybody who disagrees with you,  which is everybody,  are what you want them to be....
> 
> That you are entitled to the absence of AGW,  and your imaginary sock attack.
> 
> ...



LOL, you did it again.. You wrote a paragraph and did not make a coherent statement at any point.. You have several broken sentences there silly socko and not one is a complete thougt..

Sure ya did socko, and your posting shows what a terrible earmer you are..

BTW, repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it true... Especially when you habitually ignore any posts to the contrary.. Also, what's up with your sudden belief that I want or need anything from you? ROFL, oh that's you projecting again. YOU seem to think you are valued here, or more importantly; here you can be whatever you say you are and get respect... Whereas in reality you are just you...

You see socko, that's the problem with your latest nonsense.. ANyone who reads my posts will know one thing for certain right away whether they  agree with them or not. That is I obviously and quite plainly give two-shits what 90% of the internet forum oposters think of me or my posts.. Hence the way I don't care about mincing worlds or sparing feelings... LOL Schmuck


----------



## PMZ (Jul 29, 2013)

What's obvious to me is that you've nothing to say and express that at great length and in mind numbing detail.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 29, 2013)

IanC was the originator of this thread, wondering how much warming can be expected given the GHG concentration that we have created in the atmosphere. Of course accuracy in that answer is subject to some real unknowns like what will the peak concentration be when we finally stop adding. 

Hopefully what people have gathered up here in answer to his question is:

A. Systems earth is a body, in a deep vacuum, which must maintain energy balance between the incoming solar short wave radiation, which effective falls on an area equal to a diametrical cross section of the earth, 24 hours a day, and outgoing long wave radiation projecting out into space from the entire surface area of the top of the atmosphere. If incoming is greater than outgoing the system must warm until balance is restored.

B. Fossil fuels are the remains of life from millions of years ago (the Carboniferous Period) that were not allowed to decompose, but subject to great pressure and temperature from the evolving planet. The process of their creation removed trillions of tons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. The process of recovering the energy from them will put that CO2 back into our atmosphere.

C. As the concentration of atmospheric CO2 builds, it, like all greenhouse gasses, absorbs long wave radiation emitted from earth, and immediately re-radiates it in all directions, allowing half to continue going out, and half to return to earth. This process happens with every photon/GHG molecule collision. 

D. The consequent reduction in outgoing longwave radiation unbalances systems earth's energy balance, leading to the recreation of the pre-Carboniferous Period climate to a large degree. 

E. Of course the resolution of the energy exchange between all of the thermal systems that comprise our land, oceans, ice, atmosphere, water vapor, etc creates weather, is so complex as to be unpredictable except in the short term. All that can be predicted for sure, and observed and measured already, is that weather will change from what we're used to, and have built civilization around, during the transition period, as well as when stability has returned.

F. So sciences best narrow answer to IanC's question is a 1.1 degree increase for each doubling of effective GHG concentration. However, several positive feedbacks will increase that. For instance, the initial temperature rise will melt many cubic miles of arctic and Antarctic ice that has been created during millions of years of the former climate. And the thawing of permafrost that has sequestered as much CO2 as fossil fuels have, will add that to the fossil fuels load. Considering all of this the actual temperature increase in the final analysis will be 4 to 12 degrees C per GHG concentration doubling. 

G. There are three major and nobody knows how many other impacts these changes will cause for life on earth. 1) Rising sea levels into our cities which have been largely built as deep water ports. 2) A redistribution of rainfall that will cause dessertifacation of agricultural land and aquifers. And flooding. And change the availability of water for much of the world's population. 3) Probably an increase in extreme, violent weather.

H. Most experts believe that we have consumed about half of the fossil fuel reserve that we were given. The cheapest, highest quality half. Also the rate of consumption increases every year due to increased population and enhanced quality of life. During our consumption of the second half of our fossil fuel reserve we must engineer and build a complete sustainable replacement energy infrastructure. And, of course, if that can be done before we use all of the fuels we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by leaving it sequestered in the ground.

I. Much work is underway to address this entire situation. The only question is, are we progressing at the optimum rate? Optimum considering the economics and impact on life.


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC was the originator of this thread, wondering how much warming can be expected given the GHG concentration that we have created in the atmosphere. Of course accuracy in that answer is subject to some real unknowns like what will the peak concentration be when we finally stop adding.
> 
> Hopefully what people have gathered up here in answer to his question is:
> 
> ...








So, alcohol or cannabis?  You level of coherence is plummeting....


----------



## PMZ (Jul 29, 2013)

I see that you remain unable to debate any of my conclusions.  You just wish that reality was different.  I don't blame you.  I'd hate reality too if I were you.


----------



## PMZ (Jul 29, 2013)

I want everybody here to know that I'm an arithmetic skeptic.  I mean that I doubt if mathematicians have actually laid out 36,542 apples,  and taken away 15,652 of them,  so how do they know for certain? How do they know that their stupid rules always work?  It's just a guess.  Better to be careful than  right.  Skeptical.  Always questioning,  never deciding. 

Rush has told me that he trusts addition,  just not multiplication.  That's good enough for me.


----------



## gslack (Jul 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC was the originator of this thread, wondering how much warming can be expected given the GHG concentration that we have created in the atmosphere. Of course accuracy in that answer is subject to some real unknowns like what will the peak concentration be when we finally stop adding.
> ...



Nah hes a meth head... hence his multiple personality disorder and endless stream of BS..A true tweaker..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 30, 2013)

More nothing.  Slacksack has an unlimited supply.


----------



## gslack (Jul 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> More nothing.  Slacksack has an unlimited supply.



Tweakers should tweak quietly..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 30, 2013)

Still another example.


----------



## gslack (Jul 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Still another example.



yes coming from guy who has tried to claim there is a CO2 cycle rather than a cabon cycle, it means a lot.....You're ridiculous man...

LOL, your rep is perpetually at that same level and you have been here long enough for it to move some amount...It must be the price of socking..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 30, 2013)

This from the guy who's pretty sure that plant life is built from underground diamonds and pencil leads.  And wants to advise the IPCC so. 

You have destroyed all of your credibility.  With everyone.


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This from the guy who's pretty sure that plant life is built from underground diamonds and pencil leads.  And wants to advise the IPCC so.
> 
> You have destroyed all of your credibility.  With everyone.



Nice try, but we already know that's your lie... Even Ian (who really doesn't like me much) busted you for that BS..

The difference, Oh socko, is I am telling the truth on you, you are lying about me.. But hey you don't care about that sort of thing, you don't need truth, you have endless bullshit..


----------



## PMZ (Jul 31, 2013)

No,  the difference is that you are irrelevant to everyone here but you,  and I have summarized the real science behind mankind's AGW challenges.


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> No,  the difference is that you are irrelevant to everyone here but you,  and I have summarized the real science behind mankind's AGW challenges.



LOL, if I'm so irrelevent why are you posting to me?

Moron, you want to pretend you have said something of value but post like a crackhead. 

Mr. CO2 cycle moron, that's you socko..


----------



## Wroberson (Jul 31, 2013)

I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C.  The minimum is .15C.  The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max.  Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts.  The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed.  The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.

Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/global-warming-climate-change/


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 31, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C.  The minimum is .15C.  The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max.  Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts.  The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed.  The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.
> 
> Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...
> 
> Global Warming = Climate Change | Watts Up With That?



That is not a legitimate peer-reviewed and published science paper, and Wattssupdoc is not a legitimate science publication (and Anthony Watt is a denier, not a skeptic).  And who is Ed Hoskins, and what are his qualifications, I might ask?  Seems no one knows other than that he appears to be British.  But hey, if the righters can use illegitimate forums and cite unknown authors of non-peer reviewed material to argue their case, it seems only fitting to offer a rebuttal from a similar forum.  

Cheers:

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers



> HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers
> 
> In another he publishes an incomprehensible article by Ed Hoskins, who previously wrote that we are on the verge of an ice age.
> 
> ...


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C.  The minimum is .15C.  The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max.  Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts.  The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed.  The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.
> ...



LOL, you just fussed at him over his illiegitimate source and you repsond with an even less legitimate source? What's worse is you made fun of the sites name and your site is called hotwhoppers???

ROFL, somuch for the "educated climate expert" gamer you were trying to run on people... And you wonder why I called you on it....


----------



## PMZ (Jul 31, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C.  The minimum is .15C.  The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max.  Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts.  The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed.  The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.
> 
> Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/global-warming-climate-change/



There are many reports from many sources that say many things.  The ones that come from the IPCC are the ones based on the most expertise,  the most data,  the most extensive peer review and the furthest developed theories.


----------



## Abraham3 (Jul 31, 2013)

Bingo.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I see that you remain unable to debate any of my conclusions.  You just wish that reality was different.  I don't blame you.  I'd hate reality too if I were you.







  You didn't "conclude" anything moron.  You spewed out a bunch of crap that made no sense.  Only a mentally incapacitated person, as you clearly are, would think otherwise...


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C.  The minimum is .15C.  The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max.  Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts.  The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed.  The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.
> ...








Your "peer reviewed papers" got destroyed in ten hours by a statistician.  I know who I will place more credibility with...and it ain't your clowns...


----------



## Wroberson (Aug 1, 2013)

I never said it was peer reviewed.
Believe who and what you want.
All I see are the defensive attacks on someone's hard work.

I notice you didn't provide any opinion about the Sun's effects on the climate.
July 2013 was 9 degrees below normal this year.  
May and June were also colder than normal by many degrees.

I still suggest you get a few more blankets and maybe an extra propane tank.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Wroberson said:
> ...



No, sir, they actually didn't.  And your "statistician" is McIntyre, who lost any credibility he might have had long ago.  Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this nonsense Ed Hoskins is promoting.  But you knew that.


----------



## gslack (Aug 1, 2013)

Nah what ya did was gloss over your getting caught in your BS..

You tried to fuss at someone over their non-peer reviewed source, and do it using an even less reliable source.. You didn't even know skeptical science was a warmer blog... And ignoring the post that points this crap you pulled out doesn't make it go away. it just makes you look dishonest..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 1, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> I never said it was peer reviewed.
> Believe who and what you want.
> All I see are the defensive attacks on someone's hard work.



O-M-G.  EPIC FAIL!



> I notice you didn't provide any opinion about the Sun's effects on the climate.



Of course.  Because any suggestion that the sun's output has not been accounted for, and that it explains global warming (which you people alternately agree and disagree is occurring) is nonsense.



> July 2013 was 9 degrees below normal this year.



Since June's global climate data just came out, and showed it being the fifth warmest June on record, you can't know what July did globally.  I know you guys depend utterly on the crap Bob Tinsdale and Roy Spencer spew on a regular basis, but do wait for the official tally to be published before you start drooling.




> May and June were also colder than normal by many degrees.



You really should have your Kool-Aid checked because, damn.

June 2013 Global Climate Update | NOAA Climate.gov

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - June 2013


----------



## PMZ (Aug 1, 2013)

gslack said:


> Nah what ya did was gloss over your getting caught in your BS..
> 
> You tried to fuss at someone over their non-peer reviewed source, and do it using an even less reliable source.. You didn't even know skeptical science was a warmer blog... And ignoring the post that points this crap you pulled out doesn't make it go away. it just makes you look dishonest..



If someone had told that you could get dumber I would have said ''no way''. You've proven me wrong.


----------



## gslack (Aug 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Nah what ya did was gloss over your getting caught in your BS..
> ...



LOL, if you can't keep up with the conversation,please shut up...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 1, 2013)

I've never read you engaged in a conversation.  When was it?


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Uhhhhh, yes they did....Gergis et al was removed from the website.  Here's what you get when you click on the original link.  So yes, you are either grossly uninformed or lying....

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Here's the backup of the original....

http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/melbourne.pdf

And here is the letter to McIntyre informing him that the issues HE FOUND were being reviewed.  So, yet again, you and your ilk are WRONG.

"Dear Stephen,

I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 19211990 period, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Thanks, David Karoly

Print publication of scientific study put on hold

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.

We are currently reviewing the data and results."


Gergis et al ?Put on Hold? « Climate Audit


Your credibility is plummeting fast when you ignore reality on such a consistent basis.  You might as well come back as Saigon or whoever you were the last time....


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > I never said it was peer reviewed.
> ...









The failure is all yours.  For THIRTY years your predictions have been all doom and gloom, and for thirty years you have failed.  Now you guys are so sure that what you are pushing is crap that you will no longer make credible, measurable predictions.  That's not science buckwheat, that's charlatanism.

Congrats, you guys are actually less accurate than Sylvia fucking Brown one of the worst "psychics" ever.

Laughable, simply laughable.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Wroberson said:
> ...



How do you figure, seeing as how I showed that he was wrong, above?



> For THIRTY years your predictions have been all doom and gloom, and for thirty years you have failed.



You haven't known me for thirty years, and you certainly cannot point to any predictions I have made, much less any predications that I got wrong.  Making shit up is the same as lying, dude.  Does it make you proud to be known as a liar?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Wroberson said:
> ...



For 30 years you've been out of touch with reality.  Most notably science.  Thats nowhere near a record.  There are still those who deny a spheroidal earth 1600 years later.


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now, with the drop off in solar activity, it is looking ever more like Svensmark's theory is the accurate one.

Once upon a time there was a nice correlation between CO2 rise and global temp rise.  That stopped at least 15 years ago.  Now.........you've got nuthin, nuthin at all but ad homs and attacking the "credentials" of the sceptics that regularly skewer your (once again a generic) claims.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Wrong again, us usual. It's almost like science doesn't like you and refuses to behave as you'd prefer.

What has global warming done since 1998?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now,



Who only exist in your head, given how successful AGW science has been in its predictions. That would be why it has such credibility. Let us know when denialism has the same decades of success behind it.

And yeah, we know, anyone outside of your fantasy world is a liar by definition. So go on, do your usual screaming of "liar!" at everyone. Get it out of your system.



> with the drop off in solar activity, it is looking ever more like Svensmark's theory is the accurate one.



Warming went the opposite way Svensmark's cosmic ray theory said it would, hence Svensmark is conclusively proven wrong. No matter. With denialism, you can shift your theories every week, and even simultaneously embrace contradictory theories. With that cult, it's not about making sense, it's about throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something sticks, about simply spouting the maximum number of attacks on the dirty warmers


----------



## gslack (Aug 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I've never read you engaged in a conversation.  When was it?



The next time someone cries about me being mean, I can point to crap posts like this from ignorant trolls as why...

Want to know why I am so intolerant of you and your clones socko?  Take a good look at what you post daily.. Either you are rambling your half-baked nonsense full of crap you pull out of your butt, or you are trolling for effect... Not a genuine bone in you..

Oh look I see the admiral grew a pair and came back to save you.. How nice... What's wrong admiral? New clone falling so quickly?


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







You must be Gavin.  I think that is the only site you ever post links to.  Of course they are wrong.....


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I use "you" as a descriptor for all of the failed AGW scientists and their claims which to date have not occurred and now,
> ...









What have you guys ever predicted accurately?  Do tell!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 2, 2013)

So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP.  How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?

Answer =  zero  and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP.  How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?
> 
> Answer =  zero  and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.



Actually, it has been addressed a number of times.  That the answer wasn't what you wanted or expected is no one else's problem but yours.  But let's look at the OP for a moment, shall we?



> The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.



Problems with his thesis are:

1) He makes an unsupported assumption that the IPCC position is incorrect.  Unsupported because it is simply a statement of opposition to the IPCC position, not a valid argument presented with evidence backing up the statement.  If the IPCC had made their statements in the same way, they'd be the laughing stock on the planet.  But for some reason, he gets a pass when he does it.

2) He makes another (qualified) assumption that if the IPCC position is incorrect, then somehow the climate will shrug off its heat build up with out even bothering to suggest how that is even physically possible.  The heat has to go somewhere.  It doesn't get magically transported to Vulcan and solve our problem.  If it is not being radiated back into space, then it stays in the atmosphere or is absorbed into the land, the biosphere, the sea, and/or all of the above.

Either way, without presenting supporting evidence, his thesis is untenable, to say the least.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 2, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I've never read you engaged in a conversation.  When was it?
> ...



Is this an example of you in conversation?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP.  How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?
> 
> Answer =  zero  and even if the magic existed to some small degree,(which it doesn't) the amount would be so small as to be hopelessly lost within natural variation.



Let's see.  You have no theories that explain how AGW does not exist,  no data,  no peer reviewed science.  All you can claim is that you don't want it to exist because then the media entertainers that you've mistaken for news reporters would be right and you would not look like the cultist that you are. 

Not much to believe in.  Science vs Fox News.


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP.  How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?
> ...



Spencer wrote that article not long after he published a paper that demonstrated how clouds react to excess available heat by pumping it above the cloud tops in a manner that is finer grained and more localized than climate models handle clouds. 

Why do you get to claim everything ever mentioned by the IPCC while denying Spencer even his own work?


Climate sensitivities is going to be a big issue with AR5. The science based working groups are going to scale back the presumed positive feedbacks while the politically based third working group that predicts consequences of global warming will continue to use old estimates and carry on with projections of doom. Just wait and see. The report is already in its final stages and I don't see it being changed significantly. The political side is going to ignore the science side.


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So 64 pages in and none of the warmers can answer the OP.  How much warming is our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere causing?
> ...




None of the major skeptics deny that CO2 has an influence. They argue that the climate system has homeostatic mechanisms that compensate rather than exacerbate the predicted impact. The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> [.......The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.



And you base that clam on exactly what observed, empirical, repeatable evidence?


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [.......The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.
> ...



I base it on hundreds of years of scientific inquiry that have investigated the properties of gases, elements, light, and equilibriums.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 2, 2013)

westwall said:


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



You must be 'wrong way Corigan'  trying to explain how you ended up in Ireland on a trip from NY to California.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 2, 2013)

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



LOL, you and ifitzpmz, your rep hasn't gone up at all now.. SO what's up dude why are you contantly at 11-13 rep? I think it's a socking penalty...But please explain..


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?



And as if we needed more evidence that PMZ is an idiot..


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?



The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI. 

Many of the cited papers in AR4 were specifically prepared to be included in the report. One journal printed an issue after the release of AR4 that had more than 80 percent of its articles cited. Where is the error checking besides rushed 'pal review'?

The IPCC is not as pristine as you think even if you ignore such whoppers as Himalayagate or the false claim that only peer reviewed sources were used.


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


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



SO then you don't have anything specific.. Got it... Haven't you taken a moment to realize that you support a theory that not only can you not prove, BUT requires so much faith and is so fragile,anyone with an alternate theory must be purged... LOL, dude even YOU can only logically argue it so far and then you stomp off in a huff...

Does the reality that there is as much "evidence" for your theory as their is mine or SSD's really ever enter your mind? Yours is a mathematical construct Ian, it exists nowhere else..


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2013)

Gslack- my evidence is all encompassing, from many converging fields. I don't have to throw out anything it is part of the equilibrium. SSDD is interested in pv=nrt. I think that is a majorpart of the equilibrium but it does little to explain effects from small changes in the atmoshere. I have no idea what your theory is because all you ever do is insult people.

I cannot understand how anyone can think changing conditions will not affect the equilibrium. Anyone who has taken any science knows that a change in one place will affect something elsewhere. We know increased CO2 causes a change, what we don't know is exactly what that change will be.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Wow, I've heard of moving the goalpost, but man, you moved the entire country in which the goalpost was located!  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Wroberson said:
> ...



Au contraire. That person made specific claims that I showed were not only not true, but were outright lies.  I predict that you folks will attempt to move more goalposts, or attempt to divert attention to your lies by changing the subject completely and/or trying to project your own failings on others.  This is going to get interesting, for sure.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Train wreck after train wreck that have long been refuted.



> that article not long after he published a paper that demonstrated how clouds react to excess available heat by pumping it above the cloud tops in a manner that is finer grained and more localized than climate models handle clouds.



Prime example of one of his train wrecks that was refuted, as he has already admitted.



> Why do you get to claim everything ever mentioned by the IPCC while denying Spencer even his own work?



Because Spencer long ago lost whatever credibility and respect he may have earned.



> Climate sensitivities is going to be a big issue with AR5.



They are always an issue.  One cannot study the climate without accounting for climate sensitivities.  Thanks for reminding us, Mr. Obvious.



> The science based working groups are going to scale back the presumed positive feedbacks while the politically based third working group that predicts consequences of global warming will continue to use old estimates and carry on with projections of doom. Just wait and see. The report is already in its final stages and I don't see it being changed significantly. The political side is going to ignore the science side.



It is certain that the deniers will ignore whatever science comes out of it.  I am willing to bet that I could set my clock to that prediction.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Erm, then you won't mind detailing those "homeostatic mechanisms, and how they "compensate" for the greenhouse effect, will you?

By the way, skeptics don't deny that CO2 has an influence.  Deniers, however, do.


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> Gslack- my evidence is all encompassing, from many converging fields. I don't have to throw out anything it is part of the equilibrium. SSDD is interested in pv=nrt. I think that is a majorpart of the equilibrium but it does little to explain effects from small changes in the atmoshere. I have no idea what your theory is because all you ever do is insult people.
> 
> I cannot understand how anyone can think changing conditions will not affect the equilibrium. Anyone who has taken any science knows that a change in one place will affect something elsewhere. We know increased CO2 causes a change, what we don't know is exactly what that change will be.



Ian you run from every challenge to your theory so seriously, you are full of it.. And the only reason I ever insulted you was the way you responded to me or anybody else who dares to question your theory.. I remember you insulting me instead of answering a question so many times it is ridiculous. I also remember you playing obtuse when you reach a point you can't debate. 

As soon as your theory is questioned and you can't defend it, you turn into a sniveling little weasel or run away. And the worst part is you lack the spine to insult people directly, instead you play dumb and insult their intelligence or try some other weasel method. You think it's not actually not insulting someone if you do it like a cowardly punk? 

Personally I'd rather be an intolerant prick, than a weasel or meally mouthed punk.. At least people know where they stand with me. For those unaccustomed to hidden insults or sarcasm, you may seem civil, but people with the proper social skills, will always spot you for the coward and weasel you are.. 

And as for your simplification, or claim regarding changing the sytem and equilibrium.. No one is saying any such thing, or opposing it. The problem is you are assuming the changes manifest in the way your pet theory claims, yet there has been NO proof of that yet. What I am saying for one thing is that perhaps the theory is flawed and the reality is my contention has as much scientific evidence that yours does if not more.

You agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely changes form? I hope so.. That being the case we can also assume that once that energy is used or changes form, we cannot re-use that energy within the same system to do the same task with out some kind of machine or mechanism to accomplish it.. If we can agree to that point, why do you still adhere to back-radiation?

Back-radiation is not needed in nature. It's a superflous bit of nonsense only needed in one scenario. And that is to prove AGW theory. You tell me what is more likely, that in this one instance, all natural laws are suddenly pliable and malleable to conform to the theory, or is it likely that the theory is flawed?

It's a completely silly pretense Ian, and what's more you know it by now. Why else do you run after a certain point in a debate to prove it? Because logically you cannot prove it beyond a mathematical possibility. It's another one of those things that may be mathematically possible, but somehow doesn't prove likely in the real world. Yet you ignore that and call if fact anyway...

Time to get off your scientific high horse and stop assuming yourself or your "gods" correct  in all things simply because they or you say so...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?
> ...



So you are saying that they should have admitted for refereed acceptance, unpublished, non-refereed material posted on political blogs?  Not going to happen.  If you believe something along these lines did happen, present your case here, now.


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Organman, you perpetual 13 rep clones are getting less credibility by the post.. You're trying to put words in his mouth, and doing a porr job of it.. You keep that tactic going and all that defending you received earlier will dry up quick..

You somehow got a by from some people on here. I was not fooled and you have so far posted and behaved in the manner which I said you would. SOfar not a single shred of the credentials you claimed to have are showing in your posts. So far all I have seen is the same tired posting style we see from any number of cones here. You claim scientific superiority yet use tactics like that one. He says one thing, you try and make itr seem something else.. That's not scientific, that's juvenile..

Please keep posting like this and I can shout "I TOLD YOU SO!" for as long as I wish..


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




I am against tailor made papers being concocted and published at the last moment for inclusion in the IPCC reports. I thought I made that clear.

In the specific case of McIntyre demolishing the hockeystick, here is an article putting down a timeline for the needed rebuttal of McIntyre's paper.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Please check it out and identify any dates that you disagree with so that we can investigate further. 

As anyone can see papers friendly to the direction of the lead authors are treated differently, including breaking rules.
.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


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



The only people who believe that the hockey stick has been refuted is the small body of mostly non-scientist political bloggers, and their scientifically illiterate rightwing minions. Are you their spokesperson?


----------



## gslack (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Classic divert... Plan on defending anything ever? How about answering a question? No?

Nice work socko...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?
> ...



But what science is available to you and not the IPCC?  I'm not sure what you mean by pristine.  This is science.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 2, 2013)

IanC said:


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



What science do you offer that demonstrates that square mile of less ice and snow doesn't reduce earth's albedo? How about the release of  co2 from melting permafrost?


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What science do you offer socko,that explains the fact yours and several other posters with all too similar behavior and methods, all seem to have the same rep for their entire existence here?

LOL, it's okay you haven't answered it yet, and you never will we know socko, we know..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 3, 2013)

There are, of course, many forces that produce the human variability on the spectrum from liberal to reactionary, but one of them is certainly the ability to imagine. To believe in the power of civilized mankind, and our ability to bring about the future that is best for us rather than to be limited to the present. 

Here's a good article picturing what the next ten years of energy progress might bring. Unimaginable to those mesmerized by the present, exciting to those who imagine and bring about the future. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/b...orld-in-energy.html?ref=businessspecial2&_r=0


----------



## PMZ (Aug 3, 2013)

One of the technologies that could emerge as an important gateway to a sustainable future is called Terrapower. The possible next generation of nuclear. It has some deep pockets behind it including Bill Gates. Here's a TED talk by Bill about why he's chosen this from among the almost infinite ways to invest his money for the greater good.

Bill Gates: Innovating to zero! | Video on TED.com


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2013)

yes, yes those are all fine things to work towards and IN THE FUTURE, they will be wonderful I'm sure. But sadly we live in the here and now. We still have to pay for gas and electric and we are still bound by the reality of our situation. 

No one is saying we shouldn't look to the future or research alternate or even replacements to fill our energy needs. In fact I'm a huge fan of Hydrogen fuel cell technologies. But again that is in the future and not NOW...

How much do you think carbon taxes and other such legislation that are in effect a tax on life will help such tech? When we are being taxed for the use of things we cannot do without, what will be the motivation for the benefactors of carbon taxes to seek a cheaper and more abundant source?

Of course you haven't thought of that, you warmers never do, because you think your guys are the good guys and wouldn't do such a thing. 

And that's the problem isn't it.. A few decades ago everyone pretty much trusted religions and churches as well. Just like them, you believe in the total and complete "goodness' of your leaders.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 3, 2013)

Why shouldn't the people causing and profiting from the problems that we are paying FEMA to help those who survive recover from not be paying to solve them?


----------



## IanC (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Tropical thunderstorms are the easiest to understand, and I mentioned them obliquely in the OP. They are powered by available energy and once formed, move energy many orders of magnitude faster than radiation. If they form a couple of minutes earlier in the day that completely negates any surplus energy from increased CO2. Tropical waters have a narrow range of maximum temperature regulated by cloud activity.


----------



## IanC (Aug 3, 2013)

gslack said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Gslack- my evidence is all encompassing, from many converging fields. I don't have to throw out anything it is part of the equilibrium. SSDD is interested in pv=nrt. I think that is a majorpart of the equilibrium but it does little to explain effects from small changes in the atmoshere. I have no idea what your theory is because all you ever do is insult people.
> ...





You are boring. State YOUR position. I am tired of you nibbling around the edges of other peoples statements, making out of context criticisms.

I don't expect you to do it but I would enjoy the laugh


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I have made my postition very clear on numerous occassions.. asshole, All you have done is scoff at any and every other opinion on the matter. If it doesn't come from you or your hero spencer, than you either dismiss it outright or try and use the smug BS to insult them..

My position is on the side of realistic science. Not the garbage from either the warmer sides.. And yes that means you too.. Luke-warmer, my ass.. Dude you defend trenberth, you defend backradiation, and the only thing you DO disagree with is the way SOME scientists either use or interpret the data.. How many times can they get the data wrong before you can question the theory? 

If you cannot prove the theory any better than you have sofar, why not question the theory? If you have to keep going further away from fact to prove the theory, the theory is unsound...

Dude earlier you tried to prove back-conduction by citing virtual photons in order to defend backradiation.. If that wasn't a fine example of somebody reaching and grasping at straws I don't know what is..

If you have to do that much reaching, what's wrong with a healthy look at the theory from a proper perspective? Why assume it fact despite they thmselves do not call it such? Spencer himself in his latest book has backpeddled and stated it can be calculated mathematically, instead of his usual statements of it being fact. Yest you don't even waiver a bit.. In your mind it's a fact..

The plain and simple truth is, there is no physical proof for backradiation, it's not needed for any reason other than to prove this one theory. And you don't have an issue with that?

You know as well as I do, your theory fails under scrutiny, you have seen it here time and again. 

The facts tell us a few things. Heat flows flows from hot to cold and not the reverse without work being done to accomplish it. You can call it net heat flow toyour hearts desire but it will not change a thing. Be it net, or absolute the end result is still from hot to cold. Another fact tells us that energy cannot be re-used in the same system to accomplish the same task. Those two facts alone negate your theory. How can the same energy be used toheat the same system twice? it can't period..

When you can recognize and mentally understand what duality means, you can perhaps understand that treating light as only our understanding of a particle, negates the wave-like properties and the principles that accompany it. Can you visualize in your mind the concept? Can you? I don't think so, because all you ever do is treat it as a particle..

ANother concept you fail to grasp is the fact a photon is a quanta of light or EM radiation. That is the smallest packet of.. It has force... That force is a factor, whether you accept it or not.. Especially when the duality aspect is taken into account.  A wave/particle, bearing some force, how can a weaker but in all other aspects similar force-bearing wave particle not only oppose the greater one coming in but in fact effect change in that source? It cannot simple...

Now you want more clarity, or would you rather I pull somebody else's explaination off the net? I felt my words would be best to avoid any claims of "slayer science" or any other excuses you like to pull...


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Why shouldn't the people causing and profiting from the problems that we are paying FEMA to help those who survive recover from not be paying to solve them?



They are ya dumbass...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 3, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Any body in space must,  will,  can't prevent,  maintaining energy balance. Radiant energy in equals radiant energy out.  If in is greater than out,  warming.  If out is greater than in,  cooling.  What has to happen to get the excess out, can get complicated and there may be a significant delay.  But it the entire system cannot source or sink energy in perpetuity. It is not possible.


----------



## IanC (Aug 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You are naïve if you believe science is cut and dried. 

Why do you so easily believe the motivations of sceptical are evil and wrong while also believing concensus scientists have only the purest of motives?

The IPCC reports are not neutral.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 3, 2013)

IanC said:


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



We're discussing the leading edge of "Climate Change" just this year. The latest "warming is hiding in the deep ocean" is another example of negative compensations. THe old view that surface warming of the ocean would SLOW the natural uptake of atmos CO2 is now in serious doubt. Because the heat "hiding" in the ocean CAN'T affect weather and it CAN'T substantially change the CO2 uptake as QUICKLY as thought. So realizing the effect that a huge heatsink has on the silly surface temp. numbers is actually quite a huge capitulation for runaway positive feedbacks that CATASTROPHIC AGW is built on.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Are you really trying to say that ocean temperature has no effect on the weather?  Thats bizarre.


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









Read what he wrote again....slower....


----------



## PMZ (Aug 4, 2013)

''Because the heat "hiding" in the ocean CAN'T affect weather''


----------



## PMZ (Aug 4, 2013)

I think that there are those here who are confused about the nature of energy.  When heat is added to a pot of water the fact that the water is heated and boiled doesn't mean that the energy was used up.  It's just transferred to the water and steam.  Where it can be recovered again.  

The energy in fossil fuels is solar energy.  Captured during the Carboniferous Period and available today. 

The only energy available is from the conversion of matter to energy here or by the sun.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 4, 2013)

For those who are into science rather than politics. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy


----------



## PMZ (Aug 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



They are more neutral than you are.  You are committed to prove them wrong with no science to support your preformed opinion. I don't read any conclusions in their positions that aren't well supported by science.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> For those who are into science rather than politics.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy



From the reference above and the main reason why AGW is scientifically irrefutable. 

''The sum of all the forms of energy inside a volume of space can only change by the amount of energy leaving or entering the volume.''


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



This thread is what it must be like for the teacher who pulls constant detention duty aint it?? 

To the dear troll ---
What drives WEATHER is SURFACE temp --- not 0.1deg changes at 700m down...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 4, 2013)

What drives weather is energy being transferred among media until it finds a way out of the system by the force of elevated systemic temperature and therefore higher energy radiation.


----------



## gslack (Aug 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What drives weather is energy being transferred among media until it finds a way out of the system by the force of elevated systemic temperature and therefore higher energy radiation.



Energy from the surface.. Jesus man, they held your hand and helped you and you still fight it..

What the hell "media" do you think you are referring to moron?... The sun heats the surface, the heated surface warms the atmosphere, and convection does it's thing.. 

Dude seriously, you can't be anymore ignorant..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 4, 2013)

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

Now the law states that, "Any object that has mass when stationary (thus called rest mass), equivalently has rest energy as can be calculated using Albert Einstein's equation E = mc2. Rest energy, being a form of energy, can be changed to or from other forms of energy. As with any energy transformation, the total amount of energy does not increase or decrease in such a process. From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy."

"Similarly, all energy manifests as an equivalent amount of mass. For example, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase could be measured."

The bottom line of all these statements is the same from the perspective of systems earth. Energy from the sun, once it enters the earth system, warms whatever media it encounters until the temperature of all systems, over time, is high enough to energize the incoming heat to break through whatever barriers that exist, and radiate off into space. Then equilibrium is restored. No exceptions. It's just how thermodynamics works. 

This plus the nature of greenhouse gasses plus the fact that burning fossil fuels causes the release of GHGs into earth's atmosphere make AGW scientifically inevitable and inarguable. There is no other possibility. 

But, that's not the problem. 

The problem is the change in weather caused by AGW, from the climate that we built civilization around. 

So, the more we burn fossil fuels, the greater AGW will inevitably be, the greater will be the changes to the weather we have adapted to, and the greater will be the cost of adapting to the new climate. The greater the cost of adapting to the new climate, the more compelling is the urgency to limit AGW by converting our energy infrastructure to sustainable ASAP.

It's all economics. Minimizing the total cost.

We are, of course, spending billions each year already on changing our energy infrastructure to sustainable. But the current evidence shows that what we are spending is not the least expensive path. A significantly higher rate will save us total cost.

So the decision. Spend more of our resources now to save future generations what might well be for them unaffordable. 

Step up to the plate. 

Will we be responsible enough at this critical time? 

Conservatives say no. Let's put our heads in the sand and pretend ignorance. 

Liberals say yes. It's not only responsible but ripe with economic opportunity. 

What do you say?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 4, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What drives weather is energy being transferred among media until it finds a way out of the system by the force of elevated systemic temperature and therefore higher energy radiation.
> ...



Uh, gslack, that is exactly what he said. Just in terms that a scientist would use. And you forgot the ocean in your little speil. The ignorance demonstrated here is yours, ignorance concerning science and language.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.
> 
> After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.
> 
> ...



LOL, you nincompoop...

Einsteins own words...

Quote by Einstein: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can o...

*Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.*


&#8213; Albert Einstein

When you are done re-writing the laws of physics let us know tweaker..

And the fact oldsocks tries to defend you... CLassic... ROFL..


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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



Oh no it isn't oldoscks.. He just showed himself for a loon again, and like before we have another warmer faithful trying tocover for him... Pathetic.. LOL, the surface.. Get it? The ocean surface, the earth surface, the surface of the roof of your house, the surface.. Moron..LOL

Want to defend his latest nonsense? He just re-wrote the law of conservation of energy, want to take a crack at defending that?

ROFL


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


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



Slackerman has to be regarded as a special case of scientifically retarded.  He often agrees with me and doesn't realize it.  He is a professional disagreer too.  He likes to hang around scientific circles hoping that some will rub off,  but when that does happen he's not alert enough to realize it.  

Sad case.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

One of the favors that the Slackster does for me with every post is his tag line. He believes that it insults me when in fact it insults him. He's just not able to understand the sense that those two statements make. 

For instance, I might say that "John Brown's life is over". Slackster would like to sell that as meaning the same as  "life is over". 

The question of course being what chance does a person not able to understand that simple logic have in the complex world of science?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

A good WSJ artical about the "traveling wave reactor" technology and how important it is to foster innovation to create the future that we need. 

TerraPower, Bill Gates and the Reactor - WSJ.com

We can hide from our problems or we can aggressively pursue solving them. Our individual choices along that spectrum will be determined by our faith in mankind. The world has always be built by "can doers" but lately it seems that they've been hampered by past, rather than future, worshipers.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I understand why you want to have complete faith in the legitimacy of the IPCC. Unfortunately the reality is not so uncomplicated.

Himalayagate and Amazongate both had the full backing of the IPCC, and they were defended until the evidence was overwhelmingly against them. What makes you so sure that other areas that are not so unequivocal are not also being defended because of past agreement rather than the preponderance of evidence? The hockeystick graph and climate sensitivities immediately spring to mind.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

What gives me faith in science is the scientific process and the mindset of those who dedicate their lives to it. 

I've seen no credible science from deniers. Only obfuscation. 

The simple conservation of energy applied to planet earth demands AGW as the only response to rising atmospheric GHG concentrations. 

On the other hand there is huge money at stake in denial politics. 

If I follow the money and the politics I see the problem completely.  If I follow the science I see both theoretical and empirical sense.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse.  Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?
> 
> I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse.  Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).



That's right.. Blame the Post Office for delivering the bad news.. 

WHO exactly did the hacking? You don't know -- do ya? T'was not a random attack. Could have been done in concert with a "whistle-blower" member of the Climate Science community --- couldn't it? 

Are whistle-blowers criminals? Do they need evidence to back up their assertions? Of course they do.. 

Much good came of this exposure..


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?
> 
> I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse.  Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).



Has anyone here said it was legal? Are you equally offended when govt confidential material is hacked and released? What is your opinion on Gleick committing fraud against Heartland? What did you think of the forged document Gleick added to the real material? At least Climategate only released real documents, not forgeries whose sole purpose was to slander. Who is worse in your opinion, Gleick or the Climategate hacker?

Should Gleick be allowed to keep his honoured positions with the AGU and other organizations? What would you consider appropriate punishment for the hacker, if he had been identified?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

'' Much good came of this exposure.''

For instance?


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > For those who are into science rather than politics.
> ...



The evidence of energy imbalance is sketchy at best, and is dependant on assumptions made in computer models that produce values that are smaller than the error bars. We have been seeing many systems, such as GRACE, that are being scaled back to more conservative numbers as more data is available to calibrate the calculations.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> '' Much good came of this exposure.''
> 
> For instance?



We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.  J Robert Oppenheimer.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


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



There is nothing at all sketchy about the behavior of GHGs nor their increasing concentration in our atmosphere. And the result of previous times in earth's history when they were there.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

THis is just one pledge I've taken for ethics.. Maybe OrogenicMan wants to tell me if it covers exposes fraud that jeopardizes the public interest... 



> 1.to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, *and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;*
> 
> 2.to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;
> 
> ...



#9 might be countervailing guidance to hacking someone's emails --- but NOT if I had prior knowledge to suspect that fraud on the public was being committed. 

Ethics probably NEED to be spelled out.. We shouldn't be winging it.. 

WHOEVER did the hacking had reason to suspect ethics violations and public fraud. It was NOT to steal a bunch of personal information..


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




You are very much like konradv, in as much that you have taken one piece of information and have given it far too much importance. The co2 effect is real but much smaller than you think. 

The IPCC often uses legitimate science but the directio and conclusions it comes to are not the only ones consistent with the evidence.

You think that I and other skeptics are trying to'trick you' but you haveto invent implausible reasons for our actions. The vast majority of skeptics not only get no recompense but actually pay a price for their position.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?
> ...



The post office didn't open George's mail and then tell Paul that based on letters they opened, that George has been sleeping with his wife (even though George has only written to Paul's wife to tell her that she was concerned about Paul's erratic behavior at work).  Because if the post office had done that, that would have been just as illegal, and just as unethical as what the deniers have done.

So, we can count you out as an "ethical denier".  Got it.  That's one down.  Anyone else?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?
> ...



So it is okay that national and international laws are broken, as long as the stolen documents are real.  Hmm. So we can also count you out as one of the "ethical deniers".  Got it.  Anyone else?


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?
> 
> I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse.  Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).








Hell no.  The person who released this evidence of the corruption ENDEMIC in the climatological field, it's patent corruption of the peer review process, and it's wholesale fraud is in the finest traditions of the WHISTLEBLOWING tradition.  It wasn't hacked as you very well know, it was RELEASED by an insider who had had enough of the fraud.

You pathetic assholes have your panties in a bunch because you GOT CAUGHT LYING...and instead of addressing the fraud you instead attack the whistleblower.

Fuck you.  And fuck your fraudulent, unethical, selves.  You deserve every negative consequence from your perversion of the scientific method and science in general.  I despise pricks like you who have set the scientific community back decades because of your criminal enterprise.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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







How about you "ethical" types who committed a felony by impersonating someone else to gain access to the files of the right wing think tank a year or so ago?  That was outright criminal behavior.

So, once again, fuck you and your unethical bullshit.  You reap what you sow asshole.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Don't believe this was random criminal act.. There are a lot more prestigious targets than the "climate research center". I think that might get you jeered by fellow random hackers.. 

Whoa.. Answer the questions.. Is it likely this was encouraged by whistle-blowers in the climate science community? Are whistle-blowers criminals when they reveal "protected" information? 

"one down" ---- very funny in a Monty Python sort of way dude.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



I addressed your question. Will you give your opinion on Gleick, and perhaps tell us which hacking crime you consider more egregious.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



LOL, _*"a professional disagreer"*_ ?  ROFL and this isn't a scientific circle so long as you're posting here.. No defense for your stupidity? LOL, of course not now you will either bury the embarassing posts or pretend you didn't just try and make upyour own version of conservation of energy..

What a pathetic display... Dude you couldn't even make this crap up..


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the favors that the Slackster does for me with every post is his tag line. He believes that it insults me when in fact it insults him. He's just not able to understand the sense that those two statements make.
> 
> For instance, I might say that "John Brown's life is over". Slackster would like to sell that as meaning the same as  "life is over".
> 
> The question of course being what chance does a person not able to understand that simple logic have in the complex world of science?



Really? ROFL, please explain how you saying the science is over and then the science is never over, in the same thread is anything like your claim Bullshitter...

 Busted being an idiot and your excuse is to claim the idiotic shit you said wasn't really idiotic because you say it isn't..

Please keep talking socko, watching the warmers try and hold your juvenile hand and try to dig your foot of your stupid mouth with every other post is priceless..

I don't what gives you warmers more work, the constant screw-ups from your pseudo-scientists, or constantly trying to hold your ignorant hand.. Either way it is hilarious..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


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



I consider any and all hacking for any purpose to be unethical, and illegal.  And by the way, so does the law.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Do you think Gleick should have been punished for his crime?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


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



I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that necessarily includes knowing what the charges are against oneself.  Don't you?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > '' Much good came of this exposure.''
> ...



The science behind the findings of the IPCC have been scrutinized as much as any science ever.  By scientists.  There is no value in it being scrutinized by political hacks and science quacks who are incapable of contributing to the body of knowledge.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



My problem with you is that you advertise yourself as non-objective.  Inclined to disbelieve the science rather than trust science to find the truth.  I don't believe that there is any value to science from non-objective people. 

Plus you have not been able to in any way refute the most basic science of the conservation of energy.  When more energy comes in to any system than goes out it has to warm.  You seem to believe that energy in fact can be destroyed.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?
> ...



Science has been going on for a long time with no help from the likes of you.  To propose that climate science is the lone exception to the ethics that all science requires is bizarre to say the least.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Dude you just tried tore-write the law of conservation of energy in a previous post in this thread.. Going so far as to write whatever you felt like and trying topass it off as factual.. 

Give us a break already.. You're either high, or a kid... Too much BS that goes nowhere in your posts to be taken seriously...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I did say it would be interesting, didn't I?  That's three strikes against the three stooges, eh?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

I don't know who started the notion that loud politics trumps sound science,  but he'll go down in history as the father of America's dark ages.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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







He fully confessed to his criminal behavior.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Climatology is the modern version of Lysenkoism.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

westwall said:


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



If it is criminal behavior we are talking about,. what are the charges?  When will he appear in court?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Oh dear.  It seems you've been staring at your own reflection in the mirror for far too long.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

'Climatology is the modern version of Lysenkoism.' 

Climatology is science and therefore well beyond your reach.  Stick to Roller derby.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









That's a good question.  My guess is it is similar to Holders decision to let the NBPP go after their clear violation of voting laws.

Below is the Heartland Int. legal brief.

Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points | Heartland Institute


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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









  I just watched a hitman get hit by a piano on Comedy Central....that's what your posts remind me of!  Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



We're asking THIS govt to prosecute Gleick?? The same govt that just 2 months ago had their EPA acknowledge leaking confidential business information on farmers to far left-wing agitators??? 

Senators Call Out the EPA For Leaking Private Info of Farmers to Radical Environmental Groups - Katie Pavlich

Good luck with that..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

Certainly the biggest scientific realization of the 20th century was that matter and energy are different states of the same stuff. Matter can become energy and visa versa. 

Nobody would think of arguing that if you add more matter to a container than you take away there will be an increase of matter in the container. Same with energy. 

If you add more energy to a system than you take away, the system will become more energetic, read warmer.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 5, 2013)

It's certainly true that while the science of AGW is settled, the politics are not.

However, nobody in a position to contribute to solving the problem is interested in denial politics. There is too much opportunity in the solving of the problem. 

Therefore, the net result of all of this noise is merely conservatism falling further behind. 

Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2013)

PMZ- Whenever you say something stupid one of two things happens.. Either you quickly bury it by posting to yourself over and again, stating whatever you find that may sound scientific, no mattter how irrelevant it may be to the subject. Or we get some other posters trying todefend your silly nonsense...

ROFL, dude you are a smorgasbord of bullshit..


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Gleick admitted to fraudulently acquiring Heartland documents. He stopped short of admitting that he was the author of the forged (and most controversial and slanderous) document. The justice Dept did not charge him and the only fallout from the affair was that his name was withdrawn from consideration for chair of the ethics committee of the AGU. Hardly even a slap on the wrist.


----------



## IanC (Aug 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I have never said energy is being destroyed. Give your head a shake. I have always said as one route is being choked off by CO2 other routes take up the excess and carry the energy past the near surface bottleneck. Some increase in surface temperature is bound to happen as the equilibrium is changed, but much less than the full amount restricted by CO2. Simply consider the escape of energy from a planet with no atmosphere, to one with an atmosphere, to one with non-water GHGs, to one with water. The equilibrium goes from 100% radiation and little heat sink, to a large heat sink with conduction convection evapotranspiration and only a small percentage of radiation at near surface altitudes. The greenhouse gases were already working at almost the same capacity before we burned the first fossil fuel. CO2 only interacts with 8% of surface BB radiation but it was already at a high enough concentration to tatally disperse that radiation in 10 meters. So what if it only takes 9.9 meters now. The energy is taken to the cloud tops mostly by other means of transport where the density of the atmosphere allows much easier egress of radiation.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



ROFL, the dude just tried to re-write the law of conservation of energy,and now he's embarrassed.. So he's going to try and pretend someone else said it...And in true weasel fashion,he figures since you didn't correct him, you don't know any better...


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Certainly the biggest scientific realization of the 20th century was that matter and energy are different states of the same stuff. Matter can become energy and visa versa.
> 
> *Nobody would think of arguing that if you add more matter to a container than you take away there will be an increase of matter in the container*. Same with energy.
> 
> *If you add more energy to a system than you take away, the system will become more energetic,* read warmer.



LOL, stoner, you just contradicted yourself..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


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



He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud.  So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



If he admitted to fraudulently getting them, than it is fraudulent, hence fraud..

You warmers make a new definition for a term every time you need it..


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

gslack said:


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








I guess it depends on what your definition of is...is....  These unethical pricks bring new meaning to the term scumbag.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Right.  Because you would never call someone who hacks into secure government servers to be unethical pricks or scumbags.  Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I think that your problem is that your non-objective perspective is trying to force fit unnecessary complexity into the problem.

There is the big picture and there are the details. Both have to be satisfied. 

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur. 

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat. 

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting. 

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation,  they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved. 

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now. 

That's the state of science now. 

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled. 

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong. 

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis. 

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit. 

If I were you, I'd be very careful in those waters.


----------



## IanC (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



I guess we will just have to agree that we disagree then. Gleick admitted to acquiring the documents via means that fit the law on fraud. Not being prosecuted does not mean innocent, and I feel that the climate science community gave itself another ethical black eye by handwaving away an obvious transgression.

I believe that the climategate emails were released by an insider, perhaps even someone like Briffa with the help of a tech savy student. He was in very bad health and perhaps his conscious got to him. 

While the actions of the whistleblower were illegal, it is hard not to believe that the overall consequences are positive. I imagine the Harry_read_me files brought some much needed attention to the hadcru data files and programs.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


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



In the eyes of the law, that's EXACTLY what it means.


----------



## IanC (Aug 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Another case of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium. I believe it has homeostatic mechanisms that buffer changing conditions, you think we are perched on the precipice waiting to fall off.

My politics are usually left wing, bordering on socialist, but tempered by rational thought on programs that give little or no benefit for the expense.

My scientific bent is towards being sceptical of just about everything until it has been demonstrated to be likely. CAGW does not meet my requirements but the general case of CO2 changing the radiation balance does. 

We shall see who is right eventually.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





> The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium



Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement.  Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium.  It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.


----------



## IanC (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



If I contest a speeding ticket and they decide not to prosecute that does not mean I wasn't speeding or even that I wouldn't have been found guilty.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I think that our realization of what you say has been blunted by modern technology. If one stands outside there are hardly any two seconds just alike. The entire globe is as restless as a dog with fleas trying to get comfortable and has been that way for nearly ever. 

Returning the conditions in the atmosphere to where they were the other times that the earth had an inhospitable climate should not surprise anyone as to the results. An increasingly inhospitable climate.


----------



## IanC (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I suppose you are just arguing definitions of words rather than debating concepts but it is profoundly stupid to ignore the myriad of systems in place and working to distribute heat around the planet. As well as the myriad of other systems that dovetail into those first systems.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Name one system that is ever in equilibrium.  You can't because it doesn't exist.  The climate?  Not in equilibrium.  The oceans?  Ditto.  The lakes?  Ditto.  The rivers?  Ditto.  The crust?  Ditto.  The Mantle?  Ditto.  The core?  Ditto.  Life?  Not in equilibrium.  If the Earth was even near equilibrium, it would be a cold, dead rock.


----------



## IanC (Aug 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



You think warm with more plant food is inhospitable. I don't.

Change is always going to happen, I'm just happy we aren't dealing with dropping temps which would really mess up humanity.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Messing up humanity (and a lot more):


----------



## PMZ (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I think that sea levels and rainfall where they were as mankind built civilization would the least costly future in dollars and lives. 

I don't disagree that we won't eventually adapt to a different environment. 

It will be very costly though.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



I've always been surprised that Ian claims to be liberal because he seems to long for stasis like a conservative.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...











I guess you havn't seen my posts about Snowden then?


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

IanC said:


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







Gleick's crimes would have been Identity Theft and Conspiracy.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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









Sure thing.  So the fact that Bush was never charged for any crimes means he's innocent too.  And Cheney and every right wing politician you've ever hated.  Good to know!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 6, 2013)

What crimes did they commit?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Innocent until proven guilty.  That's the law.  You may or may not be a strong believer in the rule of law.  I am.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



All that education you claimed to have and so far all wee see is talking points, rhetoric and standard al gore climate science... And now this...

LOL, you don't know what equilibrium means... ROFL, dude it does not mean that all the smaller systems(weather storms, pressure, so on) within the main system (earth and sun) are unchanging. it simply means that as far as the main system (earth and sun) they are in thermodynamic equilibrium. Not in absolute terms ( surface temp, et.) but in energy in vs energy out and energy converted. 

Damn dude...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 6, 2013)

When you consider the job asked of the IPCC....... Unify scientists from all parts of the world to a universally agreed upon analysis of AGW...... Sponsored by a weak UN........ Publish periodically a position paper that all of those scientists can support on the state of the science that will be used as the basis for global political decisions....... The whole thing came off remarkably smoothly........ Especially considering the magnitude of the efforts to discredit it.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Most systems found in nature are, in point of fact, not in thermodynamic equilibrium; for they are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously and discontinuously subject to flux of matter and energy to and from other systems and to chemical reactions.  And that is because most, if not all Earth processes are inhomogeneous.  There is, in fact, an entire branch of physics set up to study this fact.  It is called non-equilibrium thermodynamics.  You didn't know this?  Damn.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Most systems found in nature are, in point of fact, not in thermodynamic equilibrium; for they are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously and discontinuously subject to flux of matter and energy to and from other systems and to chemical reactions.  And that is because most, if not all Earth processes are inhomogeneous.  There is, in fact, an entire branch of physics set up to study this fact.  It is called non-equilibrium thermodynamics.  You didn't know this?  Damn.



If you want to respond to my post quote it...

Nice try at a dodge but he wasn't talking about smaller systems within the atmosphere or planet, he was talking about the Sun and the Earth, which I explained in the post you just refused to quote from...

The earth and sun; BIG SYSTEM, in a vacum, only effective energy transfer is through radiation.

Systems within the earth; SMALLER SYSTEMS, not in a vacum, systems interacting with other systems and even other forms of energy, both direct and indirect forcings, so forth and so on..

Thermodynamically the sun and earth are a system. Everything within the earth are seperate systems who may rely on that bigger system to varying degrees, but still seperate systems. Linked but seperate.. Understand?

We are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun, or more specifically with the amount of energy we receive from the sun. When our orbit is closer to the sun we receive more energy than when it's farther away.  A nice graphic for it..






As the energy levels increase (closer) our temps go up and vice-versa. We aren't in thermal equilibrium (temperature) with the sun of course, but we are in thermodynamic equilibrium (energy we receive from the sun) with it.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

That assumes, of course, that the amount of sunlight (energy) the Earth receives remains constant.  Which, of course, is not true even when considering orbital elements of the system because the sun itself is a variable star, that is, it varies its energy output, and because the amount of energy the Earth receives is also dependent on other factors such as cloud cover, moisture content in the atmosphere, the strength of its magnetic field, and many other forcings.  It is also not true that the only effective energy transfer is through radiation.  Absorption is also an effective energy transfer mechanism, and we see that played out in the Arctic; as the ice melts, the ocean there tends to absorb more energy from the sun.  Another example of energy absorption in the Sun-Earth system is the infrared absorption that occurs due to  the greenhouse effect.  So the Sun-Earth system is not, in fact, in dynamic equilibrium.  It is, in fact, a good example of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> That assumes, of course, that the amount of sunlight (energy) the Earth receives remains constant.  Which, of course, is not true even when considering orbital elements of the system because the sun itself is a variable star, that is, it varies its energy output, and because the amount of energy the Earth receives is also dependent on other factors such as cloud cover, moisture content in the atmosphere, the strength of its magnetic field, and many other forcings.  It is also not true that the only effective energy transfer is through radiation.  Absorption is also an effective energy transfer mechanism, and we see that played out in the Arctic; as the ice melts, the ocean there tends to absorb more energy from the sun.  So the Sun-Earth system is not, in fact, in dynamic equilibrium.  It is, in fact, a good example of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.



Good text about the Croll-Milankovitch cycles.

http://theresilientearth.com/files/pdfs/the_resilient_earth-chapter_9.pdf


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> That assumes, of course, that the amount of sunlight (energy) the Earth receives remains constant.  Which, of course, is not true even when considering orbital elements of the system because the sun itself is a variable star, that is, it varies its energy output, and because the amount of energy the Earth receives is also dependent on other factors such as cloud cover, moisture content in the atmosphere, the strength of its magnetic field, and many other forcings.  It is also not true that the only effective energy transfer is through radiation.  Absorption is also an effective energy transfer mechanism, and we see that played out in the Arctic; as the ice melts, the ocean there tends to absorb more energy from the sun.  Another example of energy absorption in the Sun-Earth system is the infrared absorption that occurs due to  the greenhouse effect.  So the Sun-Earth system is not, in fact, in dynamic equilibrium.  It is, in fact, a good example of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.



Your refusal (twice now) to quote the posts you are responding to, shows your intentions..

You can BS all you want to socko, the posts you refuse to quote are factual, and cannot be denied.. The fact is you didn't understand what was meant by equilibrium in this context, and when it was pointed out you are trying to coverr it up by semantical nonsense..

Want to play semantics? Play them with somebody else.. I have zero tolerance for it.. to me it's the last resort of someone trying to save face..

The sun and earth ARE in thermodynamic equilibrium, and the entire scientific community knows this... YOU however seem to either misunderstand the concept of energy vs heat, or just want to save your mistake with a lot of circle talk..

You confuse thermal with thermodynamic.. You also confuse heat with total energy..  There is a difference I explained it to you in the previous posts socko...Thermodynamic is not the same as thermal.. 

But hey you are supposed to be so educated, I am sure you will figure it out someday...Go ahead and defy reality ecause it embarrasses you.. It only makes you look even more like the socko BS artist I called you for...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 7, 2013)

You seem to think that energy and heat are two different things.  They are not.  The Earth is not and has never been in thermodynamic equilibrium.  Its energy budget changes constantly, which is why it is more appropriate to apply non-equilibrium thermodynamics to it.

And for the record, thermo means HEAT energy. Dynamic means CHANGE.  Thermodynamic means change in heat energy.  It originated partially out of the study of heat engines, dude.  Get over yourself already.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> You seem to think that energy and heat are two different things.  They are not.
> 
> And for the record, thermo means HEAT energy. Dynamic means CHANGE.  Thermodynamic means change in heat energy.  It originated partially out of the study of heat engines, dude.  Get over yourself already.



LOL, you don't know squat socko...

First heat is one form of energy, not all energy is heat. If all energy was in fact heat, how would you explain a freezer, refrierator, Air conditioner or any number of other things?

Dude, you are not helping yourself with this silly nonsense...

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Energy
> 
> *In physics, energy is a conserved extensive property of a physical system, which cannot be observed directly but can be calculated from its state.* Energy is of central importance in physics. *It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of energy because of the many forms it may take, but the most common definition is that it is the capacity of a system to perform work.* The definition of work in physics is the movement of a force through a distance, and energy is measured in the same units as work. If a person pushes an object x meters against an opposing force of F newtons, Fx joules (newton-meters) of work has been done on the object; the person's body has lost Fx joules of energy, and the object has gained Fx joules of energy. The SI unit of energy is the joule (J) (equivalent to a newton-meter or a watt-second); the CGS unit is the erg, and the Imperial unit is the foot pound. Other energy units such as the electron volt, calorie, BTU, and kilowatt-hour (1 kWh = 3600 kJ) are used in specific areas of science and commerce.
> 
> ...



Dude if you want to pretend to have all those scientific credentials on this forum, you need to up your game...

Heat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Heat
> 
> *In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred between a system and its surroundings other than by work or transfer of matter.*[1][2][3][4][5] *The transfer of energy can occur in two simple ways, conduction,[6] and radiation,[7] and in a more complicated way called convective circulation. Heat is not a property or component or constituent of a system or body; rather, it describes a process of transfer of energy.*[8]
> *If the surroundings of a system can be described also as a thermodynamic system with a temperature, and it is connected to the system by a pathway for heat transfer, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, heat flow occurs spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system. Consequently, in this circumstance, heat is transfer of energy due purely to temperature gradient or difference.* It is accompanied by an increase in the total entropy of system and surroundings. In a heat engine, which operates in a cyclic process, internal energy of bodies is harnessed to provide useful work, heat being supplied from a hot reservoir, always with an associated discharge of waste heat to a cold reservoir. Through an arrangement of systems and devices, which operate in a cyclic process, called a heat pump, externally supplied work can be used to transfer internal energy indirectly from a cold to a hot body, but such a transfer cannot occur directly between the bodies, without the heat pump.



Notice the bolded and underlined parts... It's telling you the same things I told you 3 times now..

Thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Thermodynamics
> 
> *Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy and work.* It defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that characterize materials and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what laws they change with time. Thermodynamics describes the average behavior of very large numbers of microscopic constituents, and its laws can be derived from statistical mechanics.



See what I mean? The scientific world agrees with me, and your ignorance is tiresome...

Did you really think you could BS your way around here claiming such lofty credentials socko? Think that everyone here is too dumb to catch you when you are this obviously ignorant?

Damn man.. You could have at least done SOME reading on this before the BS claims of your scientific background... Dude I'm asshamed for you...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 7, 2013)

I didn't say that all energy is heat, did I?  Of course I didn't.  But all heat certainly is energy.

As for refrigerators, cold is simply the lack of heat.  End of discussion.

By the way, the Earth is not a closed system, nor is it a homogeneous system, so you can't strictly apply the classic laws of thermodynamics due to that very restriction .  That is why non-equilibrium thermodynamics is more appropriate.

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One fundamental difference between equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics lies in the behaviour of inhomogeneous systems, which require for their study knowledge of rates of reaction which are not considered in equilibrium thermodynamics of homogeneous systems.   Another fundamental difference is the difficulty in defining entropy in macroscopic terms for systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> I didn't say that all energy is heat, did I?  Of course I didn't.  But all heat certainly is energy.
> 
> As for refrigerators, cold is simply the lack of heat.  End of discussion.
> 
> ...



Nice edit job asshat... ROFL, you want to edit your posts and remove your screw ups that's fine by me, just makes you a weasel..

You stated; "energy is heat" in your previous post before your edit job..

When you make a completely unscientific absolute statement like that, you show how far away from any true scientific background you are..

You are a dishonest poster dude...

Who said earth was a closed system? ROFL, now you are going to make my side of the arguement for me? Don't think so schmuck..

LOL, you just tried to deny making the claim that heat is energy, then you decide to defend it anyway with the refrigerator remark??? LOL, okay socko I'll play.. The point was it takes energy to make it happen... get it? Energy makes the machine work, it's not heatof course it's just energy. That energy powers the compressor which does the work. WORK done by energy... MORON..

And as for the link and your semantic BS.. The point was that the earth and sun are in equilibrium.. Not the sun and the climate of the earth, not the sun and the oceans, not even the sun and your grandma's house.. Just the sun and the earth as a whole..

ROFL, you incompetent little fuss.. You screwed up, made a bold and absolute statement, and have spent posts now trying to cover it up with semantics..

You are busted once again, with a new sock, trying to play scientist, again.. LOL, you really, really suck at this act, try another.. BTW, dumbass, why did you state the earth isn't a homogenous sytem, and then use a line from a link where it specifically talks about equilibrium in homogenous systems? Did you misunderstand it or did you just try a weasel BS tactic?

ROFL your hole keeps getting deeper socko..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 7, 2013)

You've lost your ever loving mind, dude.  Quick, see a shrink.  Not once did I say that energy was heat. and so not once did I edit my posts to NOT say that energy was heat.  I did refer to heat energy a number of times. This is just typical misdirection.  Either admit that you were wrong, explain why I am wrong, or get the hell off the pot.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> You've lost your ever loving mind, dude.  Quick, see a shrink.  Not once did I say that energy was heat. and so not once did I edit my posts to NOT say that energy was heat.  I did refer to heat energy a number of times. This is just typical misdirection.  Either admit that you were wrong, explain why I am wrong, or get the hell off the pot.



You're a post editing liar socko..

LOL, you have been wrong from the start.. You claimed you were a scientist, yet had no clue on the difference between thermodynamic and thermal, and that was confirmed in two of your posts now.. 

You called energy heat,and despite your post editing, you tried to defend the claim by deceptively trying to use an inapplicable link.. So why defend what you never said socko?

ROFL, because all you want to do is save face now... Too late.. You already screwed up.. BTW, I already explained to you why you were wrong in 3 posts now.. I say you're wrong, science says you're wrong, and even your post-editing says you're wrong. 

Another fake forum scientist outed, not a shock..I really wish you internet scientists and experts with no jobs would grow the hell up.. Seriously, you can claim to be whatever you want on here, but I don't have to buy it, and if you can't back it up, I won't..  Next time come back as something you CAN pull off, like a janitor or something..

Good day socko scientist number 5...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> You've lost your ever loving mind, dude.  Quick, see a shrink.  Not once did I say that energy was heat. and so not once did I edit my posts to NOT say that energy was heat.  I did refer to heat energy a number of times. This is just typical misdirection.  Either admit that you were wrong, explain why I am wrong, or get the hell off the pot.




Debating with slackjaw is not possible.  His list of infirmaries starts with limited reading skills.  It is sort of fun though in an evil sort of way.  After that the repetition gets boring and just ignoring him seems best.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You've lost your ever loving mind, dude.  Quick, see a shrink.  Not once did I say that energy was heat. and so not once did I edit my posts to NOT say that energy was heat.  I did refer to heat energy a number of times. This is just typical misdirection.  Either admit that you were wrong, explain why I am wrong, or get the hell off the pot.
> ...



Yes, yes junior socko, you are still a twerp and organman is no better at faking it than you are.. Going to explain your CO2 cycle again? Or maybe explain why CO2 though not an element, remains CO2 indefinately and does not break down? 

Or why not explain how,in the same thread, you said the science is settled,and then said the science is never settled?

Or hey! I know,why not gointo one of your ramblings and post to yourself until the embarrassing screw up by sockonumber 5 is burried?

Go away before I make you cry again...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 10, 2013)

Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:













show that the Earth and Sun are NOT in thermal equilibrium, in either direction.  If they were, these lines would be flat.

PS: If I were you, I wouldn't attempt to argue thermodynamics with anyone who ever actually took a  class on the topic.  No... probably shouldn't argue it with anyone at all.

ps: FCT, you might want to have a good look at that second graph before you try badmouthing folks for using sunspot indices as a proxy for TSI.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

There is so much science that Slacksack doesn't know that it's hard to know where to begin. 

For instance,  the dynamic response of weather in reacting to more backradiation. 

Every day there are more GHG molecules in our atmosphere,  leading to more backradiation,  leading to earth and ocean's need to warm to rebalance outgoing radiation with incoming radiation. 

While the need to rebalance is urgent the mechanisms involve slow energy transfer between many media and substantial time lag between problem created and problem solved. By the time that the problem is solved for what we added day X,  we have compounded it substantially with more GHG from subsequent days. 

The energy balance is never done and that's why the one constant is weather.  Of some kind or another.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

Nothing new. Just a very good explanation of earth's energy budget.

Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles


----------



## mamooth (Aug 10, 2013)

For those interested, here's the long and technical 12-part series on how atmospheric radiation works.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

It's not light reading. Naturally, the cultists will scream that it's socialist warmer propaganda and they obviously don't need to look at it. That's one of the things that makes them cultists, their refusal to look at anything that contradicts the cult dogma.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

If any deniers read your reference,  they will learn from it.  That's why they won't.  They'd rather think they're right,  than be right.


----------



## gslack (Aug 10, 2013)

# days later the socks attack the thread... LOL, yes sockos I took a couple days off.. For people not wanting me around and ignoring me, you sure to get bent out of shape whenI  don't respond to you...

ROFL


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho... 

BTW: There is no future in arguing with PMZ -- he will ignore anything you post and simply attack like a rapid mammal. I gave him 8 textbook references on EM IR radiation calculations being BIDIRECTIONAL to back up the concept of "back radiation" in the GreenHouse -- he did 10 pages of ad hominem attacks and posted one 4th grade graphic from NASA on thermo. 

I spent 10 hours trying to make the connection for him. About 10 pages long --- that "debate" was... 
Wouldn't bother me if he tied you up..   Not jealous or anything...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...



The point was that the sunspot index makes an excellent proxy for TSI from the pre-satellite days.  You would have us believe it's the tool of scammers.  It is not.

TSI is a factor but it is a small one.  The largest single factor in the Earth's temperature increase has been the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.  If you want to believe that you know better than the thousands and thousands of scientists who fully accept that point, your welcome to your fantasy.  Just don't expect rational folks to buy it.

Now we know what you think about PMZ.  Any comment about GSlack's debating tactics?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:
> ...



You did get that one thing right. And, when you could defend it, I accepted it. 

Like all of us you have some things right, and some wrong. The wrong things you can't defend, so you run. That's fine with me, but it doesn't entitle you to anyone's respect.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








No, they wouldn't.  The Earth has many factors that affect it and because of its large size it takes years, sometimes centuries for those effects to become manifest.  That's why there is a lag of 400 to 800 years before CO2 levels rise after a major warming event.  It takes that long for warming to work its magic.

The one exception to that rule is a major volcanic eruption.  Those effects are near immediate and universally lead to cooling.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> For those interested, here's the long and technical 12-part series on how atmospheric radiation works.
> 
> Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom
> 
> It's not light reading. Naturally, the cultists will scream that it's socialist warmer propaganda and they obviously don't need to look at it. That's one of the things that makes them cultists, their refusal to look at anything that contradicts the cult dogma.









Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias.  Thus it cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...
> ...








TSI a "small" factor?   That single statement renders you ignorable.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

How convenient for you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




I'm quite certain you pay minimal attention to anyone arguing the validity of AGW.  Your position clearly indicates a complete lack of objectivity.  The evidence in the matter was completely irrelevant to the process of arriving at your conclusions.






Yes, a small factor.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...
> ...



Actually -- I was referring to Mr. GSlack. I take PMZ off ignore once a week just to see if he's taking his meds.. 

No ---  now we got a problem.. Because from the Maunder Min.. the same number of Sunspots DOES NOT (by any stretch) predict the TSI absolute levels. TSI is INDEPENDENT of 11 years cycles and is wonderfully documented to have accounted for a rise in solar insolation of at least 1W/m2 (or .5W/m2 at the surface) since the MMin.. 

How much has CO2 accounted for (even in IPCC terms since 1750)  1.6W/m2 .. You can do that math can'tcha? Their chart is bogus for relative forcing.. That's because in their Charter on Day One of the IPCC --- their mission was to investigate and quantify MAN-MADE warming.. Just doing what the bosses told them to do..

My guess is that THEIR guess about 1.6W/m2 is missing a division by two.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

Well Gee Abraham.. Thanks for REPOSTING that lying sack of "we're here to investigate MAN-MADE warming"   Good timing chief...

Now explain to me how at LEAST 0.35W/m2 becomes 0.14W/m2 with a + 0.2  and -0.nothing error bar..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

1750 to 2005
Long-lived greenhouse gases: 2.6 W/m*2
TSI: Maybe 0.12.

The Greenhouse Effect wins.


----------



## IanC (Aug 11, 2013)

The biggest problem in comparing solar variation to atmospheric back radiation is that laypersons give a false equality to the W/m2 of the two types of energy. Low entropy, low temperature differential atmospheric radiation has relatively little ability to do work. Highly ordered high energy solar insolation is very capable of making change in any area. Backradiation isn't the source of energy for evaporation or heat sink warming, it only changes the conditions that Allow solar to accomplish work.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > For those interested, here's the long and technical 12-part series on how atmospheric radiation works.
> ...



Who calls it the science of doom?  Only deniers.  There is absolutely no reason to listen to them as they are all politically motivated. What they say about science is irrelevant.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm.  That's a pretty powerful change agent.


----------



## IanC (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm.  That's a pretty powerful change agent.



I would be more inclined to agree with your simplistic statements if I believed that you understood that the sun is the dog that wags the tail rather than CO2 as the thermostat for climate.

By Trenberth's energy budget, other than the ' atmospheric window', 75% of the surface energy is already bypassing the near surface bottleneck by non radiative means. You think all incremental CO2 blockage is taken up as atmospheric or surface temperature change, but that is not true because it gets transported by alternate routes. Some does, otherwise the alternates would already be more heavily used but certainly not all, otherwise CO2 theory would not be the failure it is today.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> The biggest problem in comparing solar variation to atmospheric back radiation is that laypersons give a false equality to the W/m2 of the two types of energy. Low entropy, low temperature differential atmospheric radiation has relatively little ability to do work. Highly ordered high energy solar insolation is very capable of making change in any area. Backradiation isn't the source of energy for evaporation or heat sink warming, it only changes the conditions that Allow solar to accomplish work.



Pardon me if I disagree.  I have never heard anyone attribute an entropic value to pure energy.  Would you care to explain yourself a little more here?  You seem to be equating entropy with energy density.  I don't believe it works like that.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

I believe the amount of work that will be done causing evaporation or raising temperatures depends on the net value of received radiation.  That some of that radiation comes straight from the surface of the sun and some of it comes from atmospheric gases warmed by other solar radiation is irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is the sum of energies received minus the sum of energies radiated, conducted or convected away.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

The fact that what's not changing is large and what is changing is small is irrelevant.  What's changing is big enough to screw up significant pieces of our civilization.  Thats the only issue.  It's all about precipitation distribution for cities and agriculture,  sea level in coastal cities,  and extreme winds. 

It turns out that our ice fields were being maintained by a very small margin.  A degree or two of climatic temperature. 

There is nothing to be gained by wishing things were less sensitive.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm.  That's a pretty powerful change agent.







So, if the Sun went out the Earth would be OK because it is the CO2 that actually warms the planet....good to know...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually -- I was referring to Mr. GSlack. I take PMZ off ignore once a week just to see if he's taking his meds..



Hmm...



			
				FlaCalTenn said:
			
		

> BTW: There is no future in arguing with PMZ -- he will ignore anything you post and simply attack like a rapid mammal. I gave him 8 textbook references on EM IR radiation calculations being BIDIRECTIONAL to back up the concept of "back radiation" in the GreenHouse -- he did 10 pages of ad hominem attacks and posted one 4th grade graphic from NASA on thermo.
> 
> I spent 10 hours trying to make the connection for him. About 10 pages long --- that "debate" was...
> Wouldn't bother me if he tied you up.. Not jealous or anything...



Why would you argue this material with GSlack?  He agrees with you 100%.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Ummmm you guys do!    You're pretty amusing.  You're a mix of sheer religious fanaticism with a healthy dose of stupid thrown in.....

Your post reminds me of the male owl.....  Priceless!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkR2heO1AbE]Owls Geico TV Commercial Ad - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> otherwise CO2 theory would not be the failure it is today.



At least in your terms, neither this: 






Nor this:






indicate a "failure".

These data, on the other hand, DO show a failure:


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> Your post reminds me of the male owl.....  Priceless!



Yours reminds me of someone avoiding debate.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias.  Thus it cannot be taken seriously.



And thus my prediction that denialists would find excuses to handwave away the actual science is shown to be correct.

And no, I don't get tired of being proven right. I only get tired of not being listened to. It's kind of a Cassandra curse I have.

Meanwhile, that link again, for those with integrity. Meaning not the denialists.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Again, it's difficult reading. I haven't gotten through all 12 parts. Or maybe more now. You have to really dig into it. I take a little bit each day. As Barbie and denialists say, "Math is hard!".


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm.  That's a pretty powerful change agent.
> ...



I really wonder if you know how stupid your post is.  I really wonder.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias.  Thus it cannot be taken seriously.
> ...



Just for the record.. The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic. He and I agree that there are deniers who need to be corrected. And I've read nearly all of these well done entries.. He's the one that supplied 8 Thermo and Rad. Physics textbook links to the mathematical calculation of "back radiation". And both he and believe that Dr Spencer was unduly lynched by a mob of cultish scientific nihilists who don't even believe the GreenHouse exists. Or that it exists for reasons other than restricting outbound cooling of the earth's surface via restriction of long wave IR radiation... 

I LIKE his stuff. And he works harder than most in the blogosphere.. (or on USMB)....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> 1750 to 2005
> Long-lived greenhouse gases: 2.6 W/m*2
> TSI: Maybe 0.12.
> 
> The Greenhouse Effect wins.



Sorry -- that conclusion is not in evidence.. Especially since BOTH the numbers you posted are wrong.. (the 2.6 number is not part of the IPCC chart either brightspark).

Just like Mann had to ignore 40 or 50 proxy studies of world-wide distribution of the MWPeriod to make his "limited to the Northern Hemi" speech --- the IPCC ignores even the BASIC measurements of TSI and DOZENS of intelligiently crafted papers relating TSI to global warming. 

For instance. This is the most commonly referenced proxy-current era chart for TSI.. 

Find me the "maybe 0.12" W/M2 you speak of...  





The IPCC lies.. Pure and simple.. 

And they ignore wonderfully crafted science relating the TSI to various ENERGY STORAGE effects that explain temporal delays between insolation changes and warming/cooling. For instance. Here's ANOTHER VIEW of TSI change.. This time from Equator to North Pole.. 






No way that is 0.12W/m2 is it? But wait !!! There's more !!! Read the article today and recieve a free revelation on how BADLY the IPCC mangles TSI with your order... Call now.



> Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales
> 
> Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850&#8211;2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation.
> 
> ...



Imagine that.. REAL science can figure out that the Earth's atmospheric temp SHOULD HAVE delayed flows between power stimulus and temperature change.. And that TSI IS LARGE ENOUGH to be ((GASSPP)) a MAJOR factor in the warming since 1750... 

Just so that recognize the linear systems part of this paper's statement... 



> Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation.



Wow man.. Blowz your mind just to hear a REALISTIC EXPECTATION of how a climate works doesn't it? "... a hemispheric-scale RELAXATION RESPONSE of the system to a reduced Eq-toPole temp. gradient..... "

I love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know..


----------



## gslack (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:
> ...



LOL, no the graphic was on the zeroth law.. You should know that, I told you and any self proclaimed scientists would certainly recognize it...

BTW,I am gslack, pmz is a sock...

The entire thing came about because YOU got bent out of shape because I dared question lord spencer.. You and Ian have this crush going on with him and you lose it everytime somebody doubts him..

 His latest book is a backpeddling from start to finish. He states it can be claculated mathematically where before he called it proven fact, in fact he made many attempts to prove it using thought experiments ranging from misleading, to downright BS.. Now he says "it can be calculated mathematically".. GImme a break, the mans a save-assand has been a save ass since he started. He supported global cooling in the 70's, the George C marshal institute which he is a board member lobbied for tobacco companies against second hand smoke related legislation, and then he's a devout "backradiation as fact" advocate, now he is save his own ass again, and altering his claim to "calcualated mathematically"

Now please stop bullshitting, and lying about what went on.. You posted from a website, not text books, a website.. The website inaccurately portraid the text book pages, to make a case they were not intended to make..

And I ask you again, where is your proof that just because something can radiate in any and all directions, that will and effect change in it's heat source...

You can dodge that all you wish, but it remains. You dodged it when I first asked, you dodged it ever since.. The fact is you cannot see forrest because the trees are in the way.

All things radiate, that has not been in contention by me at all. That fact does not mean all things radiating can effect change in all things around them, especially things that are warmer. 

I tried explaining it to you and when you got to the point your flaws in the theory showed toclearly, you went off stomping your foot.. Well, sorry it upset you but the fact is you cannot ascribe anything a fact that you cannot quantify physically.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Your post reminds me of the male owl.....  Priceless!
> ...







I'm happy to DEBATE.  You just spout crap and run when you get called on it.  That's not debate silly person.


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias.  Thus it cannot be taken seriously.
> ...







dup


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.

You see silly person that's *THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION!*


----------



## westwall (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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







I will delve into it in that case.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



"The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic."

Why would you say this? As I read the 12 part article his modeling seems to support the IPCC in every way.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 11, 2013)

westwall said:


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



I've never said or implied anything close to that. In the absence of solar heating we'd be a dead asteroid. There would be no life, much less AGW.


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



LOL, he is a former NOAA/CICS man. Of course he agrees with the data gathering from such sources...He's a moderate warmer, like spencer.. In fact they are both either current or former Satelite data men, and they follow the same tune, and preach the same gospel...

If the theory goes bust, they are not only out oif current employment, but their careers spent to this point will be a joke... They don't want to follow the extremists because they know it couldbe wrong, so they play dig out a little niche for themselves pandering to both sides..


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Another site dedicated to calling backradiation a proven fact, despite the fact it isn't... ANd guess what? He's a former satelite data man.. Big shock...He's pulling a spencer and covering his bets...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > 1750 to 2005
> ...




''I love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know''.

I've never heard science say this.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

gslack said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.  

It cannot be proven by politics.  Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Says the guy who previously thought CO2 an element, who also said the science is settled and then said the science is never settled in the same thread...

Dude you are the forum joke... You have been caught so many times making crap up and calling it science, it's not even surprising anymore.. Damn dude, your rep is ZERO...

How in the hell did you manage to stay below 20 rep all this time, and then drop to zero?

Please, your a trolling moron serving no purpose other than fill forum space with garbage, stop acting like you either know anything about, or care one bit for anything regarding science..


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



LOL, "science" isn't done by committee,nor is it done by decree from an omnipotent being, it's about knowledge and truth.. Something you know nothing about.. You've never heard science say anything, and it shows..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

Science is done by the community of scientists.  Not as you believe,  a party of entertainers and politicians. 

You demonstrate every day the flaws in your ''thinking''.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

gslack said:


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



I have no interest in your scoring system.  Only science and engineering as they relate to progress.  Your score there is the lowest there that I've seen since 5th grade.  You have reached the top of your aspirations.  Complete irrelevance. Your opinion matters to nobody in this conversation.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Look up the term "geologic time" sometime.  Redwood trees live for how many thousands of years?  Bristlecone pines?  Do you think they live life at the same frenetic pace as a shrew for instance?

Yet another example of your one dimensional, stilted view of the planet and how it operates.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Actually it isn't.  But thanks for playing....


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



As bizarre a response as I've seen to any question.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


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



It's explained quite clearly in part one of the scienceofdoom.com series.  But only to those who:

1) read the series

And

2) understand what they read

And

3) accept what they understand.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

From the Internet. 

'' History of the greenhouse effect and global warming''

''Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.''

This is how far you are behind the rest of the world.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







Bizarre only because you lack the intellect to understand even the basics.  You are a one trick pony ifitzmepmzpmsmsnbc....


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


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



I am. I am a specialist in truth as I've invested my time in education. 

You are merely a political minion, reciting what you are told to recite. A cultist. 

While your recital has been average your loyalty to your leaders has been above reproach. 

I think that you are on the right path for Dittohead, First Class.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.
> 
> You see silly person that's *THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION!*



Imagine how stupid one must be in order to believe a trace gas in the atmosphere is more powerful than the sun at 400ppm in the atmosphere when within our own bodies, the response to inhale is not triggered till the CO2 concentration reaches 16,000ppm.  It is amazing that we don't all burst into flames.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2013)

So why is Abraham not interested correcting the IPCC numbers he posted?? 

The MIT-UConn paper I posted is REAL science. Studying STRATEGIC portions of the climate and finding REASONABLE explanations for energy storage and transport with the climate system.. 

NOT promoting idiotic "Global" numbers for public and media consumption.. 

Don't want to discuss on those terms??


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.
> 
> It cannot be proven by politics.  Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.



Backradiation is proven to those stupid enough to fall for side show hustlers.  That idiot experiment you provided certainly didn't show anything like backradiation.  It did show the effects of irradiating high concentrations of gasses that emit IR at a slightly lower wavelength than that at which they absorb, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with fictional backradiation.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From the Internet.
> 
> '' History of the greenhouse effect and global warming''
> 
> ...



Svante Arrhenius?  You are kidding, right?  You want to hold up the guy who was thoroughly discredited for his claim of another magic gas called "luminiferous eather" as evidence for the crediblilty of climate science.  What a bunch of goobers.


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



LOL, no score keeping for your nonsense socko. Scoring with negative numbers is tedious.. Yes, yes but you ignore me....

LOL, you cried when I wasn't here, talked about me, and pouted.. But you ignore me and I'm irrelevent..

Socko, we know you don't have any real friends, it's okay.. But your little crush on me is getting creepy...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.
> ...



Imagine how stupid one must be to believe that the greenhouse effect is in any way related to the physiology of human respiration.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



The real stupidity is believing in a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



The real stupidity is believing that your response in any way addressed mine.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.
> ...



Again you are trying to deny science with politics.  

There's simply zero science behind your wish that GHGs don't create backradiation.  It's been proven for decades that without the additional warming that they cause,  there would probably be no life on earth. 

So we know what they do without question.  The issue that has been resolved over the previous decade is only what the impact of a little more will be.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








  "The science is settled"  A more political statement would be hard to find...and you spew it at every opportunity.  Hello political propagandist!


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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










Is the Earth a closed system?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > From the Internet.
> ...



He theorized in 1896 what you still don't know to this day. If he's stupid what are you?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Zero politics. 100% science. 

But, as you've shown, that doesn't mean that anyone who can spell "science" is capable of understanding the science. In fact, most people can't. But most of them know that they can't. Then there are the Dunning-Krugers.


----------



## IanC (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



How can someone so obcessed with D-K be so oblivious to the very same symptoms in his own posts?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

This may come as a surprise to you,  but you've never proved that anything that I've posted is incorrect.  Only that you wish it was. What you wish for is obviously more significant to you than me.  

When you have some science that proves something that I don't know you'll have my full attention.


----------



## IanC (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This may come as a surprise to you,  but you've never proved that anything that I've posted is incorrect.  Only that you wish it was. What you wish for is obviously more significant to you than me.
> 
> When you have some science that proves something that I don't know you'll have my full attention.



Can I ask you a simple question to gauge your understanding of the basics?

Where does blackbody radiation come from? A gas is the simplest example.

Bonus points for describing why CO2 backradiation is different.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > This may come as a surprise to you,  but you've never proved that anything that I've posted is incorrect.  Only that you wish it was. What you wish for is obviously more significant to you than me.
> ...



Blackbody radiation comes from things that don't exist.  It's a theoretical only concept from which inferences about radiation can be made for things that do exist. 

Backradiation is very simple.  It's the back towards earth vector of the omnidirectional radiation given off by GHG molecules returning to a stable state after absorbing a photon of long wave radiation due to,  and coming from, the absolute temperature of mother earth. 

GHGs have has always been part of earth's ecosystem. They are what keeps earth's average temperature above freezing. They are the reason why conditions on earth favored the development of carbon/water based life.


----------



## IanC (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Thank you for answering. 

Did the question illustrate to you that there are significant gaps in your understanding of thermodynamics? Did you notice that one dealt with kinetic energy and the concept of temperature while the other was more focused on specific quantum absorption and emission? Were you satisfied with your understanding of the origin of BB radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> He theorized in 1896 what you still don't know to this day. If he's stupid what are you?



Actually, he hypothesized and his claims remain hypothesis.  Perhaps you should learn the difference between hypothesis and theory and what it takes to become theory.  AGW as well as the greenhouse effect itself remains hypothesis.  Calling them theory does not make them so and when applied to the real world, his hypothesis fails.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It is obvious that you like to play the expert.  You like to bring things here that you clearly don't understand and then you say things like the above "only radiant energy in and radiant energy out" that show how profoundly clueless you are.

Even most children know that statement to be the result of deep and dark ignorance.

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out?  Are you fucking kidding.  We are just finishing up with the perseids.  How much matter do you think entered the atmosphere just from that event?  Take a guess....how much space dust do you think enters the atmosphere every day?  Now take another guess...how much hydrogen do you think escapes the atmosphere every day?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out rivals mamooth's claim that statistics was the basic mechanism at work in the most fundamental law of nature as the most stupid, and abjectly ignorant statement ever made on this, or any other board....EVER.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This may come as a surprise to you,  but you've never proved that anything that I've posted is incorrect.



When asked if the earth was a closed system, your idiotic answer that only radiant energy enters and only radiant energy leaves is demonstrably wrong.  It is wrong on so deep a level that even school children are laughing at it.  They have all at least seen a meteorite zipping across the sky and know just from that that something besides radiant energy is coming into the atmosphere from space.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Does that question relate in any way to my post?  If so, how so?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > He theorized in 1896 what you still don't know to this day. If he's stupid what are you?
> ...



So what you are telling us is that you know something that virtually every scientist on the planet doesn't - that the greenhouse effect is not real?  Give us a break.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 13, 2013)

It's scary when you think about it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So what you are telling us is that you know something that virtually every scientist on the planet doesn't - that the greenhouse effect is not real?  Give us a break.



Actually, it is a far cry from virtually every scientist on the planet.  The fact is that most don't believe the hypothesis as described by climate science.  The atmosphere doesn't work like a greenhouse and the vast majority of scientists know it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Learn to comprehend what you read.  The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system.  Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was.  Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

Matthew said:


> It's scary when you think about it.





Well, it is a bit scary that you guys would try to defend such a stupid statement.  Guess it puts you all in the same boat.  By the way Matthew, how's that great ice melt of 2013 working out for you?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are telling us is that you know something that virtually every scientist on the planet doesn't - that the greenhouse effect is not real?  Give us a break.
> ...



You've got the survey from which you came to that conclusion, and can post a link to it here, right?  And due, when GHGs are present in the atmosphere of any planet (Mars, Venus, Earth, etc.), they act like a greenhouse, trapping heat.  Decades of research have shown this to be true.  The only ones who deny this are the deniers themselves, the vast majority of which are scientifically pre-literate.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



We are talking thermodynamics here.  And from a thermodynamics perspective, the Perseid meteor shower adds nothing to the Earth's energy/heat budget, and so for all practical purposes is irrelevant.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > It's scary when you think about it.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Irrelevant except for the fact that his statement proves that he doesn't have a clue


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Those charts keep showing shorter and shorter periods of time. Why not show an honest chart?


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



I love the oh so convenient way that ALL energy makes a difference in climate when it suits them, but not when it is an inconvenience...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



There is always more to be learned.  In the case of AGW it's in the dynamics of all earth systems in responding to the need to warm in order to rebalance incoming and outgoing radiation. I think that we're years away from long term weather forecasts.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The simplist model is a body in space in which something restricts radiation out.

Next are climate models.  Long term average weather. 

Most complex are long term dynamic  weather models.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > He theorized in 1896 what you still don't know to this day. If he's stupid what are you?
> ...



Actually you have so little credibility here and on this topic that what you think is irrelevant.  That's the position that you chose.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is always more to be learned.  In the case of AGW it's in the dynamics of all earth systems in responding to the need to warm in order to rebalance incoming and outgoing radiation. I think that we're years away from long term weather forecasts.



Need to warm?  Are you kidding?  You just get further and further out there.  In the first place, "need" is irrelavent.  In the second place, the universe is working towards cold.  Energy moves from less entropy (warm) to more entropy (cold).  Nothing warms because it needs to warm.  If left alone, it all works towards cold.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



No actual answer or indication that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory.  Pretend condesension.  How unsurprising is that?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



What's your point?  The earth exchanges energy and matter with the rest of the universe.  It is not a closed system.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is always more to be learned.  In the case of AGW it's in the dynamics of all earth systems in responding to the need to warm in order to rebalance incoming and outgoing radiation. I think that we're years away from long term weather forecasts.
> ...



We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored. 

So simple. So obvious.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



I never said it was numb nuts.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



I'm pretty sure that you are coming unglued. One of the consequences of feeling the need to defend the indefensible.


----------



## IanC (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Hahahaha. Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea.

Oh....and mamooth is correct. The second law is just a statistical prediction.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


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



"Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea."

This is how the defense based on creating reasonable doubt works. The big picture offers no support, no science at all for any effects from the cause of GHG's in the atmosphere other than global warming. 

But, every detail can be attacked in obscure and political ways to create, at least in some minds, reasonable doubt. 

And, in a jury as well as the court of public opinion, it only needs to be reasonable doubt in a few minds. 

By now most people accept that the reasonable doubt strategy failed those who tried to employ it in the field of AGW. it will be back though for other political issues.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


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



Now Ian, quit showing your hole card.. You're supposed to be a luke-warmwer remember...

And nomamooth is not correct. And neither are you...

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibriumthe state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
> The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve toward equilibrium.
> It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.



It's a "empirically validated postulate" know what that means? It means it is assumed fact or true due to empirical evidence or observation.  The fact it can be explained using QM or statistical means, does not mean it is strictly or even loosely a statistical prediction..

You're calling QM fact again Ian... It's not a fact, it's an attempt to explain the so far unexplainable. 

Can you prove that shroedinger's cat was both dead and alive until he opened the box? Of course not..Get a grip, you are convinced a statistical possibility is fact..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



It's clear that every time an asteroid of any size hits earth's TOA, it's kinetic energy and matter becomes part of earth's.

It's very insignificant compared to what earth already has, but it's not zero.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And thank you for showing how pathetic the warmer side is....

Ian's been coddling you and the clones for long enough to call him a warmer.. Why hasn't he jumped on you for your continued stupidity and endless retarded statements and false scientific claims? Why hasn't he gotten on any of you clones for it?

Anybody else and he would have gone on and on insulting, and posting reasons why they are wrong. yet you guys can say anything and all he does is either clam up, or nicely try and lead you into a correction...

He's a a warmer, just playing a part...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



I don't disagree with you that the Planet is an open system.  I disagree that the Perseid meteor shower is in any way relevant to the Earth's energy budget.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Well, if you want longer periods of time, how about this one:






The trend is rather obvious.


----------



## IanC (Aug 13, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Gslack- your knowledge and understanding of sciencre is nothing but a caricature. As is mine but at least I have some of the basics.

If you want to wait around for a 'better' explanation than quantum statistics, that is your right. I hope you won't be disappointed when it turns out to be just a more complex solution based on the same principles.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC.  Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And yet there's been no warming for 15+ years now even though CO2 has increased.


----------



## IanC (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



And yet you argued that the earth is not in near equilibrium. Relevant or irrelevant seems to be a cloudy issue with you.


----------



## IanC (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC.  Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?



I'm bored.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC.  Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?
> ...



Take a walk.  Ride a bike.  Anything but respond to that guy.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



The earth, at it's most simplistic, has to include land, oceans, ice, and atmosphere. You are considering only one of those systems. 

Consider, how much warmer does a glass of ice water get as the ice melts?

Again, science fails in every way to support what you want to be true.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC.  Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?
> ...



Study the scienceofdoom.com 12 part series.


----------



## IanC (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Hahahaha. What makes you think I wasn't reading them as they were posted?


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









  So the low estimate of 37,000 TONS (that's the low estimate BTW) of material that arrives from space every year, how do you explain that?


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







So says the moron who doesn't know about meteorites!  BTW you have been PROVEN WRONG!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Were you? 

Is there anything in his MATLAB model that you took exception to?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Here,  you can learn about asteroids too. 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch/facts.cfm

They don't become meteors until they're in our atmosphere. By then their energy and mass are already part of earth's.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Because you were bored?


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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







And it began when the planet was coming out of a major cooling period.  So major that the magazines of the day (and the warmist pushers of today) were all warning us that we might be entering a new ice age.

How convenient.... And how ignorant a statement to come from someone who claims to be a geologist.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



37,000 tons spread out over the entire surface of the atmosphere, in particles mostly the size of dust, entering the atmosphere over the course of an entire year?  Compared to the mass of the entire earth?  Not even noticeable.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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







No doubt.  Kind of like the amount of CO2 compared to the rest of the atmosphere


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


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








What did I call them?  Oh yeah..................... *METEORITES!*



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo]What A Maroon! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Oh please.  That myth largely came from one science paper.  Most Earth scientists were not convinced, regardless of what the popular rags were publishing.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are comparing 37,000 tons (the equivalent to approximately 12 large underground storage tank pits) of primarily vaporized magnesium/iron silicate to 28 billion tons of manmade CO2 gas released into the atmosphere every year?  No doubt, you will want to rephrase that bs statement.


----------



## IanC (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I read a lot of things. SoD made quite a few errors along the way. The difference is that he responded to criticism and made his position stronger. AGW fights making even the simplest of corrections. Errors stand that should have been corrected as soon as they were pointed out. Mann used a proxy upside down!! He is still using it upside down, and so are the people referencing Mann in their own work. What good is a proxy if orientation doesn't matter? Actually it does matter, but it suited Mann's purposes better upside down.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







What is not in doubt is the fact that the Arctic was at a very high level of ice.  The highest seen in decades as evidenced by the even earlier newspaper reports of the Arctic ice caps demise....


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





And you're comparing that to the 5.2 QUADRILLION TONS of atmosphere?  You need to get a grip there boyo, you're starting to sound like a real science cripple here...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And you honestly believe that those news clippings make your case for you?  Oh my.  Where's my facepalm image?


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Why yes, they DO.  You see mr. geologist they are DATA.  Unlike your computer fictions.  What the DATA shows is that the Arctic has enjoyed low ice cover at many times in the past, and the not too distant past at that.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



As opposed to today's very low ice cover simply being a continuation of the ice melt that started 100 years ago?  Really?  You should think before you post.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







My gosh, you actually claim to be a geologist.  There is more ice today than there was in the 1980's when subs were regularly surfacing at the North Pole.  They haven't been able to do that for awhile.  There is more ice today than there was when the sailing ships were looking for the Northwest passage and were able to sail further north than they ever could today....

In other words, the ice ebbs and flows due to natural cycles.  It always has and it always will.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Records of Arctic Sea ice from the United Kingdoms Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research go back to the turn of the 20th century, although the quality of the data before 1950 is debatable. Still, these records show a persistent decline in Arctic Sea ice over the last 50 years.[3]
> 
> Reliable measurements of sea ice edge begin within the satellite era. From the late 1970s, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on Seasat (1978) and Nimbus 7 (197887) satellites provided information that was independent of solar illumination or meteorological conditions. The frequency and accuracy of passive microwave measurements improved with the launch of the DMSP F8 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSMI in 1987. Both the sea ice area and extent are estimated, with the latter being larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I was hoping for more specifics. 

You certainly are different than the other deniers here. It's like you know and respect science but are hoping that the IPCC people fail. Something personal?

Unfortunately for your position they have been relentlessly right given the always evolving nature of their mission. 

Science is certainly way ahead of politics for instance in the line of international cooperation and team work. That may well end up to be what history finds notable about their effort on top of their environmental contribution.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Meteorites are little meteors.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> So says the moron who doesn't know about meteorites!  BTW you have been PROVEN WRONG!



Over and over.  Guess he is unaware of cosmic radiation as well which has been proven to have an effect on the energy budget.  Radiant in and radiant out he says.  What a goober.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Oh please.  That myth largely came from one science paper.  Most Earth scientists were not convinced, regardless of what the popular rags were publishing.



Actually,  NCAR, CRU, NAS, and NASA were warning of a coming ice age...in fact, they prompted the CIA to issue a rather lengthy and detailed paper on the security ramifications of the coming ice age.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.
> 
> AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.
> 
> So simple. So obvious.



The only problem with your statement is that the amount of outgoing LW is increasing with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not decreasing as your hypothesis demands.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quoting Wikipedia we learn that agw models predict agw...shocking

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL....oh, walleyed, all of your claims to be anything other than a clueless uneducated nutjob have long since been debunked by your own posts.







westwall said:


> There is more ice today than there was in the 1980's when subs were regularly surfacing at the North Pole.  They haven't been able to do that for awhile.


Pure BS. Submarines that travel beneath the Arctic ice have always surfaced in temporary openings in the ice called 'leads'. These 'leads' or openings have always been opening and closing with the movement of the ice packs and they are just as common today (or even more common due to the thinner ice) as they were in the 1950's.

*Nuclear Submarines Surface in Arctic*
(excerpts)
*The Arctic was a little less tranquil on April 19, 2004 when the American fast-attack submarine USS Hampton and the Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless popped up at the "top of the world". They surfaced at the North Pole through two naturally occurring leads or "gaps" in the ice about 1/2 mile / .8 km from each other. Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months at a time, and following a joint operational exercise under the polar ice cap, both submarines surfaced and the crews met on the ice. Crewmembers had been crammed on board the submarines under the ice for weeks, so they were glad to get out for a stroll and take in the stark beauty of the Arctic wilderness.

Scientists were also on board to monitor global warming effects on the polar cap and take measurements of the thickness of the ice underwater. The permanent ice pack at the North Pole has retreated 100 miles / 160 km north in recent years and can thin in the summer to as little as 6 ft / 1.8 meters. Overall, ice in the Arctic has diminished by about 40% in the past 20 years, according to research.*







westwall said:


> There is more ice today than there was when the sailing ships were looking for the Northwest passage and were able to sail further north than they ever could today....
> 
> In other words, the ice ebbs and flows due to natural cycles.  It always has and it always will.


LOLOLOL. Well there's a fine combination of deranged unscientific denier cult myths and your own insanity, walleyed.

*Arctic Sea Ice Decline*
Dr. Jeff Masters' Wunderground.com
(excerpts)
*In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and could increase by another 8°C (14°F) by the end of this century. The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate12% per decadethat suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation. Satellite data show that since the late 1970s, September Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by about 12% per decade. What's especially alarming is the decrease in multi-year ice. Sea ice is classified by age, usually as "new ice" or "multi-year" ice (meaning it survived many summer melting seasons). While new ice is very shallow, multi-year ice can grow to be quite thick, typically between 6 and 12 feet, and is very stable. A remarkable study was published in 2007 which measured the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic. In 1987, 57% of the observed ice pack was at least 5 years old, and around 25% of it was at least 9 years old. When they surveyed the Arctic again in 2007, only 7% of the ice pack was at least 5 years old, and the ice that was at least 9 years old had all but vanished. Likewise, sea ice thickness and volume have decreased markedly since the beginning of the satellite era.

Extraordinary melting of sea ice in the Arctic in 2012 shattered the all-time low sea ice extent record set in September 2007. The new sea ice record was set on August 26, 2012, a full three weeks before the usual end of the melting season, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A comprehensive collection of sea ice graphs shows the full story. Satellite records of sea ice extent date back to 1979, though a 2011 study by Kinnard et al. shows that the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years (see a more detailed article on this over at skepticalscience.com.) The record minimum extent of 3.41 million square kilometers is approximately a 50% reduction in the area of Arctic covered by sea ice, compared to the average from 1979 - 2000. We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) show that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 -3 °C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.*


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Actually they are climate models. Run using the data the reflects today's atmosphere including the high levels of CO2 that we put there by burning fossil fuels. And yes, they predict the average amount of warming that the earth must do to overcome the back radiation the CO2 causes. 

Still to come, what weather patterns will be created as that global warming interacts among the land, oceans, ice, and atmosphere. Finally, what impact will that weather have on civilization and what actions on our part will be required to mitigate it. 

Science has an appropriate lead through all of this but the hard work is ahead of us.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.
> ...



Neither you nor I have any idea where your data came from so it is unworthy of comment. 

Back radiation lowers radiation outgoing from the TOA, and essentially redirects it back to earth. The difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing longwave energy warms the land, sea, ice and air. As the earth system warms, higher energy longwave is produced which at some point restores the balance required for that level of GHG. By the time that happens though we have that level of GHG and created a higher level. 

Now you show us the output of your model that predicts the pattern of outgoing longwave that this situation should create and how that would look measured in the way that your graph is measured.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...







ANYONE, and I mean anyone, who claims to be a scientist and then trots out a wiki link, is clearly not.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...







What do you expect Frank, these guys think the back of their cereal box is entertaining too!


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Ahhhhh yes.  The idiots ever popular appeal to the models!  How good are these models anyway?  Well, according to the Institute for Energy Research at Harvard, they are......well, I'll be kind....they're shit.  Well OK they didn't use that word because they are polite....but that's basically what they said!


Current Crop of Computer Models *Close to Useless*

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindycks paper is titled, Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract:

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome.  IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Bold added.]


Institute for Energy Research | Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Obama?s Climate Models


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Neither you nor I have any idea where your data came from so it is unworthy of comment.



The graph comes from NOAA data via The KNMI Climate Explorer so it is worthy of comment.  Sorry that it doesn't agree with your hypothesis.




PMZ said:


> Back radiation lowers radiation outgoing from the TOA, and essentially redirects it back to earth. The difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing longwave energy warms the land, sea, ice and air. As the earth system warms, higher energy longwave is produced which at some point restores the balance required for that level of GHG. By the time that happens though we have that level of GHG and created a higher level.



So you say except that outgoing OLR is increasing.  Your hypothesis also says that because  magic CO2 backradiates energy it will cause a hot spot which has also never materialized.  In short, your hypothesis has failed at every possible stage.



PMZ said:


> Now you show us the output of your model that predicts the pattern of outgoing longwave that this situation should create and how that would look measured in the way that your graph is measured.



Not my graph, the graph reflects NOAA data and is perfectly predictable.  CO2 being a radiative gas moves energy more quickly than either convection or conduction so acts as a cooling mechanism.  More CO2 results in more energy being transported to the TOA...more energy being transported should result in more OLR at the TOA which is precisely what the NOAA satellite data show.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Man-made global warming theory is falsified by satellite observations



> Global warming theory proposes that CO2 traps longwave (infrared) radiation in the troposphere to reduce outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] to space. However, satellite measurements since 1975 indicate that global OLR has instead increased by about 1.3 Wm-2. This is in direct contradiction to global warming theory that "trapping" of radiation by CO2 should have instead reduced* OLR by .93 Wm-2 since 1975.
> 
> In addition, the theory predicts the "trapping" of OLR should cause a "hot spot" in the tropical mid- upper troposphere to warm faster than the Earth surface. However, satellite observations are again contrary to the theory and instead show that the "hot spot" does not exist, that the mid-troposphere has warmed at the same rate as the surface, while the upper troposphere has cooled since 1979.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



How many different places are you going to go attempting to badmouth climate models with a critique of a completely different critter?  It amazes me that anyone can be that blatantly dishonest.  You KNOW that Pin-Dick isn't talking about climate models and you KNOW that his comments do not apply where you are pretending to apply them.  You are knowingly conveying a falsehood.  How can you do that?  Are you conscience-less?  Incredible.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhhh yes.  The idiots ever popular appeal to the models!  How good are these models anyway?  Well, according to the *Institute for Energy Research at Harvard*, they are......well, I'll be kind....they're shit.  Well OK they didn't use that word because they are polite....but that's basically what they said!
> ...



Jeez dude, haven't you noticed yet? Ol' walleyed lies all the time. He may indeed be "conscience-less" but more significantly, he is a brainwashed, scientifically ignorant, rather retarded denier cult troll, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. His alligence is to the deranged dogmas of his little cult of reality denial, not the truth, so never expect anything from him but lies and parroted propaganda. Just look at all of the outrageously idiotic lies he spewed in post #2823 on the previous page.

And then there are his fraudulent oil industry sponsored sources.....in this case the fossil fuel industry front group and propaganda outlet called the 'Institute for Energy Research'....which, BTW, has nothing whatsoever to do with "_Harvard_" - that was just another one of ol' walleyed's lies to try to make this sleazy industry propaganda front group look better... 

*Institute for Energy Research*
SourceWatch
(excerpts)
*The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless. It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron. IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a 501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER&#8217;s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

In August 2011, Dr. Robert Bradley, founder and CEO of the IER, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. About ALEC - ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve &#8220;model&#8221; bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org. According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307,000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.[9] The institute also received 175,000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.*


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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









  Really man, just


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.
> ...



Outgoing longwave radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is the energy leaving the earth as infrared radiation at low energy. OLR is a critical component of the Earths radiation budget and represents the total radiation going to space emitted by the atmosphere.[1] Earth's radiation balance is very closely achieved since the OLR very nearly equals the Shortwave Absorbed Radiation received at high energy from the sun. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) is satisfied and the Earth's average temperature is very nearly stable. The OLR is affected by clouds and dust in the atmosphere, which tend to reduce it below clear sky values. Greenhouse gases, such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), absorb certain wavelengths of OLR adding heat to the atmosphere, which in turn causes the atmosphere to emit more radiation. Some of this radiation is directed back towards the Earth, increasing the average temperature of the Earth's surface. Therefore, an increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas would contribute to global warming by increasing the amount of radiation that is absorbed and emitted by these atmospheric constituents.

The OLR is dependent on the temperature of the radiating body. It is affected by the Earth's skin temperature, skin surface emissivity, atmospheric temperature, water vapor profile, and cloud cover.[1]


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 13, 2013)

Have you seen this correlation between OLR and the ENSO index?






http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/02/07/ceres-airs-outgoing-longwave-radiation-el-nino/

Addditionally, this explanatory text from NOAA's NCDC throws a few more factors into the mix:

Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) data at the top of the atmosphere are observed from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument aboard the NOAA polar orbiting spacecraft. Data are centered across equatorial areas from 160°E to 160°W longitude. The raw data are converted into a standardized anomaly index. Negative (Positive) OLR are indicative of enhanced (suppressed) convection and hence more (less) cloud coverage typical of El Niño (La Niña) episodes. More (Less) convective activity in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific implies higher (lower), colder (warmer) cloud tops, which emit much less (more) infrared radiation into space.

Transliterated:

Negative OLR are indicative of enhanced convection and hence more cloud coverage typical of El Niño episodes. More  convective activity in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific implies higher, colder cloud tops, which emit much less infrared radiation into space.

Positive OLR are indicative of suppressed convection and hence less cloud coverage typical of La Niña episodes. Less convective activity in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific implies lower, warmer cloud tops, which emit much more infrared radiation into space.

I think taking the OLR as a refutation of the Greenhouse Effect is an unsupportable oversimplification.  I think the primary factor controlling OLR is ENSO.  The ENSO pseudo-cycle has undergone significant alteration since 1998.  The ENSO state would affect the controlling factors that Orogenicman lists at the end of his post.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Well, I could post peer reviewed articles, but you have to have a subscription to read it, and clearly you don't have subscriptions to any peer reviewed journals.  Moreover, the fact that you have more trouble with my using Wikipedia than you do the contents of the Wikipedia article tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding.  And finally, the article has a bibliography to peer reviewed papers, so if you have a problem with the article, you can always read the contents of those cited articles and then submit your own corrections.  I encourage you to do so.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So....it seems that when retards like the walleyedidiot are caught lying, their only response is helpless laughter. How ludicrous. Of course, in their little cult of reality denial, it's either that or come back and double down on the lies, so....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Hey Genius.. Two BBody radiators in a vacuum within 0.01degC of each other.. Only thermal exchange is due to EM thermal radiation.. You "glance" at the photon count every millisec for 1 nanosecond.. Will you EVER see "heat going the wrong way" ???? 

Of course you will.....  Ian and Mamooth were quite right. THe thermal laws AS THEY APPLIED TO RADIATIVE THERMAL EXCHANGES are obeyed "in the limit" of long-term observation.. Otherwise, it is and can be a crap shoot..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 13, 2013)

I'd like to see link to work showing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work on other planets.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I'd like to see link to work showing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work on other planets.



You know, it always amuses me when I see deniers criticize NASA scientists working on Earth systems, when the SAME NASA uses many of the same scientists, and nearly identical instrumentation to study other planets in our solar system, and yet very rarely do we hear criticism of those results.  Even more amusing is that virtually none of the deniers have done any original work, much less collected and compiled their own databases.  I'm still waiting for one of them to explain to me why they would take the word of a massage therapist over an accredited, published scientist.  It really does have all the appearance of the tobacco health argument of previous decades, or the creationism/evolution argument of recent years.  Interestingly, some of the same players are involved in all of these arguments.  Gee, I wonder why that is?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> IanC.  Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?



It's gotten personal on a level where some posters can't be ignored. Because their claims become part of the "urban legends" of AGW debate. 
It's like being Jewish and trying to ignore an ardent denier of the Holocaust.. 

Now don't you try to psychoanalyze that and boomerang it back at me. You won't score any direct hits with that .... 

I'll give you cred on that if I ever see your side trying to reign in some of YOUR off-the-chart wingers..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC.  Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?
> ...



Not necessary.  I know how to handle people like him.  The ignore feature works just fine.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.
> ...



There may be a stabilizing feedback with regards to OLR.. As shown in the chart below, the behaviour of CERTAIN FREQ BANDS of IR OLR shows an interesting relationship to CO2 concentrations.. That's the type of plot that would indicate a NEGATIVE feedback on Temperature. *On the other hand --- the line fit seems a bit "iffy" to me*.. 

HOWEVER -- you have to be careful WHAT MEASUREMENT of OLR you pick up to make that argument. Since LongWave INCLUDES some of the freq. bands that ARE NOT generated by surface heating. The sun pumps some longwave INTO the system in the same bands -- and SOME of that gets reflected as OLR. 

So you need to know that what you are looking at is limited to the frequencies that CAN be radiated from surface to TOAtmos.

I'm interested.. Do you know what frequencies were measured in that graph of yours?? The chart below was done for 10 to 12.5 um emissions.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



LOL, a fine bit of song and dance... No legitimate argument? No flaw to point out? Nothing to show I am in fact wrong? Yep... Just you doing the usual, call me ignorant because you can't defend your position...

I'm so tired of bullshit experts, claiming such high and lofty intellect and education, yet cannot think, cannot dfend their position, cannot show either logically or generally that they can understand anything beyond an equation..

You aren't a scientist Ian, you think only in terms of numbers, with no real grasp of what they mean in the real world. 

Unfamiliar with Schroedinger's cat I see... Not surprised... You don't seem to be familiar with anything beyond a number... 

Yes Ian you are a genius because you call theory fact and dismiss everyone who doesn't as being ignorant...You keep this pretense up, despite running away from virtually every debate once it gets uncomfortable for you...

Tell ya what Ian you start calling out the really ignorant warmer posters on here, and maybe I will lighten up. Next time PMZ or one of the other morons says something unscientific, or completely screws up a theory or law, you get on them for it instead of leaving it for me or SSD, or Westwall, or hell anybody else, and maybe I can learn to give you a bit of respect... 

Until you can man up and actually post to real idiots, with the same fervor you post to me, you get nothing but my disdain... I can't abide a coward, and I certainly don't tolerate passive-agressive punks, who will kiss the ass of anybody no matter how ignorant just because it suits their needs at the time...

When you man-up, let me know..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Genius.. Two BBody radiators in a vacuum within 0.01degC of each other.. Only thermal exchange is due to EM thermal radiation.. You "glance" at the photon count every millisec for 1 nanosecond.. Will you EVER see "heat going the wrong way" ????
> 
> Of course you will.....  Ian and Mamooth were quite right. THe thermal laws AS THEY APPLIED TO RADIATIVE THERMAL EXCHANGES are obeyed "in the limit" of long-term observation.. Otherwise, it is and can be a crap shoot..



Actually, you won't and it has never once, in the history of the universe being observed.

Unfortunate that you have such a belief in QM as it is a long way from actually explaining anything.  Any line of thought that can't even explain the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc "fix" is not a line of thought one should place much trust in.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I'd like to see link to work showing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work on other planets.



Actually, the atmospheric thermal effect works on other planets.  The greenhouse effect calculations used to derive the the temperature here don't derive accurate temperatures anywhere else.  Try and phrase your statements accurately to reflect the topic of discussion.

Here is a place to start.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf

http://www.climatethoughts.org/WCRP_Poster_Nikolov_Zeller.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Since the sun has been in a quiet phase during a time of obvious increase in OLR, we can be pretty sure that the increase in OLR is not due to increased incoming solar energy.  And then there is the GLARING fact that the hot spot as predicted and DEMANDED by the greenhouse hypothesis has never shown up.  That, in and of itself is enough to discredit the hypothesis in the mind of any honest observer.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

gslack said:


> Tell ya what Ian you start calling out the really ignorant warmer posters on here, and maybe I will lighten up. Next time PMZ or one of the other morons says something unscientific, or completely screws up a theory or law, you get on them for it instead of leaving it for me or SSD, or Westwall, or hell anybody else, and maybe I can learn to give you a bit of respect...
> 
> Until you can man up and actually post to real idiots, with the same fervor you post to me, you get nothing but my disdain... I can't abide a coward, and I certainly don't tolerate passive-agressive punks, who will kiss the ass of anybody no matter how ignorant just because it suits their needs at the time...
> 
> When you man-up, let me know..



True.  I have been wondering if maybe Ian thinks that statistics is the fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchanges like mamooth as opposed to a means of attempting to explain that fundamental mechanism and what it will cause.  I mean, that was one of the stupidest comments ever made here and Ian didn't issue a peep.  He has gotten in as tight as ticks with that bunch of genuine wackos and it does make one wonder.

Maybe he views himself as Buzz Lightyear and the bunch of wackos are those little green guys going ooooooooooo  aaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa all around him.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Tell ya what Ian you start calling out the really ignorant warmer posters on here, and maybe I will lighten up. Next time PMZ or one of the other morons says something unscientific, or completely screws up a theory or law, you get on them for it instead of leaving it for me or SSD, or Westwall, or hell anybody else, and maybe I can learn to give you a bit of respect...
> ...



Ooooo... MORE dissension in the ranks.  The beast that eats its young.  

Go Slack Go Slack Go Slack


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



Hallucinations too?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



I guess you missed the memo.  The sun is currently at solar maximum.  That said, I agree that the sun is not significantly increasing the OLR.  What "hotspot" are you referring to?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> I guess you missed the memo.  The sun is currently at solar maximum.  That said, I agree that the sun is not significantly increasing the OLR.  What "hotspot" are you referring to?



No, I got the memo.  One of the weakest maximums since the little ice age.  Weaker in fact that some of the solar minimums since then.  Are you able to have an honest discussion or are you congenitally dishonest and simply unable to help yourself?....or perhaps so desperate to present the appearance of scoring a point that sacrificing your character seems a small price to pay??


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



what dissension? what ranks?

Ian never was a anything but a warmer. I stated as much for a long while now. He's a warmer, but a habitual save-ass as well, so he covers his bets. He wants a backdoor to take if the theory goes even further south... Now he has just lost the ability to hide it..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science



> Jan. 8, 2013:  In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star.  While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
> 
> There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



We all know that the result of AGW has to be an increase in OLR as the earth responds to GHGs by warming. What we can't pinpoint yet is the precise nature of, or timing of, that response. Only that it has to be. 

The earth has 150 years of an increasing GHG load to react to. Who knows what in that history today's data shows the reaction to?


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you missed the memo.  The sun is currently at solar maximum.  That said, I agree that the sun is not significantly increasing the OLR.  What "hotspot" are you referring to?
> ...








No, olfraud is never honest.  Look how many he socks he has coversations with....  Only a true fanatic spends that much time and energy perpetrating fables...


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science
> 
> 
> 
> ...








C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Gee, more ad hominem.  How quaint.


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Oldsock.. LOL


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We all know that the result of AGW has to be an increase in OLR as the earth responds to GHGs by warming. What we can't pinpoint yet is the precise nature of, or timing of, that response. Only that it has to be.



First, since you don't have the first bit of hard, empirical evidence that man is responsible for any amount of global climate change, we must first establish that you are working from an assumption...not fact.  

Second, you just stated earlier that AGW must result in a decrease of OLR.  Do you need to be reminded of what you just claimed?  That's one of the problems with being a warmer...you must constantly be claiming something different as your hypothesis disentegrates before your eyes.  AGW causes more and less rain...AGW causes more and less snow...AGW causes more and less tornados....AGW causes more and less hurricaines.....AGW causes higher and lower temperatures....AGW causes everything.....and now you are claiming that AGW causes more and less OLR.

Your original quote is HERE



PMZ said:


> Back radiation lowers radiation outgoing from the TOA, and essentially redirects it back to earth. The difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing longwave energy warms the land, sea, ice and air......



So which is it gomer?  More or less OLR?....or both?

And third, OLR has increased even during the lull so the warming was not the cause of the increase of OLR.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 14, 2013)

What do you folks make of the temperature trend from 1941 to 1979?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that....



He can, but more importantly, as demonstrated by your multiple failures to respond cogently to posts refuting your contentions, YOU CAN'T.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Genius.. Two BBody radiators in a vacuum within 0.01degC of each other.. Only thermal exchange is due to EM thermal radiation.. You "glance" at the photon count every millisec for 1 nanosecond.. Will you EVER see "heat going the wrong way" ????
> ...



You reject QM?  Gollee.  Why does that not surprise me?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Genius.. Two BBody radiators in a vacuum within 0.01degC of each other.. Only thermal exchange is due to EM thermal radiation.. You "glance" at the photon count every millisec for 1 nanosecond.. Will you EVER see "heat going the wrong way" ????
> ...



Actually the example I gave you really doesn't have anything to do with QM. It can be modeled just as the BBody radiation output of each of the objects towards the other. As each body is radiating, the minute diff in EM fluxes will occasionally, for short intervals, end up in the wrong direction. Over a constant and longer time, the NET FLUX will obey the 2nd law..


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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






It would be ad hom were you not olfraud.  However, as you outed yourself by insulting me in a way ONLY olfraud has ever done you outed yourself.  Not very bright there dummy...


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> What do you folks make of the temperature trend from 1941 to 1979?








The same of ANY temperature trend.  Natural variability.


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that....
> ...







So, the question is....are you olfraud the third?


----------



## Days (Aug 14, 2013)

You are thinking of the earth in a way that isn't the nature of the beast.  You are thinking like the earth absorbs heat and holds heat in.  Actually just the opposite is the case.  The earth does not hold heat in, it releases it.  Take a look at temps in the upper atmosphere, they are all cold.  Yet heat rises.  If the earth retained heat, temps would be searing in the upper atmosphere.  But the heat just passes through.   

Green house effect only works with actual barriers (of glass) to hold the heat in.  

The earth has always produced its own heat through volcanic activity.  That heat warms the earth and then releases into space.  It may melt a glacier or two in the process of escape, but the earth does not retain the heat, no planet does that.  The atmospheric retention is minimal, momentary retention.  Nothing as dramatic as a barrier of enclosed glass.  Nothing remotely close to that.

While air pollution is a problem all its own, and spraying Barium salts into the atmosphere is not helping that problem, you have to differentiate between heat retention and air pollution.  Do green house gases retain heat?  Or just slow it's exit?

When you are talking heat, the far and away #1 global source for variations in the global temps has always been volcanic activity.

West Antarctica Warmed Quickly ... 20,000 Years Ago


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You reject QM?  Gollee.  Why does that not surprise me?



Are you aware that QM can't even explain the electron cloud in a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix?  A hydrogen atom for pete's sake.  The most basic atom of them all and QM is unable to explain it without a completely made up fix.  And that's just the start.  Numerous ad hoc fixes are incorporated to just make it through the periodic table.  QM is an attempt to explain things that we are actually quite a ways from understanding and QM certainly hasn't overturned, or even prompted the modification of any of the laws of physics.

You want to believe in QM as if it were written by the finger of God, help yourself, but QM has a long way to go before it even manages to cause a physical law to be modified, much less changed.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually the example I gave you really doesn't have anything to do with QM. It can be modeled just as the BBody radiation output of each of the objects towards the other. As each body is radiating, the minute diff in EM fluxes will occasionally, for short intervals, end up in the wrong direction. Over a constant and longer time, the NET FLUX will obey the 2nd law..



Yes, and as soon as I point out that the second law states that neither heat nor energy can move from high entropy to low entropy, you will invoke QM and net flows and on and on so yes, in fact, the example you gave relies entirely on QM.  As soon as you start talking net flows instead of gross flows, you leave the law and head out into QM and the land of hypothesis.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see link to work showing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work on other planets.
> ...



I have read the article at tallbloke.  The second link never opened.  I have a couple of comments:

1) He assumes a relationship between cloud cover and solar magnetic effects.  He never even cites a source for this idea.  While there may be someone out there who has proposed such a relationship, it is most certainly not widely accepted.

2) In his conclusion, describing current climatic conditions, he fails to mention ocean warming at all.

3) I saw a lengthy discussion of using ATE to predict exoplanetary temperatures.  I saw no discussion showing GHE calculations of those same systems to be in error.  They may be - other sources have mentioned that IPCC formulas did poorly, but I have not seen the numbers and saw no such comment from Nikolov and Zeller.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You out yourself every time you post.  You don't need my assistance.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You reject QM?  Gollee.  Why does that not surprise me?
> ...



So what you are saying is that you reject 90 years of physics research.  Brilliant move, Einstein.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science
> ...



This is the only response anyone here can make to my post? No other comments?  No PERTINENT comments relating to its contents?  NONE AT ALL?  Hmm.  I wonder why that is?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the result of AGW has to be an increase in OLR as the earth responds to GHGs by warming. What we can't pinpoint yet is the precise nature of, or timing of, that response. Only that it has to be.
> ...



You definitely qualify for the slow class.

First thing that happens as the concentration of GHGs increases is some OLR is prevented from going out and comes back in. What would you guess that does to OLR going out the TOA? That's right.  It lowers it.  

Next thing that happens is the same incoming,  plus more redirected outgoing,  minus less outgoing,  results in warming.  

Next thing is that warmer earth generates MORE outgoing which restores balance.  See how that works? 

No wonder you are inadequately equipped to understand that AGW has been a fact on earth since there's been an earth and atmosphere.


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

I find it hilarious that each time one of them get's busted socking, saying something stupid, or being just plain getting their butt kicked, the offending post is buried under a barrage small posts that are either off-topic, ignorant, or nonsensical..

And it's always PMZ, Ifitzpmz, or now abraham or organman... It's ridiculous they think none notices..


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Probably because these have been addressed before olfraud...as you already know full well.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 14, 2013)

I think that someone should start a sock thread for these Gomers. 

That seem to be the limit of their thinking.


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You ignorant troll, you must be oldsocks in drag.. I caught him being ignorant in this same manner many times before he decided to stop trying and went the sock route instead..

You do realize if the contentions in the article you are whinning about are factual, than not only does it support the anti-AGW camp, but it also shows what we have been saying all along, that the sun is driving force in climate.....

You cherry-picked and underlined sentences to divert attention.. Let's clarify shall we....Some things you didn't underline or conveniently ommitted...



> Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.



Amazing.. Just as we said the sun's effects are much more pronounced than the IPCC or warmers claim...

More...



> In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.  The Pacific region is only one example.



Uh yeah, we already knew that but glad to see the idea catching on...

LOL,oldoscks reading comprehension kicks his own ass again... Another one of theose HUFFPO headlines he followed the link to.. He saw it, saw the word IPCC and said Eureka! I have done it...

ROFL, love when he does that. Makes the job half done for me..


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I think that someone should start a sock thread for these Gomers.
> 
> That seem to be the limit of their thinking.



Hey whats up with yours and now abrahams rep? 

LOL, we already knew you two were in drag..ROFL


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Einstein wasn't to keen on QM either so I am in good company.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Comparing yourself and Einstein. That is mind boggling. It would tough to demonstrate you are of the same species.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No, actually, this has been obfuscated by the deniers, and not addressed properly at all.  Try addressing the contents instead of applying ad hominem and misdirection to everyone and everything with which you disagree.


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








The fact that I disagree with you is immaterial olfraud.  What is material is you creating socks to try and further your tall tales.  You're busted, you forgot which persona you were inhabiting and insulted me with your olfraud insult when you were oroboy.

Ya screwed up bunky!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh -- I can comment I suppose.. That's geniunely open-minded of you.. Especially the request for more space resources to study the sun.. All of that is important -- but not to the IPCC which was chartered to study ONLY MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming.. 

Since you're all hot on astronomy -- ponder this. Almost impossible to measure very slight shifts in the Spectral Distribution of the sun from the Earth surface.. Very slight shifts in the frequency distribution of the sun EM spectrum could modulate the key absorption lines in the GreenHouse window. We've only had the ability to measure this from space in real-time for about a single solar cycle.. Doesn't NEED to be a change in TSI -- only a redistribution in the relative spectral intensities by a miniscule amount.

BTW:  What the heck is THIS?? 



> Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. &#8220;Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun&#8217;s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.&#8221; This is not a large number, but it is significant.



How do you measure "frequency of similar grand minima" as a PERCENTAGE? Percent of what? time? Stars in grand minima 30% of the time?

We already KNOW our star does this and we suspect it does it periodically. In fact, there seems to be signals in the length of solar cycle components that match sequences that occurred just before the MMin.


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOL, he hasn't even denied it... Pathetic..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I post a peer reviewed paper by the National Academy of Sciences that you refuse to respond to, and I'm busted?  You really ought to put the bottle down, son.  You aren't handling it well.


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








As I have stated previously it has been responded to.  i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

ROFL, he's hilarious... 


Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... The one with his arm up my back...He's not even there... Just continue posting to me as if nothing has changed...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



In the fact that neither of us think much of QM, we are in the same boat.  I am sure his reasons were far more profound than mine.  What are your reasons for believing whatever QM says to be true against the advice of Einstein?  What do you know that he didn't?  Are you smarter than he?  Do you understand the QM line of thought better than he?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You reject QM?  Gollee.  Why does that not surprise me?
> ...



I see a couple of trends here.  You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.  The thought that strikes me is that you reject them because they are widely accepted theories... because you wish to appear iconoclastic.  In both cases, you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.

QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable.  I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Let me get this straight.  You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases?  If so, name them.

By the way, while your _fans_ might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The fact that I only arrived in this forum last month kinda escapes him.  The fact that I had never even heard of this forum until last month doesn't seem to sink in either.  It's just about the silliest thing anyone has ever accused me of.  But you are right, Abe, the man is almost as bad as Mishka in avoiding debate.  Which I suppose makes him a troll.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I see a couple of trends here.  You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.



Me to.  You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.  Both QM and AGW are hypotheses.  A hypothesis A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.   In order for a hypothesis to move up to the status of theory, it must be extensively tested by experiment and be able to make accurate predictions.  

It's funny how defensive you guys are over QM.  There are people who spend every day searching for a single contradiction in the theory of relativity which will be enough to justify discarding it.  QM fails at the most basic level (the hydrogen atom) and is chock full of contradictions and yet, people cling to it much as they cling to AGW even though the hypothesis is failing majestically.  

No experiment has ever been done that demonstrates that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming...all of its predictions have failed, the models of the hypothesis are invariably wrong and yet you believe and question anyone who doesn't.  Perhaps you should question yourself.



Abraham3 said:


> you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.



You really aren't paying attention.  I reject them because as hypotheses, they have failed.  A single failed prediction or contradiction is cause to go back to the drawing board.  Both have failed more than once.



Abraham3 said:


> QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable.  I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.



Some small portions of QM have been experimentally verified.  As a general hypothesis, it is so full of contradictions, failures, and ad hoc fixes, that it is not viable.  Don't suppose that because some small portion of a hypothesis has been proven that the hypothesis in general is ready to be called a theory.

Here is a set of lecture notes from MIT (certainly credible where physics is concerned) discussing and describing some of the myriad of problems with QM.  Maybe some reading on your part is in order.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2006/lecture-notes/lecture2.pdf

QM is another attempt to explain things that we don't understand....not a fully tested hypothesis ready to be called a theory.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

> You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Both QM and AGW are hypotheses.



I think I'll frame that one and put it on the internet wall of shame.  Congratulations.

By the way, I used to work for an engineering firm that had an MIT graduate on staff.  He was the least impressive engineer I've ever met.  He was eventually fired.  MIT graduates are overrated, IMHO.  Oh, and by the way, there is nothing new in your pdf link.  We've heard all this before.


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








You're not too swift are you.  No, the accusation is that OLD ROCKS is posting under multiple aliases.   Do try and keep up silly person....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



OMG!  You are in serious brain fart mode there, dude.  You've truly gone fishing.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



One thing that virtually always distinguishes conservative blather from reason is that it begs for a black and white world,  instead of the one that we have. 

Example: the statement made up for publication here that defines AGW and QM as hypothesis instead of theories.  

Take for instance,  GHGs.  Their behavior is a law.  They are defined to be molecules that behave in a certain way.  There is zero doubt that they behave as they've been defined. It's easily measured in a lab.  

Or the fact that burning fossil  fuels in the atmosphere leads to a higher concentration  of CO2 in that atmosphere.  It's certain. 

The link between AGW,  a certainty,  and hostile extreme weather changes is a theory.  It was hypothesized but is supported by observations.  And theory.  It's the expected weather behavior in more highly energized atmosphere. 

The world,  and science,  can only be defined by specifics,  not generalities.  Thats why math is the keystone to science. 

And why what deniers wish was true is of no value to science.


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...






Ahhhhh yes, one of the greatest albums ever....  I think this cut works quite well for you!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqK2PkFgtw]Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd - The Wall (better sound n image) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







To date this is the ONLY thing you have posted that is correct and factual.

So, riddle me this Batman...why do the AGW fraudsters avoid any measurable metric LIKE THE PLAGUE?


And on that note I bid you a'revoir.  We're off to San Diego for a week.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

Nobody has demonstrated that anything that I've posted is incorrect or not factual. I am not aware that there are AGW '' fraudsters ''.  Is there another kind of metric than measurable? Climatology is probably one of the most data intensive fields of science.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I may be comfortably numb, but I am who I am, not who you think I am.  Catch anything yet?  Maybe you should try different tackle.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



LOL, QM is fact now? Really? When did that happen?

How is it, something so small we cannot see can be physically verified? DO you have the ability to view energy transfer at the sub-atomic level? No? Can you verrify physically that all calculations regarding position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle at any point in time are correct?

No you can't.. All you can do is view the effects of such occurences and make a guess... And that's what QM is really, an attempt by men to explain things we donot yet fully understand...Here's the Copenhagan interpretation...

What is Quantum Physics



> The Copenhagen Interpretation
> 
> So sometimes a particle acts like a particle and other times it acts like a wave. So which is it? According to Niels Bohr, who worked in Copenhagen when he presented what is now known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the particle is what you measure it to be. When it looks like a particle, it is a particle. When it looks like a wave, it is a wave. Furthermore, it is meaningless to ascribe any properties or even existence to anything that has not been measured21. Bohr is basically saying that nothing is real unless it is observed.
> While there are many other interpretations of quantum physics, all based on the Copenhagen interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation is by far the most widely used because it provides a "generic" interpretation that does not try to say any more then can be proven. Even so, the Copenhagen interpretation does have a flaw that we will discuss later. Still, since after 70 years no one has been able to come up with an interpretation that works better then the Copenhagen interpretation, that is the one we will use. We will discuss one of the alternatives later.



Notice the part where it tells you it's a guess? LOL, of course not because you're an idiot playing scientist... 

You are a tiresome little troll.. Stop the "scientist" BS already. You are nomore a scientist now than you were as poopie doo socko...


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Nobody has demonstrated that anything that I've posted is incorrect or not factual. I am not aware that there are AGW '' fraudsters ''.  Is there another kind of metric than measurable? Climatology is probably one of the most data intensive fields of science.



Socko, your falsehoods and incorrect statements addorn my signature so get a grip...


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



He's oldoscks in drag, just as you are another in drag..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I think that we can declare the denier movement dead.  It's obvious that they have nothing that seriously questions the science of climatology or any of the findings related to AGW.  They are truly grasping at straws now. 

Not that they will stop.  Ever. But the quality of their descent has fallen to abysmal lately.  As the science of climatology has risen to enough certainty to drive global actions towards sustainable energy.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody has demonstrated that anything that I've posted is incorrect or not factual. I am not aware that there are AGW '' fraudsters ''.  Is there another kind of metric than measurable? Climatology is probably one of the most data intensive fields of science.
> ...



You get a grip.  I stand by every word.  What you illustrate with every post by your signature is your cluelessness. Go earn a GSE and come back with at least a little bit of knowledge.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The limit of Slacksack's  ability to comment.  Conspiracy theory. Less than useless.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



LOL, why didn't you stand by it when Ian tried to claim it was a false quote?

ROFL, BS, you're a moron whomakes up whatever he feels and calls it fact.. Mr. CO2 Cycle..

Dude your ignorance is without peer on this board..


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I see a couple of trends here.  You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.
> ...


**********************************************************************


			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> I see a couple of trends here. You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Me to. You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.



Don't be stupid.  Of course I do.  Both QM and AGW have survived sufficient testing that very large majorities of experts in their respective fields accept them as theories.  Your opinion counts for very, very little in this regard.  They are theories.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Both QM and AGW are hypotheses.



Whether or not you accept them, you are aware that the vast majority of scientists do. Thus this statement is false and you know it to be so. 



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> A hypothesis A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. In order for a hypothesis to move up to the status of theory, it must be extensively tested by experiment and be able to make accurate predictions.



And both theories have done so.  When 97% of the world's climate scientists believe that Nikolov's and Zeller's ATE has met the goals that AGW has met, you will be able to say that it has moved from hypothesis to theory.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> It's funny how defensive you guys are over QM.



Defensive?  I find it funny how poor you are at characterizing our behavior.  Rejecting AGW and QM is foolish and we have made that point clear.  We have not grown defensive about QM.  It hardly needs us to defend it - it does an excellent job on its own.  The published literature on the topic clearly shows your rejection is unwarranted.  This, of course, reinforces my _hypothesis_ that your rejection is made in order to appear iconoclastic and has nothing to do with the theory's technical merits.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> There are people who spend every day searching for a single contradiction in the theory of relativity which will be enough to justify discarding it. QM fails at the most basic level (the hydrogen atom) and is chock full of contradictions and yet, people cling to it much as they cling to AGW even though the hypothesis is failing majestically.


 
Newtonian mechanics fails at both the Planck and relativistic scales. QM actually works at Newtonian scales as they become equivalent in extremis.  Have you rejected Newtonian mechanics?  Every physicist on the planet is aware of the domain conflict between QM, Newtonian mechanics and Relativity.  If you think this is a show-stopper, you are about 70 years behind the times.  Each theory has a range of scale at
which it is valid.  These ranges are known.  Researchers continue to search for a unified theory.  Until they do, when they need a theory to predict behavior and interactions at the Planck scale, they will use QM and their results will be completely satisfactory.

I am tickled a bit by your claim of QM's failing with a hydrogen atom's electron cloud.  How many electrons would that be?  And in what way do you believe QM is unable to solve for the electron's position or momentum?  Do you think Heisenberg refutes QM? Can you solve a three-body problem with Newtonian mechanics? 



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> No experiment has ever been done that demonstrates that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming.



There are thousands of experiments that can be and have been perfomed to that end.  Let me guess, you reject out of hand any such experiment that doesn't use the entirety of the Earth.  That climate sensitivity is under debate does not refute the Greenhouse
Effect or AGW.  No one has suggested that sensitivity is non-positive... unless you'd like to give that a shot.  



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> ..all of its predictions have failed



They have?  Show us a model that can recreate the planet's climate of the last 150 years without assuming AGW.  The predictions of AGW-assuming models are orders of magnitude more accurate than the predictions of models that do NOT assume AGW.  

I find it odd that you try to apply the term "failed" where it is obviously not applicable.  The accuracy of a model's predictions is a measure with multipart parameters.  They are not pass/fail, go/nogo.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> the models of the hypothesis are invariably wrong and yet you believe and question anyone who doesn't. Perhaps you should question yourself.



Your opinion of these models is not shared by the people who use them.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> You really aren't paying attention. I reject them because as hypotheses, they have failed. A single failed prediction or contradiction is cause to go back to the drawing board. Both have failed more than once.





			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable. I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Some small portions of QM have been experimentally verified. As a
> general hypothesis, it is so full of contradictions, failures, and ad
> hoc fixes, that it is not viable. Don't suppose that because some small
> portion of a hypothesis has been proven that the hypothesis in general
> ...



From your link:

Problems with/failures of QM
  *  No model for some macroscopic quantum behavior (high-critical temperature superconductivity), *this is likely to be                                      solved within QM*.

  *  QM is incompatible with general relativity. *This is likely to be solved outside QM*, within some bigger theory. (string theory?)
  *  Interpretation ambiguities of mathematical structure of QM: -Role of measurement -Determinism vs. probability. . . "The old one does not roll dice." -Transition from microscopic quantum mechanical to macroscopic quantum behavior...(Schrodinger's cat, "dead and alive") -Entanglement and hidden-variables. . . (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, Bell's
inequalities) -Bohr's (& Born's) Copenhagen Interpretation vs."many-worlds-theory"

   None of these are falsifications of QM.  And I see no mention of the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom.  Try again if you like, but you're wasting everyone's time and this is off-topic to boot.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Did you see where he recently claimed that AGW both increases and decreases OLR?  What a hoot.


----------



## Camp (Aug 15, 2013)

It was a whole lot easier and less complicated when we just called all this stuff air pollution. Didn't matter if it caused global warming or climate change. Dirty air was dirty air and everyone understood that.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Small problem there: OldSocks and Orogenicman live about 2,000 miles apart.

And who else am I?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 15, 2013)

Camp said:


> It was a whole lot easier and less complicated when we just called all this stuff air pollution. Didn't matter if it caused global warming or climate change. Dirty air was dirty air and everyone understood that.



Who defended the dirty air?  Who fought against measures to reduce it?

The people who were creating it.  The people whose income depended on being able to pollute with abandon.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Dude [PMZ] your ignorance is without peer on this board..



That is irony with a capital I.


----------



## Camp (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > It was a whole lot easier and less complicated when we just called all this stuff air pollution. Didn't matter if it caused global warming or climate change. Dirty air was dirty air and everyone understood that.
> ...



Hasn't changed. The crap going in the air that is alleged to cause climate change is the same crap that helps create todays air pollution. Same players.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



Nice try, dumbass.. he outted himself clearly already. also the name.. Orogenicman.. Oregon man... Give it a rest sparky...

You're the forum moron, you are at least PMZ as well which makes you most likely ifitzme, and oopoopiepants...

Frankly I don't care if you are one person or 50, the fact is you are clones of one another. Doesn't matter if it's done by script or by use of a proxy server, or you are all living in the same dorm and trying to get an "A" on that upcoming climate science exam. You are interchangeable, and irrelevent...


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Dude [PMZ] your ignorance is without peer on this board..
> ...



Any chance you are going to man up and explain the problem you and PMZ have with your rep? It happened at the same time...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



Can you believe these guys?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I don't have any trouble with it.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I bet but why not explain what happened to it.. And why it happened to you and abraham at the same time?

ROFL, come on man you can admit it...Was it socking or was it your plagiarizing?


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I can't beleive you organrocks.... You have no shame...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Look up orogenic, troll.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


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



It had nothing to do with me,  troll.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



he named himself after the process of mountain formation???

LOL, sure socko sure... It's called a pun shithead...He outted himself already, the schmuck didn't even deny it.. get a grip and pay attention..


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Sure, sure socko... you both are mirrors of one another, You both say the most ignorant things, both defend one anothers stupidity,  both had your rep go red zero at the same time...

ROFL, you're busted socko


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

Troll,  there's  nobody paying attention to you except for me and I'm playing you.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

Looks to me troll like all of your friends (there's a stretch)  left you holding the bag.  They know they've lost and you don't.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

No socko you are just that lonely and friendless...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

I'm busted?  By who,  troll.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> No socko you are just that lonely and friendless...



If you come here for friends you are a sicko as well as a troll.


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I'm busted?  By who,  troll.



By you moron...


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No socko you are just that lonely and friendless...
> ...



LOL, I post whenever I feel like it schmuck. I don't have multiple accounts, I don't spend all day and night here everyday like you and the clones... And when I said friends, I meant the real ones, physical beings that you can interact with in the real world...

Jesus man, I say friendless and you automatically assume I meant on here... Damn dude, if you wanted to prove my point you did it...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


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



"LOL, I post whenever I feel like it schmuck."

We realize that. That's what trolls do. The rest of us are debating about critical science. Way, way beyond you. 

If you are not here trying to make friends and are demonstrably unable to debate science, what are you here for troll?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm busted?  By who,  troll.
> ...



I didn't do anything but teach science, troll. You're the only one who is interested in my rep. Why?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I would accuse him of being high on magic mushrooms, but obviously his real problem is that he has a corn cob up his arse.  Poor dear.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Perhaps he's the last of the deniers, but I never really saw him as a denier. Pure troll.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 15, 2013)

gslack said:


> Any chance you are going to man up and explain the problem you and PMZ have with your rep? It happened at the same time...



I think the obvious answer is that you did it.

How old are you son?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 16, 2013)

I originally posted this warning on another thread but since I see you newcomers wasting so much time with this retarded troll, it seems like it would be very relevant here too at this point.



RollingThunder said:


> Just a note for anyone who might be new to this forum: the slackjawedidiot is a troll who will never post anything actually relevant to the topic at hand. As a troll, his mission is to derail informative threads with pointless quibbles and off topic nonsense. Engaging him in debate is futile since he isn't here to debate facts but only to disrupt actual debate. Either ignore him and his clueless drivel or mock him for his idiocy. Attempting to respond normally to his demented posts and expecting a rational response is a huge waste of time.
> 
> Just so you know...


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



LOL you taught science? To whom? I hope you kept your CO2 cycle to yourself.. 

BS pure and simple... Sorry dude but your latest is no better than your last claim...


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

LOL, you clones need a life... You just spent several posts talking about how bad I am, and what a troll I am, yet all of your posts were either to me or about me...

See the problem yet? You have no one else to talk to but me.. ROFL.. As bad as I am, as much as you despise me, and you still come begging for my attention...You people (person) are pathetic...

Face it sparky, I keep you shitheads in check, even on my worst day, I can beat all of you down in the little bit of free time I have to spend here..

The really sad part.. You assholes have all day to spend on the internet. ANd after all of this time, you still haven't used it to better yourselves... You are just as bad now claiming you're a science teacher, as you were the last time and before when you made up your expertise.. Why not crack a freaking book? Why not look up something that can help you in your BS song and dance? You want to claim you're a physicist? Fine learn about what they do and how they do it, learn the vernacular, learn the fact a working physicist is unlikely to have 18 hours a day to spend on an internet forum...

mamooth, the navy nuke BS artist who didn't even know half the job requirments...

ooopooopiedoo who was a physics modellor.. Not a physicist... LOL, fine but the problem is physics modellors are either physicists or well on their way to it. And then he showed he didn't know crap about the job...

Saigon the finnish journalist who didn't know anything about finland, or proper quoting and citation...

And now we have the latsest rash of ding dong BS artists.. All acting the same way, all claiming education and training they most certainly do not show here in their posts... 

Wasn't organman supposedly some kind of climate science guru with credentials a mile long? And what have we seen from this self-proclaimed expert... LOL, ignorant posts using oldsocks tactics, and showing ever more that he is most assuredly not anything like he claimed to be...

And Pmz who is a science teacher... WHo doesn't know that CO2 isn't an element until we tell him, and goes off in long rants where he spews as much anti-scientific nonsense as anyone ever...

Give us all a break.. Grow up, and post as yourself if you don't want me to hurt your little feelings..


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> I originally posted this warning on another thread but since I see you newcomers wasting so much time with this retarded troll, it seems like it would be very relevant here too at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, and trolling blunder. A professional _*cough_ propaganda poster.. The man who has been caught posting aggro style, more times than I can count.. When he posts a link and you find it doesn't go where it's supposed to, tell him his aggrogator is busted, he will fix it...

ROFL, the man who is the least real of anybody here...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, you clones need a life... You just spent several posts talking about how bad I am, and what a troll I am, yet all of your posts were either to me or about me...



I have to be honest.  In situations like this morning's, when you had the last three posts in this thread, I hit the View Post button and see what you've got to say.  So far, invariably, I see nothing new.  You were the first poster here I put on my Ignore List and I strongly suspect you will never get off of it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, you clones need a life... You just spent several posts talking about how bad I am, and what a troll I am, yet all of your posts were either to me or about me...
> ...



I would neg you if you had any rep points.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Now here's a monumental threat.  Even worse than losing Monopoly money.  

I see the whole denier movement,  as descriptive a word as I can think of,  swirling the bowl. 

They are so impotent in the science debate that their ''big weapon'' are fake points on a nothing counter. 

There is nothing at risk using ignore.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance you are going to man up and explain the problem you and PMZ have with your rep? It happened at the same time...
> ...



I didn't do shit to your rep scumbag..YOU GOT PENALIZED...

And I'm old enough toknow you are a sock... My age is on here socko, if you were smart and paid attention you'd know it.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yes, yes a perfect time for a speech... ROFL, moron... Sobasically you said;

"BLAH , BLAH,  BLAH, pay no attention to the fact my rep was stripped away, because rep is unmportant, and only used by the evil deniers..."


LOL, you crack me up socko!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



""BLAH , BLAH, BLAH, pay no attention to the fact my rep was stripped away, because rep is unmportant, and only used by the evil deniers...""

Good reading. The best that I've seen from you.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



LOL, I go to bed,  and I see you on here, I get up run to the office, have some lunch and you're still on here. I also happen to notice you have been on here pretty much the whole time...

DUDE!  LOL get a grip..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


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



You expect us to believe that you have a office to go to???


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Liars are easy to Spot and stupid liars are even easier to spot they can only come up with lies that they would believe themselves.  Guess she thinks nobody noticed how often he's wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> LOL, you clones need a life... You just spent several posts talking about how bad I am, and what a troll I am, yet all of your posts were either to me or about me...



Don't you recognize and genuine circle jerk when you see it?


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



No socko, I don't expect you to believe anything.. You are always lying so you expect the same from everyone else... Frankly I don't care what you believe.. You see, unlike you I do not worry one bit over what some internet persona thinks about me. 

And the fact that persona is a liar, a fraud, and a moron only makes me worry over it less..

ROFL.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


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



"And the fact that persona is a liar, a fraud, and a moron only makes me worry over it less.."

But such a person would be competition for you in all of those areas.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Ah yes another pee wee herman...Nice... Now go away and let the adults talk junior...

WOW, as if busting you up needed the help, you just pulled that... LOL, too easy junior, now we know you're a juvenile mentally if not physically as well..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Let me check and see if there's any reason at all for your opinion on anything to matter to me. 

Checked and could not find any reason for your opinion to matter to anyone. I came up completely empty. 

Not one reason!  A new record for ignorance revealed.  

Wow.  I just knew that you had some talent.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Bezerk -
> ...



It is, technically, non-toxic. But it is an asphyxiant and at levels of 7-10% will kill you.  From the Wikipedia article on carbon dioxide:

 High concentrations of carbon dioxide can also be used to kill pests.

Carbon dioxide based fire protection systems have been linked to several deaths, because it can cause suffocation in sufficiently high concentrations. A review of CO2 systems identified 51 incidents between 1975 and the date of the report, causing 72 deaths and 145 injuries.[23]

At very high concentrations (100 times atmospheric concentration, or greater), carbon dioxide can be toxic to animal life, so raising the concentration to 10,000 ppm (1%) or higher for several hours will eliminate pests such as whiteflies and spider mites in a greenhouse.[26] 

CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy.[79] Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[81]


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Then stop posting to me and about me junior.... ROFL, you're saying how unimportant I am, yet you beg for my attention like a child...

Make up your mind junior


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



HUSH! PMZ socks must all go take a rest now.. Mom said it's nap time..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



How much must it in suck to have this little to say. Trolls have it hard.  Have to keep talking but have nothing to say.


----------



## gslack (Aug 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



_*"How much must it in suck to"*_ be a guy so desperate he posts on here for 24 hours striaght...

ROFL, go take a nap junior...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2013)

gslack said:


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



And it is all so pointless. O2 is poison at high levels as well but CO2 is a trace gas and there isn't a shred of evidence that adding a couple of hundred parts per million can cause anything at all.  

Have you seen some of the "experiments" these guys try to pass off as evidence so AGW?  Proof positive that they don't have a clue.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



O2 isn't toxic till you hit 2 ATM partial pressure.  

Are you actually trying to suggest that YOU know better than the hundreds or thousands of scientists who have conducted and reviewed the conduct of such experiments?  None of them have a clue, but you do?  Really?

You're whacked, dude.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



Desperate is as desperate does.  They have literally nothing and now they know it with overwhelming certainty.  So if there are amongst tbem serious deniers,  they will drop out here leaving only the political hacks behind.  They will never go away.


----------



## gslack (Aug 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



And if you eat too much red meat you could get heart disease. So using your logic, we should legislate against red meat...

Stop socko, you're an imbecile..


----------



## gslack (Aug 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



AL franken is your hero... Nothing left to say really...Talk about low standards...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Guess they have no idea how many premature children go blind from a high O2 environment at 1atmosphere of pressure or that at 1 ATM high concentrations of O2 actually starts to oxidize your tissues.  

Funny. They claim to know science but fail at such basic knowledge.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



CO2 is toxic at 1/10th atmosphere.  The toxicity of oxygen has fuck-all to do with this topic.  The toxicity of CO2 also has fuck-all to do with this topic, but at least its the chemical under discussion.

Again - *do you claim that carbon dioxide does not absorb infrared radiation?*


----------



## gslack (Aug 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


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



TRanslation = socko is in trouble so he diverts while asking another question....

CO2 reacts to IR, sure, it just can't defy the laws of physics and warm it's own heat source further...That's a perfect machine socko...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 17, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate energy. They don't care what that energy falls on.


----------



## gslack (Aug 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Of course not but thankfully the object it is falling on does.. LOL, you can talk all you wish socko, it will go badly for you on this one... I'll let SSD beat you over the head with your stupidity tonight. I don't have time to do it...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 17, 2013)

This post deleted.  A cooler head prevailed.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 17, 2013)

gslack said:


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



You have nothing to do but troll. You have all of the time in the world. 

SSDD isn't going to save you on this. Radiant energy falling on a molecule energizes it regardless of it's kinetic energy. Moves electrons to a new level. It doesn't know or care where the energy came from.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is toxic at 1/10th atmosphere.  The toxicity of oxygen has fuck-all to do with this topic.  The toxicity of CO2 also has fuck-all to do with this topic, but at least its the chemical under discussion.
> ...




The topic of this thread is the climate's sensitivity to CO2.  How could you possibly think my statement was a "diversion"?

I've got to be honest.  You (GSlack) were the first person I put on my ignore list but I'm occasionally coerced by events to read your output.  Having done so - and having read the reactions you provoke - it astounds me that you continue to attempt to voice opinions about ANY of this stuff, or - most amazing of all - to criticize anyone else's scientific acumen.  I have no idea what education you've actually been through in your lifetime, but I can assure you you're NOT well grounded in the sciences.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> TRanslation = socko is in trouble so he diverts while asking another question....
> 
> CO2 reacts to IR, sure, it just can't defy the laws of physics and warm it's own heat source further...That's a perfect machine socko...



All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate energy. They don't care what that energy falls on.[/QUOTE]

An all rocks that are dropped on planet earth fall to the ground.  They don't care which way they fall, but they fall to the ground none the less because the force of gravity doesn't give them a choice.  

All objects above absolute zero radiate, but none of them radiate to warmer objects because the force that governs energy movement doesn't make the option available.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD isn't going to save you on this. Radiant energy falling on a molecule energizes it regardless of it's kinetic energy. Moves electrons to a new level. It doesn't know or care where the energy came from.



That implies that the energy is moving spontaneously from a state of high entropy to a state of lower entropy.  Is it your claim that energy can move spontaneously from a state of high entropy to a state of lower entropy?  Easy yes or no question.  What's your answer?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD isn't going to save you on this. Radiant energy falling on a molecule energizes it regardless of it's kinetic energy. Moves electrons to a new level. It doesn't know or care where the energy came from.
> ...



Adding energy to molecules can and does knock them to higher energy states.  This happens in photosynthesis,  for instance.  This is first semester organic chemistry.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> All objects above absolute zero radiate, but none of them radiate to warmer objects because the force that governs energy movement doesn't make the option available.



The energy has to go somewhere.  Where do you think it goes?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 18, 2013)

SSDD said:
			
		

> That implies that the energy is moving spontaneously from a state of high entropy to a state of lower entropy. Is it your claim that energy can move spontaneously from a state of high entropy to a state of lower entropy? Easy yes or no question. What's your answer?



You ask if it CAN?  The answer is yes.  Whether or not it is likely to do so is another question.  And, oddly, the answer to that one would be based on statistics (and probability).


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

Here are the reasons for, and mechanisms of, the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by GHGs, most notably CO2. 

"All molecules have positive (nuclei) and negative (electron clouds) regions, A molecule is dipolar and has a permanent dipole moment, if the averaged centers of its positively and negatively charged regions do not coincide. If a vibrational motion of the molecule disturbs these averages, its dipole moment can change and an appropriate energy of IR radiation can be absorbed to cause this molecular vibration. As an example, consider the CO2 molecule. The more electronegative oxygen atoms attract electron density that makes the ends of the molecule slightly negative. The central carbon atom is therefore slightly positive, as represented in the diagram. Since the molecule is linear with equal bond lengths, the center of negative charge and the center of positive charge coincide at the central point, the carbon atom, and the molecule has no permanent dipole moment. The symmetrical stretching vibration, top representation, does not change this symmetry, does not change the dipole moment, and does not lead to IR absorption. The molecular bending vibrations, middle two representations, displace the negative charges away from the line of centers of the molecule and create a structure with a dipole moment. Thus, the dipole moment changes (from zero to some value) and these motions can be initiated by the absorption of IR radiation. This absorption gives rise to the prominent absorption band centered at about 15 &#956;m. Likewise, for the asymmetric stretching vibration, bottom representation, the average bond lengths become unequal, which moves the positive and negative centers apart, creates a dipole moment, and leads to the IR absorptions at about 4 &#956;m."

From:   Properties

Notice the complete lack of temperature and entropy in the explanation. 

Everyone has a choice. Either get educated enough to understand this quantum mechanics, or accept that the people who are so educated know this to be the explanation that defines what GHGs are and do.


----------



## IanC (Aug 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > TRanslation = socko is in trouble so he diverts while asking another question....
> ...


An all rocks that are dropped on planet earth fall to the ground.  They don't care which way they fall, but they fall to the ground none the less because the force of gravity doesn't give them a choice.  

All objects above absolute zero radiate, but none of them radiate to warmer objects because the force that governs energy movement doesn't make the option available.[/QUOTE]

You have a fundementally incorrect understanding of the second law. The quote in your signature is correct. There is no physical law that prohibits individual transfers of energy against the net flow. They happen all the time, especially when the temperature gradient is small. We have been over this a dozen times. Two objects at the same temperature do not stop radiating at each other, there I'd just no net flow. It is not like gravity or even like the flow of electrons in a wire. Photons are not like particles of matter.


----------



## IanC (Aug 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here are the reasons for, and mechanisms of, the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by GHGs, most notably CO2.
> 
> "All molecules have positive (nuclei) and negative (electron clouds) regions, A molecule is dipolar and has a permanent dipole moment, if the averaged centers of its positively and negatively charged regions do not coincide. If a vibrational motion of the molecule disturbs these averages, its dipole moment can change and an appropriate energy of IR radiation can be absorbed to cause this molecular vibration. As an example, consider the CO2 molecule. The more electronegative oxygen atoms attract electron density that makes the ends of the molecule slightly negative. The central carbon atom is therefore slightly positive, as represented in the diagram. Since the molecule is linear with equal bond lengths, the center of negative charge and the center of positive charge coincide at the central point, the carbon atom, and the molecule has no permanent dipole moment. The symmetrical stretching vibration, top representation, does not change this symmetry, does not change the dipole moment, and does not lead to IR absorption. The molecular bending vibrations, middle two representations, displace the negative charges away from the line of centers of the molecule and create a structure with a dipole moment. Thus, the dipole moment changes (from zero to some value) and these motions can be initiated by the absorption of IR radiation. This absorption gives rise to the prominent absorption band centered at about 15 &#956;m. Likewise, for the asymmetric stretching vibration, bottom representation, the average bond lengths become unequal, which moves the positive and negative centers apart, creates a dipole moment, and leads to the IR absorptions at about 4 &#956;m."
> 
> ...



Absorption/emission are not temperature dependent but there is a transfer of momentum that affects entropy. Temperature does affect the production of blackbody radiation.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

If one was doing studies on the flow of people through a train station, they would start by gathering data on the direction, range of speeds, and temporal distribution of people flow compared to, say, train arrivals and departures. 

By statistical analysis the flow and logistics could be optimized. 

Some of that analysis could be adequately served by looking at net flow. Other studies would need to consider the flow in each direction. 

So with thermodynamics. Many times net flow of heat is adequate. Other times the flow in both directions is required for a given analysis. 

Like GHG concentrations vs AGW for instance.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All objects above absolute zero radiate, but none of them radiate to warmer objects because the force that governs energy movement doesn't make the option available.
> ...



All dropped rocks must go somewhere.  There is a force that determines where that is.  There is also a force that determines where energy will flow and it isn't in the direction of less entropy.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Prove that it can.  The second law says it can't.  Prove the second law wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here are the reasons for, and mechanisms of, the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by GHGs, most notably CO2.
> 
> "All molecules have positive (nuclei) and negative (electron clouds) regions, A molecule is dipolar and has a permanent dipole moment, if the averaged centers of its positively and negatively charged regions do not coincide. If a vibrational motion of the molecule disturbs these averages, its dipole moment can change and an appropriate energy of IR radiation can be absorbed to cause this molecular vibration. As an example, consider the CO2 molecule. The more electronegative oxygen atoms attract electron density that makes the ends of the molecule slightly negative. The central carbon atom is therefore slightly positive, as represented in the diagram. Since the molecule is linear with equal bond lengths, the center of negative charge and the center of positive charge coincide at the central point, the carbon atom, and the molecule has no permanent dipole moment. The symmetrical stretching vibration, top representation, does not change this symmetry, does not change the dipole moment, and does not lead to IR absorption. The molecular bending vibrations, middle two representations, displace the negative charges away from the line of centers of the molecule and create a structure with a dipole moment. Thus, the dipole moment changes (from zero to some value) and these motions can be initiated by the absorption of IR radiation. This absorption gives rise to the prominent absorption band centered at about 15 &#956;m. Likewise, for the asymmetric stretching vibration, bottom representation, the average bond lengths become unequal, which moves the positive and negative centers apart, creates a dipole moment, and leads to the IR absorptions at about 4 &#956;m."
> 
> ...



There never has been an argument that CO2 doesn't absorb IR.  The argument is whether that absorption leads to AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2013)

IanC said:


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



You have a fundementally incorrect understanding of the second law. The quote in your signature is correct. There is no physical law that prohibits individual transfers of energy against the net flow. They happen all the time, especially when the temperature gradient is small. We have been over this a dozen times. Two objects at the same temperature do not stop radiating at each other, there I'd just no net flow. It is not like gravity or even like the flow of electrons in a wire. Photons are not like particles of matter.[/QUOTE]

Dozens of times and still not the first bit of actual observed evidence.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You say that the second law says it can't.  As the second law is not quantum mechanics,  the truth is, that it has nothing to say about the behavior of individual molecules relative to radiative energy.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here are the reasons for, and mechanisms of, the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by GHGs, most notably CO2.
> ...



The absorption doesn't lead to AGW.  The subsequent reradiation in all directions does, as it prevents half of the IR absorbed from leaving the planetary system and  instead,  directs it down to land,  water and ice where it adds to solar irradiance.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Okay, so where does it go?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



Precisely where the second law says it must go...in the direction of more entropy. Every observation ever made, every experiment ever done verifies that fundamental fact...ergo, the second LAW of thermodynamics.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



The second law does not apply at the molecular level any more than a statistical inference predicts exactly the behavior of any individual. 

And this will remain true no matter how many times you claim the opposite.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



So you say.  Now prove it.  Lets see the empirical evidence.  What's that you say?  There is none; and you have acceped it as an article of faith.



PMZ said:


> And this will remain true no matter how many times you claim the opposite.



What will remain true is that there isn't even the smallest bit of empirical evidence to support the claim.  What will also remain true is that the belief, is an act of faith on your part...an act of faith in accepting a thing that has not, nor can not be proven.  The same sort of faith that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth express.  Congratulations.


----------



## IanC (Aug 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 19, 2013)

IanC said:


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



I suspect he is one of those unfortunate souls who kept sticking his tongue in the wall outlet AFTER having already had the shite shocked out of him.  Of course, this doesn't mean he has an electrifying personality, just that, nothing he says is shocking anymore.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2013)

IanC said:


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



I can't help but notice that for all your crowing, you didn't provide any link to the empirical evidence that would support your claim.  We both know that you didn't because  it doesn't exist


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



I can't help but notice that you also have not posted a link to any empirical evidence to support your claims.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 19, 2013)

SSDD, do you actually mean to say that you do not believe any experiment has ever verified QM?


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 19, 2013)

"I can't help but notice that for all your crowing, you didn't provide any link to the empirical evidence that would support your claim. We both know that you didn't because it doesn't exist"

Axiom: If it's not on the internet, it doesn't exist!


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



So we are required to provide empirical evidence to support our insults?  Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha!  They are insults, dumbass.  The only requirement is that they be insulting.  Take a number and get back in line.


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2013)

IanC said:


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



HAHAHAHA Ian thinks QM is not a theory but fact...

It's a theory numbnuts. It is an attempt to explain the atomic and sub-atomic world that we cannot see directly. It's not complete, it has many issues, and that is A FACT...

Your pretense that it is a fact and complete shows how little you really understand..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Do you really think think that all mankind knows are things that we can see directly?  Thats bizarre.


----------



## IanC (Aug 19, 2013)

gslack said:


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



Poor, poor gslack. Your world must be confusing to you, seen through the prism of such a tiny malfunctioning brain.

Does QM have paradoxes and counterintuative reasoning sometimes? Of course. Is it a useful and successful tool in describing our world and predicting outcomes? Most definitely yes.

I would compare it to i, the square root of negative one. Something that factually impossible but ever so useful. The world as we know it could not exist without complex numbers to solve the equations in our advanced technology. Imaginary numbers, just like quantum theory, are beyond even your rudimentary understanding but I assure you that they have an important place in our civilization.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

People who know little believe that that's all everyone knows. Dunning-Kruger.

People who know a lot tend to believe that everyone can know as much.  

The Dunning-Kruger types just cannot move on. They have no motivation to.


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And what's the difference between something being a "useful tool" as you put it, and a scientific and natural law? A law does rely on a statistical possibility, it is proven correct by observation.

The very fact that uncertainty principle ensures we cannot accurately know both position and momentum at the same time, should show my point.. How about the compromise known as wave-aprticle duality?

LOL, you think QM is complete as it is.. You're an idiot, who worships numbers with no grasp of what they mean in the real world... You take a mathematical possibility as a known certainty, and don't even realize the difference..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD, do you actually mean to say that you do not believe any experiment has ever verified QM?



I said that no experiments have been done that supports your claim that energy can spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.  The fact that parts of QM have been verified doesn't mean that QM has been verified.  It is still rife with contradictions and ad hoc fixes.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "I can't help but notice that for all your crowing, you didn't provide any link to the empirical evidence that would support your claim. We both know that you didn't because it doesn't exist"
> 
> Axiom: If it's not on the internet, it doesn't exist!



Then give me a bibliographical reference.  I am willing to visit a library.  I am in a university library at least once a week so looking up your reference will be no problem.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So we are required to provide empirical evidence to support our insults?  Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha!  They are insults, dumbass.  The only requirement is that they be insulting.  Take a number and get back in line.



Unable to follow the thread of a conversation huh?  Unfortunate but not very surprising.  Maybe if you go back and look carefully and read the conversation two or ten times, you will see what we were talking about and what prompted his sophmoric insult which then triggered a predictable knee jerk response in you.


----------



## gslack (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Quiet socko, you're not even worth a thoughtful response anymore. Everyone here knows it. Ian coddles you because it suits his needs at this time. he's a save-ass in warmer denial right now.. he will come into the fold of true warmer very soon...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

It's always entertaining to read those who don't understand science trying to use it to deny it.  If you find that confusing you understand it perfectly.


----------



## IanC (Aug 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, do you actually mean to say that you do not believe any experiment has ever verified QM?
> ...



In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment.  In shot, you believe, you don't know.   I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



You are trying to make statements that are complete non-sequiters.

You cannot say, "energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy".  It is a non-sense statement.  There is no such thing as instantaneous entropy.  Entropy is a statistical quality of a system.  It is an accounting of all the states that the energy can be distributed in.  At any instance of time, the energy can be distributed in on particular manner.  At another instance, it can be distributed in another particular manner.  Neither of these have any bearing on an "instantaneous" measure of entropy because entropy is a count of both distributions.

Energy in a system "moves" from one distribution to another.  

A particle has a kinetic energy of K.E. = (1/2)*m*V^2.  V is a three dimensional vector given as V = (Vx,Vy,Vz). 

The kinetic energy of a particle is exactly the same for an infinite number of difference combinations of Vx, Vy and Vz.  

Entropy counts how many different ways the energy can be distributed.

A particle with a velocity of 5 fps moving in a positive x direction has the exact same energy as a particle moving in the negative direction.

Two particles moving at the same speed in the same direction is one state.  Two particles moving at the same speed in opposite directions is another state.  Entropy is an accounting of all the different ways that the particle velocities can take on given the same amount of kinetic energy.

Two particle with the identical kinetic energy and momentum moving towards each other and colliding, given perfect elastic collisions, will move away in opposite directions.  The amount of energy hasn't changed.  The distribution of the energy has changed.  The entropy is an accounting of both possible configurations, before and after the collision.

Saying, "energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy." is non-sense.  It is attempting to force some concept onto "entropy" that doesn't exists.

Kinetic Energy=(.5) times mass times  velocity squared

Force = mass time accelleration.

Work = Force times distance

A force, acting of a mass, accellerates it.  In acting over a specific distance, that mass is accellerated from one velocity to another velocity.  The energy of the mass changes from one level to another level.  

In that description, energy didn't "move".  The mass moved.  The moving mass has energy.  The concept of entropy is a complete non-sequiter because it simply doesn't apply to the change of energy of a particle as it accellerates from one velocity to another or moves from one position to another.

In order to speak of entropy, we must speak of the entopy of a large volume of particles with a distribution of energies.  At any instance in time, there is no "entropy" of the system.  At a specific instance in time, there is a distribution of energy among the particles, some at low velocity, some at high velocity.  Those particles collide, constantly, and the distribution of energy changes.  The amount of energy in the system does not change.  The total number of states, the ways the particles can be distributed in velocities and directions, changes.  An accounting of all the ways the particles can  be distributed, over a large enough time period to be statistically relevant, is the entropy of the system.

Energy doesn't "move" from one entropy to another entropy.  Entropy is an accounting of all the ways the energy can be distributed.

Saying "energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy" is making a statement of complete non-sense.  It is niether true or false, it is simply not sensicle.

Entropy counts the number of configurations that the energy can be in.  Energy changes constantly, in a system with energy, from one configuration to another.

When energy is added to a system, the number of configurations  that the particles can assume increases.  Energy did not "move" from one entropy to another in the process of adding energy.

A single particle does not have entropy.  

Energy can be absorbed and excreted by a single particle with no concept of "entropy" even being part of the process.

You are confusing the meaning of "energy" and "entropy".  A system can have energy.  A particle can have energy.  A photon is a little amount of energy.  A moving mass has kinetic energy.  When the particle or photon moves, the energy moves from one location and time to another location and time.  

When energy is transfered between particles, the energy of one decreases and the energy of the other increases.  We might concieve of the energy as having "moved" from one to the other.

A system, consisting of a large quantity of particles has energy.  Energy can "move" all over the place, within that system of particles, without changing the energy of the system.  The system has no instantaneous entropy.  The system has instantaneous states of energy, defined by all the individual particles.  The instantaneous condition of the energy can change from one state to another.  There is no concept of instantaneous entropy in this.

A single molecule of gas does not have entropy.  Two molecules of gas do not have entropy.  To speak of entropy requires some 10^24 particles over a large period of time.  

Two single molecules of gas have individual energies.  No single molecule of gas has "temperature". 

A molecule of gas with an energy level of E1 may emit a photon.  Another molecule of gas at a higher energy level, E2>E1 can absorb that photon.  There is not involvement of thermodynamics in this.  There is no concept of entropy.  There is no concept of entropy change.  There is no entropy at all.

It's a complete non-sequiter.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Don't NEED an experiment. It's how RADIATIVE thermal transfers work.. 

Take a vacuum chamber and put in a Warm metal ball.. Count the photon energy it emits towards a wall on the far right side of the chamber.. 

Now go and insert a HOTTER identical metal ball --- between ball #1 and the same wall.

Does ball #1 stop RADIATING in that direction?

 If so --- is it STILL radiating towards the OPPOSITE wall???
If not -- why not? 

(Remember -- NO THERMAL CONDUCTION --- only EMag radiation in a vacuum)

Enquirying minds need to be warped SSDD style.. 
This is simple chit man...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



In order for any energy to be absorbed by the warmer ball from the cooler ball, the energy would have to move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.  Sorry, guy.  It doesn't happen.....ever.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You cannot say, "energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy".



Actually I said from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state, but then accuracy isn't your thing is it.  When I said that energy can't move from cool to warm, you went on about entropy as if the terms meant different things. 



itfitzme said:


> It is a non-sense statement.  There is no such thing as instantaneous entropy.



Who, besides you said anyting about instantaneous.  Maybe in your ignorance you thing spontaneous and instantaneous are the same thing.  Sorry again for your ignorance.



itfitzme said:


> Entropy is a statistical quality of a system.  It is an accounting of all the states that the energy can be distributed in.  At any instance of time, the energy can be distributed in on particular manner.  At another instance, it can be distributed in another particular manner.  Neither of these have any bearing on an "instantaneous" measure of entropy because entropy is a count of both distributions.



Again, only you are talking about instantaneous anything.  I am talking about your idiotic claims that energy can move spontaneously from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.  If that doesn't make sense to you then perhaps some study on your part is in order.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



So it WAS RADIATING towards that wall --- but STOPPED radiating in that direction when the 2nd hotter ball was placed in it's path? Is that your story?

Is it still radiating towards the REST of enclosure??


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



You seem to believe that things observed and measured in the real world every day are not valid because they are not experimental.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.



Two coals being hotter on the sides facing each would be one simple and obvious observation that says you're full of shit.

When the only one left on your "team" is lackwit gslack, that should give you a hint that you've gone totally off the rails.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So it WAS RADIATING towards that wall --- but STOPPED radiating in that direction when the 2nd hotter ball was placed in it's path? Is that your story?
> 
> Is it still radiating towards the REST of enclosure??



Not "my" story, only what the second LAW of thermodynamics supports and predicts.  Just like it predicts that if you roll a marble along an incline and then tip the incline in the other direction, the ball will then roll the other way.

Interesting how you guys try to make the laws of thermodynamics mine.  I admit to being smarter than the average bear, but I didn't come up with the laws of thermodynamics and if it were left to me, I am afriad that they would have never been figured out.  I appreciate that you believe I am smart enough to formulate the laws of thermodynamics, but I'm not.  I am smart enough, however, to read them and grasp that they describe a one way energy flow...and smart enough to grasp that every observation ever made verifies a one way energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Backradiation is neither observed, nor measured in the real world....ever.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


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


 Energy spontaneously moving from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state is neither observed, nor measured in the real world....ever.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.
> ...



It means that they are not radiating in that direction and therefore not losing heat in that direction...it isn't an example of backradiation.



mamooth said:


> When the only one left on your "team" is lackwit gslack, that should give you a hint that you've gone totally off the rails.



I don't have a team...I only have what the laws of thermodynamics say.  You think those two coals prove the second law of thermodynamics wrong?  You think the men who formulated those laws never observed coals?  You think they missed that totally unique set of circumstances?


----------



## gslack (Aug 21, 2013)

Notice how when Ian and now flac, get stuck they try and claim "stops radiating, in that direction, decides not toradiate in that directions, et, so on"

Doesn't matter how manny times we explain, how much of their OWN sources material, text books, and so on say the exact same thing, if spencer and the SOD guy don't agree, or say it means something else that's how it is...

It's ridiculous... For people maintaining claims of science, to be so unscientific when it threatens their heroes...


----------



## gslack (Aug 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.
> ...



LOL, the lackwit that made you cry... ROFL

LOL, two coals warmer on the side facing one another is an example of reflection, and the fact the other sides are cooling at a faster rate because there isn't another heat source on those sides... In other words, it's not that the facing sides are getting hotter, it's that the other sides are getting cooler faster..

LOL, you aren't getting any smarter admiral...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

The experiment that unequivocally demonstrates how GHGs work. 

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/03/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-one/


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The experiment that unequivocally demonstrates how GHGs work.
> 
> Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom





Guess you don't know what constitutes an experiment either goober.  Thought experiments aren't worth the time it takes to think them up because they remain unproven.  It is becoming more clear why you guys continue to believe.  You belieive anything represents science whether it actually is or not.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The experiment that unequivocally demonstrates how GHGs work.
> ...



Nobody has ever learned any science from you.  Nor have you learned any from others. 

The experiment that I referenced can be performed by anyone with the right resources and proves unequivocally the absorption re-emission characteristics of GHGs.  Also that the more GHG molecules long wave energy encounters on the way out of the earth system,  the more pronounced is their impact.  

It's the deniers downfall.  And your worst nightmare. 

Not that anyone believes that you're smart enough to recognize any of that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So it WAS RADIATING towards that wall --- but STOPPED radiating in that direction when the 2nd hotter ball was placed in it's path? Is that your story?
> ...



You are simply CONFUSING and MISQUOTING the laws of thermo.. Thermo is actually MORE than one class. And I've told you several times that when heat moves by means of RADIATION it follows different rules than when it moves by Conduction or Convection. The rules for radiation are essentially the same rules for LIGHT PROPAGATION. And folks who ASSUME that the solutions for ALL MODES of thermal propagation are exactly the same are gonna mess up... 

So the equations get solve DIFFERENTLY --- yet there is NO VIOLATION of any thermo law. You keep saying that there MUST be -- but yet -- there isn't.

Nothing personal is going on here. I'm just defending fellow skeptics like Dr. Spencer who defend "better science". Can't partner up with folks that are shooting our own for no good reason.  Doesn't mean I don't admire your dedication to the cause. 

Unless you allow the cooler ball to continue to radiate towards the warmer ball, you cannot solve the radiation equations. DOES NOT MEAN that thermal flow RESULTS in warming of the hotter object. In fact -- the cooler ball will HEAT and increase it's flow out in all directions. But the hotter ball will cool more SLOWLY because of the proximity of the first ball. The flow (or flux) equations work. And no rules are violated.

There is no mechanism for the Ball #1 to stop radiating in the direction of warmer objects. *Not for radiative heat flow*.  If you insist that it does -- tell me how it selectively stops radiating towards warmer objects. What if that warmer object is 10 meters away? Does some of the light not land on "warmer objects"?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Nobody has ever learned any science from you.  Nor have you learned any from others.
> 
> The experiment that I referenced can be performed by anyone with the right resources and proves unequivocally the absorption re-emission characteristics of GHGs.  Also that the more GHG molecules long wave energy encounters on the way out of the earth system,  the more pronounced is their impact.



Contained at high concentrations.  Right.  That really proves your point.  Like I said, it is no wonder you believe.  You have been fooled and don't even know it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> You are simply CONFUSING and MISQUOTING the laws of thermo.. Thermo is actually MORE than one class. And I've told you several times that when heat moves by means of RADIATION it follows different rules than when it moves by Conduction or Convection.



Yep, you have said it more than once but the problem is that the laws of thermodynamics don't say it so if I must choose between your credibility and the credibility of the laws of thermodynamics, I am afraid I must goe with the laws.



flacaltenn said:


> The rules for radiation are essentially the same rules for LIGHT PROPAGATION. And folks who ASSUME that the solutions for ALL MODES of thermal propagation are exactly the same are gonna mess up...



The second law defines how radiated energy moves...from lower entropy states to higher entropy states.  It isn't confusing and it is a one way street.  Energy doesn't move spontaneously from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.  If it did, and could be proven, rather than go on endlessly with these idiotic mind experiments, someone would simply do an experiment that proves it.  No such experiment exists because it would be pointless trying to prove something that doesn't happen.



flacaltenn said:


> So the equations get solve DIFFERENTLY --- yet there is NO VIOLATION of any thermo law. You keep saying that there MUST be -- but yet -- there isn't.



Except that there is....just as soon as you try to move energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.



flacaltenn said:


> Nothing personal is going on here. I'm just defending fellow skeptics like Dr. Spencer who defend "better science". Can't partner up with folks that are shooting our own for no good reason.  Doesn't mean I don't admire your dedication to the cause.



Spencer has had his ass handed to him so many times that now he is asking if a greenhouse works on the greenhouse principle.  The man has become a waste.  He believes that he is measuring backradiation with his hand held infrared thermometer even after a manufacturer of such devices stated explicitly that they are designed not to detect atmospheric radiation.



flacaltenn said:


> Unless you allow the cooler ball to continue to radiate towards the warmer ball, you cannot solve the radiation equations.
> 
> DOES NOT MEAN that thermal flow RESULTS in warming of the hotter object. In fact -- the cooler ball will HEAT and increase it's flow out in all directions. But the hotter ball will cool more SLOWLY because of the proximity of the first ball. The flow (or flux) equations work. And no rules are violated.



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. so sayeth the second law.  Sorry guy, I just can't take you seriously when you are in opposition to the second law, or any physical law for that matter.

I believe that you believe it, but I don't.  When your QM superceeds or causes the second law to be changed (fat chance) then I can take you seriously but till then....sorry.



flacaltenn said:


> There is no mechanism for the Ball #1 to stop radiating in the direction of warmer objects. *Not for radiative heat flow*.  If you insist that it does -- tell me how it selectively stops radiating towards warmer objects. What if that warmer object is 10 meters away? Does some of the light not land on "warmer objects"?



There is no more selectivity with regard to the direction an object radiates than there is for which direction a rock falls when dropped, or which way electricity runs down a line, or which direction air moves when a tire is punctured and there is a force that determines all.  We can't describe the mechanism but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Radiated energy only moves in the direction of more entropy....period.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate energy in all directions.  Simple physics.  They have no mechanism to radiate in selective directions.  GHGs absorb radiation incident upon them of the appropriate wave lengths.  They have no ability to discriminate except by wavelength.  Thats what physics says. Elementary.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody has ever learned any science from you.  Nor have you learned any from others.
> ...



The problem is that you don't understand the 2ond Law.  That simple.  







SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You are simply CONFUSING and MISQUOTING the laws of thermo.. Thermo is actually MORE than one class. And I've told you several times that when heat moves by means of RADIATION it follows different rules than when it moves by Conduction or Convection.
> ...


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2013)

I don't actually understand SSDD's reasoning but shouldn't the Moon's gravity shut off when directed at the earth? What is the difference between the net gravity between two objects and the net flow of heat?

I am being sarcastic but the idea and the concepts are interesting.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate energy in all directions.  Simple physics.  They have no mechanism to radiate in selective directions.  GHGs absorb radiation incident upon them of the appropriate wave lengths.  They have no ability to discriminate except by wavelength.  Thats what physics says. Elementary.



You say that as if it were a proven fact.  It is not.  If you believe it is, then provide the observable experiment that proves it and in turn proves the second law of thermodynamics wrong.   

You guys make a lot of statements like that as if they were fact and don't seem to grasp that they are statements of hypothesis that remain unproven.

Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.  Do you think a rock has any input in selecting which way it will fall when dropped?  Do you think an electron has any input in selecting which way it moves down a wire?  If not, why would you believe some selection is available to the direction a molecule radiates when the second law says, and every observation ever made confirms that energy can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The problem is that you don't understand the 2ond Law.  That simple.





			
				University of Georgia Physics Department said:
			
		

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



I understand the Second Law just fine.  It is a straight forward statment with no wiggle room and it defies your AGW hypothesis.  I am afraid that it is you who has been misled in regards to the Second Law since you must immediately contradict it whenever you discuss your beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> I don't actually understand SSDD's reasoning but shouldn't the Moon's gravity shut off when directed at the earth? What is the difference between the net gravity between two objects and the net flow of heat?



The force of gravity changes with the inverse square of the distance between objects.   Move the moon closer to earth and gravity changes both here and on the moon.  Gravity isn't a matter of direction as is the case with radiation but as objects move closer or further away from each other gravity changes just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate.   

The laws of thermodynamics describe this, but you reject the satements of the laws because they don't mesh with your belief in the magic.  You prefer unprovable, unstestable hypothesis instead.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate.



I may be getting nitpicky, but this statement is false.  All objects radiate on their orthogonal surface vectors based solely on their temperature and the emissivity of their surfaces.  What alters in a multibody issue is the net radiative flux.



SSDD said:


> The laws of thermodynamics describe this, but you reject the satements of the laws because they don't mesh with your belief in the magic.  You prefer unprovable, unstestable hypothesis instead.



AGW does not violate the Second Law.  And as long we're here, neither does evolution.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate.
> ...



Read a bit on poynting vectors.  The most obvious application is radio and microwave transmission, but it applies to all radiation.



SSDD said:


> The laws of thermodynamics describe this, but you reject the satements of the laws because they don't mesh with your belief in the magic.  You prefer unprovable, unstestable hypothesis instead.





Abraham3 said:


> AGW does not violate the Second Law.  And as long we're here, neither does evolution.



If it depends on backradiation it does.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.



Where I come from, they call this La-La-Land.  What forces do you believe exist that we cannot explain THAT APPLY TO THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE?  



SSDD said:


> Do you think a rock has any input in selecting which way it will fall when dropped?  Do you think an electron has any input in selecting which way it moves down a wire?  If not, why would you believe some selection is available to the direction a molecule radiates when the second law says, and every observation ever made confirms that energy can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?



A few posts down from here you state that the presence of other bodies will alter the directions in which an object radiates.  Here you seem to say the opposite.  Is this dichotomy of yours intentional?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate energy in all directions.  Simple physics.  They have no mechanism to radiate in selective directions.  GHGs absorb radiation incident upon them of the appropriate wave lengths.  They have no ability to discriminate except by wavelength.  Thats what physics says. Elementary.
> ...



How many times do you plan to avoid the experiment that proves how GHGs work. Scienceofdoom.com. You not looking at it doesn't make it go away.  It will always be there proving you wrong. We all know that but you hope by hiding from it to avoid learning.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.
> ...



So you are claiming that you can describe the mechanism by which gravity operates?  You can explain the mechanism that brought about the concept of wave/particle duality?  I would be very interested in hearing an accurate description of the mechanism behind those phenomena.  When you are through with those, I have a few more for you.



Abraham3 said:


> A few posts down from here you state that the presence of other bodies will alter the directions in which an object radiates.  Here you seem to say the opposite.  Is this dichotomy of yours intentional?



My statements are consistent.  Sorry you have a comprehension problem.  The second law says that energy can not move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.  Place a warmer object in the vicinity of a radiating cooler object and it can not radiate towards the warmer object.  If it did, it would be in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer object.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> How many times do you plan to avoid the experiment that proves how GHGs work. Scienceofdoom.com. You not looking at it doesn't make it go away.  It will always be there proving you wrong. We all know that but you hope by hiding from it to avoid learning.



There was no experiment.  There was an unperformed thought experiment involving a high concentration of gas enclosed in a box.  That hardly proves the greenhouse hypothesis.  It does prove what happens when radiative gasses in high concentrations are kept in an enclosure.  Two different things entirely.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2013)

gslack said:


> Notice how when Ian and now flac, get stuck they try and claim "stops radiating, in that direction, decides not toradiate in that directions, et, so on"
> 
> Doesn't matter how manny times we explain, how much of their OWN sources material, text books, and so on say the exact same thing, if spencer and the SOD guy don't agree, or say it means something else that's how it is...
> 
> It's ridiculous... For people maintaining claims of science, to be so unscientific when it threatens their heroes...



Absolutely not LyingSack... I (we) don't claim it "stops radiating in that direction".. I was summarizing SSDD's contention and asking for confirmation.. If you don't know the real physics from the 20 pages of debate.. You've got no right to put words in my mouth... 

"how many times we explain"   ????? You've explained nothing.. You didn't even answer my questions about the thought experiment.. You're chicken..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You are simply CONFUSING and MISQUOTING the laws of thermo.. Thermo is actually MORE than one class. And I've told you several times that when heat moves by means of RADIATION it follows different rules than when it moves by Conduction or Convection.
> ...



You COULD stick with the Thermo laws --- if you TRULY understood how they are to be applied. You don't.. And the mess that results from NOT LISTENING to how this works is gonna gum up your ability to comprehend anything about photons generated from a heated body.. 

Too bad. That metal ball isn't gonna stop radiating in ANY direction --- just because there's a warmer object 10 meters away.. 

It's much simpler than the ABSURB picture of every object selectively throwing photons out "because of something like gravity".. That's an OVERINTERPRETATION of the 2nd law.. And it doesn't happen.. What IS --- "that something like gravity"?? There is NO direct thermal conduction in a vacuum.. What FORCE are you invoking?

BTW: BECAUSE this isn't personal --- let's try one more thing.. 

Photons are NOT heat.. They are ElectroMagnetic Energy.. HEAT flows along potentials of thermal difference. EM energy doesn't care about temperature or thermal gradients. So why should IR photons (light) obey ANYTHING about thermal gradients?? Find me a reference that EM energy propagates according to thermal gradients. Or that EM only propagates from higher to lower entropy.. That statement simply doesn't exist.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 22, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > How many times do you plan to avoid the experiment that proves how GHGs work. Scienceofdoom.com. You not looking at it doesn't make it go away.  It will always be there proving you wrong. We all know that but you hope by hiding from it to avoid learning.
> ...



Can't wait to see some evidence of your claims.  In fact,  I can't wait to see even the slightest evidence of any of your claims.  

Soon?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Can't wait to see some evidence of your claims.  In fact,  I can't wait to see even the slightest evidence of any of your claims.
> 
> Soon?



You are to blind and stupid to see the evidence.  All you have to do is look around.  No warming for over 15 years now in spite of steadily increasing CO2.  Your hypothesis is failing.  So called greenhouse gasses aren't doing what your hypothesis claimed they would be doing.  The real world is evidence of the failure of the hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> You COULD stick with the Thermo laws --- if you TRULY understood how they are to be applied. You don't.. And the mess that results from NOT LISTENING to how this works is gonna gum up your ability to comprehend anything about photons generated from a heated body..



I do understand how they are applied...observation bears me out.  You on the other hand believe that QM is correct in its entirety and are either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge that the line of thought is chock full of errors, contradictions and ad hoc fixes.  When, and if it ever gets all of its problems worked out, it will bear little resemblence to its appearance today.  Hell, at present they are working on a different schrodenger's equation if a different equation could still be called schrodengers.



flacaltenn said:


> Too bad. That metal ball isn't gonna stop radiating in ANY direction --- just because there's a warmer object 10 meters away..



So you say, but the second law says differently.  Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer object.



flacaltenn said:


> BTW: BECAUSE this isn't personal --- let's try one more thing..



We are not going to agree.  You believe in something that I don't.  I don't accept the post modern, unproven, untestable claim that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply at microscopic levels.  



flacaltenn said:


> Photons are NOT heat.. They are ElectroMagnetic Energy.. HEAT flows along potentials of thermal difference. EM energy doesn't care about temperature or thermal gradients.



Of course it does.  The laws of thermodynamics aren't just about heat.  Again:



			
				 Georgia Tech Physics Department said:
			
		

> 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.



Electromagnetic energy, and all other forms of energy, from obey the laws of thermodynamics.  



flacaltenn said:


> So why should IR photons (light) obey ANYTHING about thermal gradients??



If you are asking that question seriously, then it is you who really needs to bone up on the laws of thermodynamics.



flacaltenn said:


> Find me a reference that EM energy propagates according to thermal gradients. Or that EM only propagates from higher to lower entropy.. That statement simply doesn't exist.



As I have said, and you really should learn, heat is only one of the many types of energy transfers that are covered by the second law of thermodynamics....everything from water running downhill to air escaping from a baloon.  I repeat...ANY ENERGY TRANSFER....and what are photons if not energy?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Can't wait to see some evidence of your claims.  In fact,  I can't wait to see even the slightest evidence of any of your claims.
> ...



How often does the data showing that the Earth's mechanism currently being employed to deal with the imbalance of energy in vs energy out, has way more impact on water and ice than land and atmosphere, have to be shown to you? 

We'll  probably never know if you're as thick headed as you appear or just an ubber loyal Dittohead.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You COULD stick with the Thermo laws --- if you TRULY understood how they are to be applied. You don't.. And the mess that results from NOT LISTENING to how this works is gonna gum up your ability to comprehend anything about photons generated from a heated body..
> ...



Any energy transfer always goes from higher to lower entropy?? So I can't have a radio link if the recieving antenna is warmer than the sending antenna? I can't shine a flashlight on a warmer object? 

Gonna make it hard to have phone home from the space station.. Or find that burning hot wire in the dark..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



If your radio antenna is putting out more radiation than the transmitter then you have a transmitter and certainly are not going to be receiving.  

The average temperature of a lightbulb filament is over 5000°. Go ahead and point it at something over 5000° and see if you see the beam hitting it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



If your antenna is radiating more than the transmitter antenna then you probably have a transmitter also.and certainly won't be receiving. 

And the average temperature of a flashlight bulb filament is over 5000° shine your flashlight at something over 5000° and see if you see the light beam hitting it. 

And radio transmissions do you transmit and receive at the same time from a single antenna? Is that burning hot wire more than 5000°?  You're a smart guy think about it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



You're telling me that HEAT is a SUFFICIENT condition to block EMagnetic transmission. So if my earth bound reciever antenna is MERELY WARMER --- than I can't recieve weather satellite??

And a fluorescent tube IS NOT 5000 deg.. Neither is an LED flashlight.


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I don't actually understand SSDD's reasoning but shouldn't the Moon's gravity shut off when directed at the earth? What is the difference between the net gravity between two objects and the net flow of heat?
> ...




Why do you have no problem believing that the effect of gravity is a net force but then insist then turn around and insist that thermodynamics are not a net result? Not only that, but some strange unknown unpublished natural mechanism prohibits ANY energy going against the net flow, right down to any photon anytime.

Your beliefs are awfully hard to reconcile with reality and standard descriptions of interactions. Every particle radiating in random directions with net flow simply being a composite of all radiation not only simplifies the explanation but removes the necessity of some bookkeeping system to decide which emissions are allowed.

If graviitons were discovered,  would you argue that particles of matter would only be allowed to emit them in certain directios according to local conditions?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 23, 2013)

Wikipedia's article on Thermodynamics

_Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other._
This statement implies that thermal equilibrium is an equivalence relation on the set of thermodynamic systems under consideration. Systems are said to be in thermal equilibrium with each other *if spontaneous molecular thermal energy exchanges between them do not lead to a net exchange of energy*. This law is tacitly assumed in every measurement of temperature.
******************************************************************************
SSDD, If you actually believe some unknown force or process is blocking the transfer of heat energy from a cold object to a hot object, you need to break out the old textbooks and start over.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat.  But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna,  it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures.  An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 24, 2013)

"the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate. "

You made that up, all by yourself.  I believe your confounding thermal energy, in the form of kinetic energy, with that of IR radiation.  This is combined with a lack of distinction between objects in thermal contact, in which there is a thermal gradient, and objects that are distinctly seperated for which energy is transfered by IR radiation.

There is no "temperature" field that governs the propogation of energy.  Heat and temperature of macro measures of the average kinetic energy of a volume of molecules.  Conservation of energy and momentum governs the transfer of energy between molecules of varying kinetic energy during a collision.  

A low temperature gas has a spread of kinetic energies that are, on average, lower than the higher temperature gas.  Still, the higher temperature gas does have some molecules with lower kinetic energies than are found in the cooler temperature gas. 

Energy is transfered at the boundary, between the high and low temperature mediums, by the collision of molecules which then transfer kinetic energy.  A thermometer is a device for which the fluid or gas expands as the average kinetic energy increases.  

At any particular moment, there may be found, in the cooler body (gas), a high kinetic energy molecule at the boundary.  And, simularly, at any particular moment, there may be found, in the hotter body, a low kinetic energy molecule at the boundary.  At any particular moment, a low kinetic energy molecule from the hotter body may impact with a high kinetic energy molecule in the cooler body.  Despite the average thermal gradient between the two, there is a instantaneous and differentially minute transfer of kinetic energy from the cooler body to the warmer body.  On average, there are more higher kinetic energy molecules in the hotter body than in the cooler body, thusly, on average, the net transfer of energy is from hotter to cooler.

Similarly, two objects not in thermal contact may exchange energy in the form of infared electromagnetic energy.  The hotter body emits more IR radiation than the cooler body.  At any instance of time, a molecule in the cooler body may be found to emit a photon which, given the appropriate but otherwise random direction, us absorbed by the warmer body for no other reason than the fact that the photon came into proximity with a molecule in the warmer body.  

There is no "thermal field" that modulates the transfer of energy between to bodies.

There is no such statement of "the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate."  

It is important to understand what energy is, as opposed to heat and temperature.  Energy is the potential to do work, in the form of kinetic energy, gravitational and electomagnetic energy.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared.
Gravitational potential energy = m g h.
Electrostatic energy is potential energy of 
  Energy equals work.
  Work = force times distance.
  Force = E q, where E is the electrostatic field and q a charge. 
  Moving an electron a distance in an electrostatic field requires work to be performed
  Energy (Work) = E q times distance.
Electromagnetic energy of a photon is given by its wavelength  E = hc/wavelength.

When a molecule absorbs a photon, that energy is not transfered directly into translational kinetic energy.  It is transfered into vibrational energy which must then be transfered into translational kinetic energy in a collision.

Temperature and heat are measurements of gross properties large bodies of matter.  They are not specific forms of energy.  They are qualitative descriptions.  They tell us something about what we can expect from large bodies of molecules.  They tell us nothing about a specific molecule at a specific time.  Nor do the laws of thermodynamics, which are statistical relationships governing large bodies of molecules, have any specific bearing on the transfer of electromagnetic radiation between bodies that are not in thermal contact.

Temperature does not govern the exchange or movement of photons between bodies except in that a body at a temperature tends to emit a particular spectrum of energy.

One thing that might be said is that all electromagnetic energy that impacts upon a body is either absorbed or passes through it. 

A photon has momentum.  Momentum is a vector quantity.  Momentum is conserved.  A photon cannot change direction without something causing the momentum to change direction. So, when a photon impacts the boundary of a mass, it is either absorbed or passes through.

As there is no "temperature field" that exists between two bodies not in thermal contact, there is no electrostatic field that exists between two electrically neutral bodies of some temperature, there is no process by which a cooler bodies is restricted from emiting a photon in the direction of a hotter body.  When that photon reaches the hotter body, it is either absorbed or passes through. If the photon is on a trajectory that puts a molecule of the hotter body directly in it's path, or for the sake of quantum mechanical correctness, a whole thick mass of molecules in it's path, it will be absorbed.

There is simply no generalized property statement as  "the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate. "

It is nonsense beyond the specific case of two bodies in thermal contact, that is, sharing a boundary where kinetic energy can be transfered.  It is only true in the context of the average, net flow of kinetic energy of the molecules.  It is not true for any specific molecule.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat.  But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna,  it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures.  An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.



It is preferable to have a cold transmitter as it reduces the thermal noise and thereby increases the signal to noise ratio.  What you want, if we are to consider things in terms of "temperature", is all the energy to be constrained to the signal.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat.  But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna,  it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures.  An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.
> ...



You must be one of those EEs who don't know that the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics makes broadcasting impossible.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yep, you got me there.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 26, 2013)

"The force of gravity changes with the inverse square of the distance between objects. Move the moon closer to earth and gravity changes both here and on the moon. Gravity isn't a matter of direction as is the case with radiation but as objects move closer or further away from each other gravity changes just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate."

The electrostatic force field changes with the inverse square of distance as well.   It is, E~= q/r^2.  They both change with the inverse square because the surface area of the sphere goes as the inverse of radius.  It is a geometric property of three dimensional space.

Conveniently, masses have this tendency to be spherical, like planets and stars.  Gravity is particularly weak by comparison to the electrostatic force.  The net result is that we experience gravity on two levels, one being nearly constant as we are in a very small range near the earth so wieght doesn't change all that much, or we are working at this orbital mechanics level where the Earth acts as a point source.

Electric charge is exactly the same, acting as a point source, with the field going as the inverse of radius.  Electric charge, though, is rather small so our experience with it is more along the lines of electrical currents.  We also don't experience oscillating masses so gravity waves, while theoretically possible, haven't been much use in engineeering.

So, we get this nifty difference that, while gravitational mass is either approximately a flat surface or a sphere, and on scales of 60 miles, 1000 miles, 24000 miles, etc.  Charge comes in much smaller scales with line point charges, line charges, and parallel plates, surface charges.  And we get to play with oscillating charge so we get nifty things like radio waves.

But as fields go, mass field or electric field, it's the same, going as 1/r^2 for point sources, 1/r for line sources, and constant for surfaces.

There is no "temperature" field.

There is electromagnetic energy and gravitational energy.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

One additional point is that all masses attract each other in proportion to their mass.  Each of us attracts earth as well as earth attracting us.  The earth's attraction is, of course more than our attraction by the ratio of its mass to ours. We each are attracted by every mass in the universe but the immense distances make the attraction infinitesimal . Even more infinitesimal is our attraction of each and all of the heavenly masses. 

Like radiation gravity requires no medium to work and seems to exist despite all of the nothing between heavenly masses. 

Very curious.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 27, 2013)

SSDD's idea seems most like the concept of the caloric.  Prior to 1900, before Einstein firmly established that atoms do exist, the concept that materials contain some sort of "fluid" which accounts for "heat energy" was still a valid consideration.  Both concepts, the caloric idea and the statistical mechanical idea were held to some level of believe by the scientific community.  As the existance of the atom wasn't firmly proven by experiement, the concept that heat was the result of the average kinetic energy of individual molecules was not firmly established.  Lacking definitive proof of molecules, the concept of the caloric still had some standing.  It was Einsteins paper of brownian motion that proved, beyond any doubt, that molecules and atoms exist.  This buried the concept of the caloric permanently and statistical mechanics became the understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

At a molecular level, the energy we understand as "heat" is, in fact, the average kinetic energy of individual "ultimate particles", molecules.  This energy manifests itself most apparently as expansion in volume of materials.  If we put a volume of mercury in a tube, as temperature increases, the volume increases.  As the cross section of the tube is fixed, it is the height of the mercury that increases.  And, given the well known formula of PV=nRT, at standard temperature and pressure, V=nRT/P.  V = height time cross section area.  Height = nRT/(PA). Bingo, we have a thermometer.

The reason this works is because the kinetic energy of the molecules works against the opposing forces of a) gravity and b) external pressure.  

Classical thermodynamics attempts to describe the general behavior of large volumes of ultimate particles.  Heat is the average kinetic energy of the molecules as they go wizzing about, banging into each other and the walls of the container.  Entropy quantifies the number of configurations that the energy can take on over sufficient amount of time to be statistically relavent.  

All of the molecules in a volume of gas can be arranged in a finite number of three dimensional configurations.  The energy can be spread between the individual molecules in a limited number of ways, with some being a  bit slow, the majority at the average speed, and some being very fast. 

At any moment in time, it is possible that all the molecules will be bunched up into one corner of a volume.  It is possible that they will all be bunched up in any of the other corners.  As far as location in the volume is concerned, the only restrictions are a) no two can occupy the same space at the same time and b) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as applied to the smallest increment of volume, to which there is only so much in a larger volume.

At any moment in time, any particular molecule can have a kinetic energy from zero to infinite, constrained only by the fact that, a) on average, the total energy of the system is what it is and b) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as applied to the smallest increment of kinetic energy, to which there are only so many increments over the total spread from zero to infinity.

The result of all this counting of arrangements of locations and velocities is entropy, a count of the total number of ways that the ultimate particles can be arranged.  S=k*ln(#ways).

That said, at the boundary of a volume of gas, the molecules are banging away at the boundary, which we assume to be an infinitely thin membrane of no affect, which is then banging away at the external molecules.  When a fast moving molecule in the gas collides with a slow moving molecule in the external environment, the fast one gets slower and the slow one gets faster, in accordance with the dynamics of collisions where momentum and energy are conserved.  And, energy is transfered across the boundary, moving out of the system.  When a slow moving molecule in the gas collides with a fast moving molecule in the outside environment, the energy is transfered the other direction.

On average, there are more fast moving molecules in a hotter body than in a colder body so the net transfer is from hot to cold.  At any instance, there are numerous opportunities for energy to be transfered from the cold to hot body, just not as many as the other way round.  

As the temperature increases or decreases, the amount of energy increases or decreases, thus the number of ways it can be arranged increases and decreases.  Thusly, the entropy increases and decreases.  Entropy is, though, not a thing.  It is simply a statistical accounting of the number of possible arrangements.  At no instance of time are all of the number of possible arrangements expressed.

As such, there is no caloric, no "heat fluid".  There is no "heat field" and no instantaneous property of matter and energy that moderates the direction of transfer of instantaneous energy that is dependent upon the overall energy of the system.

Entropy is simply a statistical accounting and helps describe the statistical and probabilistic tendencies of large volumes of matter when it comes to the movement of energy in and out of the system.  

It simply points out that, over time, energy gets spread out equally amoung all the possible ways that it can get spread out.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

IanC said:


> Why do you have no problem believing that the effect of gravity is a net force but then insist then turn around and insist that thermodynamics are not a net result? Not only that, but some strange unknown unpublished natural mechanism prohibits ANY energy going against the net flow, right down to any photon anytime.



The second law is why I don't believe that thermodynamics is a net result.  It says that it is not possible for energy or heat to move from cool to warm.  Call me crazy, but I happen to beleive the laws of physics.  If you can show an experiment that proves the law wrong and that heat and energy actually do move from cool to warm or from higher entropy states to lower entropy states I would be interested in seeing it.



IanC said:


> Your beliefs are awfully hard to reconcile with reality and standard descriptions of interactions.



Actually, it is the standard descriptions of interactions that are hard to reconcile with reality since every observation ever made shows energy transfer being a one way gross movement.  No observation of net movement ever.



IanC said:


> Every particle radiating in random directions with net flow simply being a composite of all radiation not only simplifies the explanation but removes the necessity of some bookkeeping system to decide which emissions are allowed.



Again, you state that is if it were observed proven fact.  It isn't.



IanC said:


> If graviitons were discovered,  would you argue that particles of matter would only be allowed to emit them in certain directios according to local conditions?



Are "gravitons" EM radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Wikipedia's article on Thermodynamics
> 
> _Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other._
> This statement implies that thermal equilibrium is an equivalence relation on the set of thermodynamic systems under consideration. Systems are said to be in thermal equilibrium with each other *if spontaneous molecular thermal energy exchanges between them do not lead to a net exchange of energy*. This law is tacitly assumed in every measurement of temperature.
> ******************************************************************************





First, anyone who turns to wiki for real information is an idiot.  



Abraham3 said:


> SSDD, If you actually believe some unknown force or process is blocking the transfer of heat energy from a cold object to a hot object, you need to break out the old textbooks and start over.



I don't believe I have ever said that some unknown force blocks anything.  Does an unknown force block a rock from falling up?  Or does an unexplainable force cause it to fall down?

I have said that energy from a cooler object does not radiate from a cool object to warmer objects.  Any description of how that may happen is entirely a product of your apparently deficient imagination (see the falling rock example) as I have made no attempt to describe how it happens that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.  I have only pointed out that the second law says that it does not.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People are easily confused because EM radiation can be a source of heat.  But if you consider a radio/TV transmission antenna,  it clearly sends energy to receiving antennas completely independent of temperatures.  An outside and therefore at least occasionally cold transmitter has no trouble sending signals to warmer receivers.



Read up on frequencies and what happens if two transmitters are transmitting on the same frequency when both are transmitting at the same power and one is transmitting with a higher output than the other.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "The force of gravity changes with the inverse square of the distance between objects. Move the moon closer to earth and gravity changes both here and on the moon. Gravity isn't a matter of direction as is the case with radiation but as objects move closer or further away from each other gravity changes just as the temperature differental between objects alters the direction they radiate."
> 
> The electrostatic force field changes with the inverse square of distance as well.   It is, E~= q/r^2.  They both change with the inverse square because the surface area of the sphere goes as the inverse of radius.  It is a geometric property of three dimensional space.
> 
> ...



And yet the fact remains that there has never been an observed instance of either energy nor heat spontaneously moving from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD's idea seems most like the concept of the caloric. .



Actually, any "ideas" are from your own minds.  I have not made any attempt to either describe why or how neither heat nor energy  moves from higher entropy states to lower entropy states.  I have only stated that is what the second law says.  All of these "ideas" and "explanations" are from your own fevered brains.  You get so wrapped up in your own little circle jerk, that you fail to notice that you are discussing descriptions that have never been made.  I have simply stated the second law.

The rest is spew from you guys  and your own mental masturbation, in an attempt to justify your belief that energy does spontaneously move from higher entropy states to lower.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD's idea seems most like the concept of the caloric. .
> ...



So, you imagine that we sit behind our monitors and masturbate?  That's just sick.  

If you stick a hot coal on a metal grate inside a cold refrigerator, where do you imagine the heat goes?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So, you imagine that we sit behind our monitors and masturbate?  That's just sick.



I see you can't grasp the concept of mental masturbation.  Don't worry, you really weren't expected to.



orogenicman said:


> If you stick a hot coal on a metal grate inside a cold refrigerator, where do you imagine the heat goes?



The second law says that the energy will radiate into the cooler surroundings.  Do you think it will go somewhere else?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So, you imagine that we sit behind our monitors and masturbate?  That's just sick.
> ...



To be frank, I generally don't think with my dick.  Why do you?



Abraham3 said:


> If you stick a hot coal on a metal grate inside a cold refrigerator, where do you imagine the heat goes?





> The second law says that the energy will radiate into the cooler surroundings.  Do you think it will go somewhere else?



I agree.  So why are you quoting Abraham on a question I asked??


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> To be frank, I generally don't think with my dick.  Why do you?



Still don't grasp the concept I see.  Perhaps if you actually looked up the term.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I see you can't grasp the concept of mental masturbation.  Don't worry, you really weren't expected to.





			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> To be frank, I generally don't think with my dick.  Why do you?





			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Still don't grasp the concept I see.  Perhaps if you actually looked up the term.



No need.  You are providing plenty of examples right here in your own responses.  Congratulations.  Now,  did you learn how to quote people all on your own or did you need mommy's help?  

You really should learn how to properly quote people.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I see you can't grasp the concept of mental masturbation.  Don't worry, you really weren't expected to.
> ...



What exactly makes you such a POS?  I was quoting abraham, then I quoted you.  I forgot to cut and paste your name.  Is that concept as far beyond you as the concept of mental masturbation?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Dude, in your post #3077, you quoted Abraham as asking this question:

If you stick a hot coal on a metal grate inside a cold refrigerator, where do you imagine the heat goes?"

Abe didn't ask that question.  I DID.  You sure do have a fixation with dicks.  What's up with that?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Dude, in your post #3077, you quoted Abraham as asking this question:
> 
> If you stick a hot coal on a metal grate inside a cold refrigerator, where do you imagine the heat goes?"
> 
> Abe didn't ask that question.  I DID.  You sure do have a fixation with dicks.  What's up with that?



Sorry, I can't draw you a picture.  I copy and paste the names and post numbers when I respond rather than retype it all.  I had previously responded to a post by abraham.  When I responded to your post, I forgot to copy your name and simply hit paste at the beginning of the quote.  Since abraham's name and post number were on my clipboard, his name posted and as I was in a rush to get to work, I didn't proof read.  I have corrected the error so you can quit your crying, grab yourself a hanky and wipe your f'ing tears and get back to your mental masturbation.

If you posessed half a brain, you could have clicked on the quote and it would have taken you back to the post I had originally commented on.  Of course, that would require some original thought and a willingness to do something other than cry over an error and lord knows, we wouldn't want you to do any of that.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, in your post #3077, you quoted Abraham as asking this question:
> ...



Look dude, I don't really care how you made the error.  I was just pointing out that Abe didn't ask the question, I did.  Just so you know who it is you are actually talking to.  So you make the error, and then insult me for pointing it out.  Brilliant.  If you are married, I predict a long and happy life for you two.  Or not.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> If you are married, I predict a long and happy life for you two.  Or not.



48 years and counting....but then my wife isn't an over emotional bitchy little girl.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > If you are married, I predict a long and happy life for you two.  Or not.
> ...



I'll take that as an implicit apology.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

I apologize for pointing out that you are an over emotional bitchy little girl.  Sometimes one simply can't help pointing out the obvious.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I apologize for pointing out that you are an over emotional bitchy little girl.  Sometimes one simply can't help pointing out the obvious.



Right.  So you mistake me for someone else, then insult me because of your mistake, and then - insult me again.  Wow, you just can't help yourself, can you?  They make a pill for that.  You should consider taking one (or two, or three...).


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize for pointing out that you are an over emotional bitchy little girl.  Sometimes one simply can't help pointing out the obvious.
> ...



Even when I explain what happened in simple terms, you still think that I mistook you for someone else?  Guess I should have added stupid to over emotional bitchy little girl.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



Golly gee, how predictable.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> First, anyone who turns to wiki for real information is an idiot.



I have yet to see you show anything I've taken from Wikipedia wrong.  



Abraham3 said:


> SSDD, If you actually believe some unknown force or process is blocking the transfer of heat energy from a cold object to a hot object, you need to break out the old textbooks and start over.





SSDD said:


> I don't believe I have ever said that some unknown force blocks anything.  Does an unknown force block a rock from falling up?  Or does an unexplainable force cause it to fall down?
> 
> *I have said that energy from a cooler object does not radiate from a cool object to warmer objects*.  Any description of how that may happen is entirely a product of your apparently deficient imagination (see the falling rock example) as I have made no attempt to describe how it happens that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.  I have only pointed out that the second law says that it does not.



Is the problem, then, a poor command of English?  As several of us have attempted to force through that force field you maintain around your 'native intellect', all bodies radiate in all directions.  Cooler objects DO radiate towards warmer objects.  Your comment above that I've emboldened is WRONG.  There is no net transfer in that direction - as you've been told now many a time.  But radiation from cold towards hot most certainly DOES take place.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > First, anyone who turns to wiki for real information is an idiot.
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

What is wrong with you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

Here's a little thought experiment for you.  Let's take two metal plates set up facing each other.  On the back of one are cooling coils.  On the back of the other are heating elements.  So one plate is heated and the other is cooled.  

CASE 1) We start the heaters and the chillers and we wait for equilibrium and then measure the temperature of the plates.

CASE 2) We start only the heaters, wait for equilibrium and then measure the temperature of the plates.

In both cases, the "cold" plate is colder than the hot plate.  You say the cold plate will not radiate at the hot plate in either case.  There should then be no difference in the hot plate's temperature.  Do you think that's what will be found?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Here's a little thought experiment for you.  Let's take two metal plates set up facing each other.  On the back of one are cooling coils.  On the back of the other are heating elements.  So one plate is heated and the other is cooled.
> 
> CASE 1) We start the heaters and the chillers and we wait for equilibrium and then measure the temperature of the plates.
> 
> ...



Thought experients because real world experiments don't yield the results you are looking for.  If real world experiments would prove your point don't you think someone would actually be doing them?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> What is wrong with you?



Nothing at all other than my crazy belief that the second law of thermodynamics is correct


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong with you?
> ...



I aced thermo and heat transfer and I think you've mistinterpreted badly.  If you can't see a distinction between radiation and heat transfer, you need to start over.

Like my new sig?  Anytime you want to trade, let me know.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

Cold TV and radio transmission antennas broadcast effortlessly to warm receiver antennas. 

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't seem to care.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD's idea seems most like the concept of the caloric. .
> ...




" I have not made any attempt... "

Exactly, your concept lacks any reasoning beyond, "My interpretation of the general statment on Hyperphysics is correct."  Unfortunately, your interpretation is complete bullshit, lacking any deeper consideration of what energy is and how it is transfered between bodies.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Cold TV and radio transmission antennas broadcast effortlessly to warm receiver antennas.
> 
> The second law of thermodynamics doesn't seem to care.



Take a minute to learn about frequency and amplitude.  They are also governed by the second law.  You guys just aren't very bright.

You seem not to understand that the second law governs all energy exchanges and radio transmission and reception is an energy exchange.


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2013)

Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a little thought experiment for you.  Let's take two metal plates set up facing each other.  On the back of one are cooling coils.  On the back of the other are heating elements.  So one plate is heated and the other is cooled.
> ...



You keep asking for proof.  How about you provide some real world experiements that IR radiation cannot be emited by a cold body towards a warm body? 

I know you haven't because it simply isn't the case.

Hell, do a search on "IR radiation cannot be emited by a cold body towards a warm body" and see what you get.

You have taken an extremely generalized law, the 2nd law of thermo, that comes out of boring out cannons, overgeneralized it to all states and properties of matter, then made an incorrect interpretation of a specific and unapplicable situtatation that no manner of the science claims.

Do it, find the statement from a credible, detailed, and well researched source, either presenting theoretical details or well documentated experiementation.

Maybe you'de like Dr. Roy Spencer

"http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/"


"Well, Im going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER. 

In fact, this is happening all around us, all the time."


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD (wirebender) and lackwit dismiss anything Spencer says. He is unclean.

The Yes Virginia piece has been discussed with nobody changing their minds.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.




The bastardization of thermodynamics is a common element among some deniers of science.  The Creationists want to claim it's impossible for life to develop without some intelligent intervention.  SSDD wants to claim that the climate is impossible. (or something like that.  It's impossible to understand insanity.)

It's just interesting as it does refine understanding of just exactly what thermo means.  I learned in specifically and exclusively for Carnot cycles using steam and freon, that sort of thing.  For me, it has no other value.   SSDD wants to extend it to a general law of energy flow, one that doesn't exists.

There are interesting cases that do arise, though they all fall into the correct interpretation of simply that energy tends to get spread out among all possible states. 

In fact, now that we have superconductivity, to the best of my understanding, we have perpetual motion.  Current will flow without loss in a superconducting ring.  It doesn't go beyond that.  Friction is the thing.  

Problem is, SSDD wants to move between different forms of energy, from gravitational to kinetic to electrostatic to electrodynamic to quantum, and claim they all follow his incorrect and overlygeneralized interepation of thermodynamics without the least bit of knowledge of how to calculate and translate energy between these modes.

He wishes for proof that he is wrong but cannot prove he is right.  The fact of the matter is that the second law of thermodynmics has never been proven.  It has simply not failed under the specific conditions that it applies.

And there is the rub.  To accept the laws of thermodynamics, one has to accept the concept of statistical proof of experiment in science.  To accept the concept of statistical proof, then the entire foundation of climate science denial falls apart because the denial postion is grounded in bullshit cherry picking.

The only thing that SSDD can do to maintain his position is continuously deny and skirt obvious questions like, "Prove your interpretation of the second law always applies",  "Prove that Hyperphysics isn't talking only about a glass of water,"  "Prove that a photon cannot go from a "cold" CO2 molecule to a "hotter" CO2 molecule.

Thermo serves as a good "sanity check" on any claims.  But it isn't some hard physical law based on some hard physical processes.  It is simply a statistical tendency.  Energy is spread out.  At a macroscopic level, friction exists and a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy gets spead out into the variety of modes, at a molecular level, as the electrostatic bonds keep getting made and broken.  As the energy moves, from being electrostatic to kinetic, it spreads out into heat.  

But, at a macroscopic level, there is nothing that says it can't spread out from a relatively cold atmosphere, to the screaming hot underbelly of an Apollo re-entry capsule.  By comparison, the heat shield is burning hot and yet it just keeps getting hotter, up to some point, as the thing plows through the cold upper atmosphere.

Do the calcs on that.  Temperature of the heat shield before re-entry. Temperature of the atmosphere.  Show temperature of heat shield compared to atmosphere over time.  Tell you what you will get.  The thing keeps getting even hotter, well after it has reached thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere temp.  Why is that?  How can a cold atmosphere transfer energy to a hot heat shield?  Where did all that heat come from?

It came from the kinetic energy of the module.  What do we want to say, the hot heat shield heated the cold air that then heated the hot heat shield more?  Or the cold air had nothing to do with it?

What is the "temperature" of the re-entry module?  Is it the temperature as a thermometer would read?  Or do we call the kinetic energy of the body also it's "temperature"?  If we don't, then cold air made the re-entry module hot.  Hell, cold air and a cold re-entry module made each other hot and the energy came magically out of no-where.  If we do, then we accept that temperature is the kinetic energy of the individual ultimate particles and simply a net statistical effect, it says nothing about an individual particle.

My overriding point?  As SSDD admits,  "I have not made any attempt to either describe why or how neither heat nor energy moves ".

He doesn't know how or why energy moves, doesn't understand anything about thermodynamics.  He's full of shit.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD (wirebender) and lackwit dismiss anything Spencer says. He is unclean.
> 
> The Yes Virginia piece has been discussed with nobody changing their minds.



The point being, it comes  up on a search of SSDD's claim.  Real simple.  SSDD can't come up with shit because it doesn't exists. He can't do the math that is required of science.  Instead, the takes a vague statement he read on Hyperphysics, makes up a specific meaning that it never said, and goes blindly forth, undemonstrated, unproven.

He's got no business talking about science.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong with you?
> ...



Nothing at all other than your crazy belief in what the second law of thermodynamics says.

Have you read Einstein's paper on Brownian motion?  Do you understand how he uses the second law of thermodynamics in it?

Get back to us when you figure it out.

SSDD - "I have not made any attempt to either describe why or how neither heat nor energy moves ".


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...




The second law dictates both radiation and heat transfer....in fact it dictates every possible energy transfer from dropping rocks to radiation.  Energy, in any form does not spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.



Abraham3 said:


> Like my new sig?  Anytime you want to trade, let me know.



Interesting that your new sig line is a lie.  Says a lot about you.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> " I have not made any attempt... "
> 
> Exactly, your concept lacks any reasoning beyond, "My interpretation of the general statment on Hyperphysics is correct."  Unfortunately, your interpretation is complete bullshit, lacking any deeper consideration of what energy is and how it is transfered between bodies.



Wrong again.  I have not interpreted anything at all.  I have simply stated the second law.  I got the particular statement from the physics department of the University of Georgia.  Are you saying they are not credible?

As to energy transfer between bodies, again, the second law states:  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*. 

No interpretation needed...just reading skills which you apparently lack.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.



I will change my opinion when the 2nd law changes.  Last time I looked, it said:

_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*. _

Why would I alter my position when it is, in fact, the very statement of the most fundamental of all physical laws.  When it changes, I will change with it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You keep asking for proof.  How about you provide some real world experiements that IR radiation cannot be emited by a cold body towards a warm body?



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*. 

How much more proof do you need than the most fundamental of all physical laws?



itfitzme said:


> I know you haven't because it simply isn't the case.



How much actual experimentation do you think went into establishing that law?  Thousands of experiments and repeatable result after result ultimately resulted in a law stating that energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.  If an experiment were ever performed that showed otherwise, then the law would not say what it does.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Statistical theory of heat...what of it?  Einstein himself was not convinced by QM.


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Your sig line is correct. I assume you are being sarcastic because I know your position but few educated people would disagree with it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Your problem with thermo is that you have confused radiation with heat transfer.  I can sit here radiating all day long in every direction, but the pork chop in a freezer on the other side of the planet is going to see damn little heat transfer from the act.  Radiation takes place irrespective of what will be receiving the radiation.  And radiation is not in and of itself, heat transfer.


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.
> ...



My qote stands. Just because you stonewall and refuse to debate that doesn't make you correct.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who is waiting for SSDD to change his opinion, or even explain his position, are only going to get a blue face.
> ...


_

EM radiation is NOT HEAT.. You are misrepresenting the rules for EM propagation here. 




*Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object*.
		
Click to expand...

_
Energy does NOT flow .... from ........... cool to hot.... The net exchange ALWAYS OBEYS this rule.. But this does not say HOW you calculate the net exchange for purely radiative transfers. *And that is done on a bidirectional basis.* because every object radiates IR EM to some extent. The result of such calculation ---- will NEVER violate this part of your mantra.. 

Soooooooooooo.. You're safe. And you're just being ornery to INSIST that what nearly everyone is trying to tell you violates ANY PART of these rules.. 

They don't.. I haven't violated ANY of this..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> Your sig line is correct. I assume you are being sarcastic because I know your position but few educated people would disagree with it.



I was talking about Abraham's sig line.  He fabricated" and attributed it to me.  So now you approve of misquoting or just plain making up quotes.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> My qote stands. Just because you stonewall and refuse to debate that doesn't make you correct.



What the hell are you talking about?  Your quote?  I haven't said a thing about your quote.  abraham3 asked if I liked his new sig line which is a completely fabricated quote which he attributes to me.  I pointed out that the fact that his sig line was a lie says a lot about him.

Which quote of yours do you think I have a problem with?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Do you agree with this statement as stated or not:

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. 

A yes or no answer will do.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Your problem with thermo is that you have confused radiation with heat transfer.  I can sit here radiating all day long in every direction, but the pork chop in a freezer on the other side of the planet is going to see damn little heat transfer from the act.  Radiation takes place irrespective of what will be receiving the radiation.  And radiation is not in and of itself, heat transfer.



Is radiation energy?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

How do you suppose that satellites at frigid space temperatures communicate with earth?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> How do you suppose that satellites at frigid space temperatures communicate with earth?



You didn't take my advice and read up on frequency and amplitude did you?  Are you aware that both radio and microwave communication are forms of radiation that are also governed by the second law of thermodynamics?  Your statements seem to indicate that you aren't.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

IanC said:


> Your sig line is correct. I assume you are being sarcastic because I know your position but few educated people would disagree with it.



So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature?  Really?  When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics?  Are you really that far out there?

It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do.  That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem with thermo is that you have confused radiation with heat transfer.  I can sit here radiating all day long in every direction, but the pork chop in a freezer on the other side of the planet is going to see damn little heat transfer from the act.  Radiation takes place irrespective of what will be receiving the radiation.  And radiation is not in and of itself, heat transfer.
> ...



No.  It is a process that energy undergoes.  And it is not equivalent to the process of "heat transfer" that energy also undergoes.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

I think Ian's quote was his comment about your bull-headedness.

Get rid of your sig and I'll get rid of mine.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



YES
I explained why radiative transfers in the form of EM does not violate ANY of those statements.

What has to happen is for you to read the parts where I corrected your false APPLICATION of those statements.  That's where the problem is.. 

1) EM IR (light) is not heat.
2) NET flow will never be from cool to hot.

Everythings cool with the world except #1 and #2.. 
Now answer MY question.. Do you have PROBLEMS with #1 or #2 ????

Better yet.. I'm not here to beat you into submission.. I just want to show you that Spencer did NOTHING wrong.
So if you don't WANT to discuss this anymore -- don't respond --- and I won't push on you one bit..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I think Ian's quote was his comment about your bull-headedness.
> 
> Get rid of your sig and I'll get rid of mine.



I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> YES
> I explained why radiative transfers in the form of EM does not violate ANY of those statements.
> 
> What has to happen is for you to read the parts where I corrected your false APPLICATION of those statements.  That's where the problem is..
> ...



Funny, you say yes and then explain why you don't.  Guess that is really a no.  As stated, the second law doesn't talk about net flows, it is a statement in absolute terms and clearly you don't agree with it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

I have to assume that you think taking this posture on this question makes you look smarter.  

Sorry but you'd be most wrong boot daht.

I listened to your complaints about my creative new sig and I took action.  I'm not sure I see the functional difference, but if this makes you happier, who am I to complain.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 29, 2013)

Denier cultist like SSoooDDuuumb cling to the most idiotic misinterpretations of science because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He's just too stupid and ignorant to be capable of comprehending how little he knows compared to real scientists.

*In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect*
 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
April 1st, 2009
(Excerpts)

*To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect. Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket  real or greenhouse  doesnt actually create the separation between hot and coldit just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold. In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick ine.g. thunderstormsand transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect wants to make it.)

So where do the objections to the greenhouse effect come in?
- IT VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS -
A second objection has to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is claimed that since the greenhouse effect depends partly upon cooler upper layers of the atmosphere emitting infrared radiation toward the warmer, lower layers of the atmosphere, that this violates the 2nd Law, which (roughly speaking) says that energy must flow from warmer objects to cooler objects, not the other way around. There are different ways to illustrate why this is not a valid objection. First of all, the 2nd Law applies to the behavior of whole systems, not to every part within a system, and to all forms of energy involved in the systemnot just its temperature. And in the atmosphere, temperature is only one component to the energy content of an air parcel. Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby stareven though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction. In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesnt stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave. Furthermore, we should not confuse a reduced rate of cooling with heating. Imagine you have a jar of boiling hot water right next to a jar of warm water sitting on the counter. The boiling hot jar will cool rapidly, while the warm jar will cool more slowly. Eventually, both jars will achieve the same temperature, just as the 2nd Law predicts. But what if the boiling hot jar was by all by itself? Then, it would have cooled even faster. Does that mean that the presence of the warm jar was sending energy into the hot jar? No, it was just reducing the rate of cooling of the hot jar. The climate system is like the hot jar having an internal heating mechanism (the sun warming the surface), but its ability to cool is reduced by its surroundings (the atmosphere), which tends to insulate it. Another way the objection is voiced is that a layer of the atmosphere that absorbs infrared energy at a certain rate must then also emit it at the same rate, so how can that layer trap any energy to warm? This misconception comes from a misunderstanding of Kirchoffs Law, which only says that the infrared opacity of a layer makes that layers ability to absorb and emit IR the same. The actual rate of infrared absorption by a layer depends upon that opacity AND the temperatures of the emitting layers above and below, but the rate of emission depends upon the the same opacity and the temperature of the layer itself. Therefore, the rate of infrared flows in and out of the layer do not have to be equal, and if they are not equal, the layer will either warm or cool radiatively.*


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I have to assume that you think taking this posture on this question makes you look smarter.
> 
> Sorry but you'd be most wrong boot daht.
> 
> I listened to your complaints about my creative new sig and I took action.  I'm not sure I see the functional difference, but if this makes you happier, who am I to complain.



As I said, I will be keeping my sig line while you will not.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



According to the Woods Hole Institute for Science and Education, radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through some material or through space.
Definition of Radiation

According to the Health Physics Society, radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space and may be able to penetrate various materials.What Is Radiation?

According to the World Nuclear Association, radiation is energy travelling through space.What is Radiation

According to the EPA, radiation is energy given off by some atoms in the form of particles or rays (photons)Why Are Some Atoms Radioactive | Radiation Protection | US EPA

Obviously, you don't even know the basic facts about radiation so anything you have to say on the topic is not worth the band width it takes to post it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I listened to your complaints about my creative new sig and I took action.  I'm not sure I see the functional difference, but if this makes you happier, who am I to complain.



Regarding your tag line... do you believe gravity is magic even though we can't explain the actual mechanism or force at work?    

Interesting that you think anything that you can't explain must be magic.  Very primitive.  Do you sacrifice to the gods of whatever you can't explain that must be magic?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

The question I've got is whether or not you find it uncomfortable or unpleasant in any way to be ridiculed every time I put up a post.  I thought such a sensation might invoke in you a sense of empathy.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Obviously, English is not your first language.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > How do you suppose that satellites at frigid space temperatures communicate with earth?
> ...



So how do cold transmition antennas communicate with warm receiver antennas?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The question I've got is whether or not you find it uncomfortable or unpleasant in any way to be ridiculed every time I put up a post.  I thought such a sensation might invoke in you a sense of empathy.



No.  Since I don't respect you, you have no power to make me feel bad.  Your best effort to make me feel bad was a lie which you were called on and your next effort makes you appear to believe any natural phenomenon you can't explain is magic. 

What I feel for you is pity.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Again, learn about frequency and amplitude.  Perhaps then you won't feel the need to ask questions that make you look like an idiot.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 30, 2013)

SSDD said:


> I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.



I don't see anything wrong with SSDD's sig line. He's advertising my knowledge of the topic, and broadcasting his own ignorance of it. And he doesn't understand that. So what's not to like?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 30, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



I know a whole lot about frequency and amplitude. I also know that you can't answer my question, which clearly proves that what you wish the 2ond law of thermo to be is not what it is. 

Your version is merely a lie necessary to support the other thing that you wish was true, that Al Gore and the IPCC were wrong, and the biggest bonehead in the world, Rush, was right. 

What can I say? You lose all around.


----------



## IanC (Aug 30, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Your sig line is correct. I assume you are being sarcastic because I know your position but few educated people would disagree with it.
> ...




The second law isn't only describing radiation, it I'd describing many processes both macroscopic and microscopic. The same statistical rules govern photons or ink diffusing in a glass of water.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 30, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature?  Really?  *When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics?*  Are you really that far out there?
> 
> It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do.  That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.



What the F are you talking about?

Force = mass times acceleration.  F=m*a.

Force = Electric field times charge.  F=q*E.

Work = Energy = distance times force.  W=F*d=m*a*d

Work = Energy = distance times force.  W=F*d=q*E*d

Force acts on mass and charge.  Or rather, force is an accounting of gravitational field or electric field acting on mass or charge.  

Force doesn't act on energy.

Energy is the potential to do work.  Energy is the potential of a force.  Energy is an accounting of the potential for a force.   Energy creates a force.

Kintetic Energy = .5*m*v^2.   That is the potential to do work.

Gravitation potential energy = mass times gravitational acceleration times distance. PE=mgh

There is potential energy because a force acted on the mass over a distance, doing work, which is energy, against the gravitational force. It may also act against electric force.

Energy is the thing that causes force.  Force doesn't act on energy, boob.  There is no such thing as a fundamental force that makes energy move from one place to another.

Energy simply propogates. Pure energy, light, propogates at the speed of light, c.  c^2=1/(&#949;0 * &#956;0).  There is no force that acts on light to make is propogate.  Light simply propogates because that is how the universe functions.   (See Maxwell's equations.  Changing electric field causes a magnetic field.  Changing magnetic field causes and electric field.)

Light, from the sun, can be used to heat up water, making steam. 

Alternatively, through the process of photosynthesis, light can be used by plants to create carbon chain molecules.  Over time, those carbon chain molecules become oil.    The oil contains potential energy, in the form of the molecular bonds.

Either way, a steam engine and an internal combustion engine can then be used to convert that energy, either in the form of kinetic energy of the water molecules or the kinetic energy of gasses in the combusion engine, into work through a mechanism of pistons and a crank shaft.

The force is from the kinetic energy of the molecules in the steam or the burning gasoline.  The released energy creates a force.  There is no force that moves the energy.

The expanding gasses do work on the piston, force times distance, turning the kinetic energy into work.

It is sad you don't know how things are measured and can't do the math.

*"When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another"*

That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make.  The more you write, the clearer it becomes that you haven't a clue what your talking about.

There is no force that makes energy move, numbnuts.  Energy creates the force.  I don't know what your education level is, but clearly it isn't in physics or a branch of engineering that uses mechanics or electrodynamics.  You certainly didn't get an education from an accedited university.

Force, work, energy, all have very specific meanings in terms of measuring reality and combining those measurements into mathematic equations that relate them.

Energy = Force times distance = Mass times gravitational accelerations times distance.
Energy = Force times distance = Charge times electric field times distance.

*Force = Energy divided by distance.  *

No where in there can it be said "force actually makes energy move". 

Can you read that?  Force is a result of the energy.  Energy is force divided by distance.  The force acts on mass or charge causing it to move a distance.  Energy is the potential for force.  Energy is the potential for the movement of mass and charge.

"force actually makes energy move" is a completely non-sense statement.

Get an f'in clue.  

Take the time to read, learn, memorize, and grasp the fundamental equations that I have presented above.  They are a precise description of the things actually measured and how they are related.  You can't just throw words together based on some fuzzy analogies you've created in your own mind.  

Force can't actually make energy move. There is no measurement of pounds or newtons force that acts on light to make it move.  It is non-sense.  

When energy propogates, it propogates where ever it can.  When energy is released from the vibrating modes of a CO2 molecule, it propogates in whatever direction it can and does so unpredictably.  The only reasonable description is a statistical description of probabilities.  Entropy counts the number of ways that energy may exist in a particular volume of substance.  There is no "entropy force"  there is no "entropy field". There is no "temperature field."  There is no "energy force", a force acting on energy.  Energy, heat, and temperature are not what your trying to make them out to be.  Energy describes an action, or the potential for an action, not a physical thing like a rock or molecule.

A photon is a propogating disturbance in the electro-magnetic field.  An electric field has the potential to do work.  A photon is a little potential to do work.  A photon is a little bit of propogating energy and momentum.  There is no force that acts on a photon.  A photon simply goes in a straight line until it hits another particle, in which case the particle absorbs the energy and momentum. 

There can't be a "force actually makes energy move", a force that makes a photon move.  A photon is the energy that creates the force that makes charge or mass move.  When a photon is absorbed by a molecule, it causes the individual atoms that make up the molecule to move as the electric bonds, the electron, vibrates.  As a photon is responsible for the force, then there cannot be a force that acts on a photon.  That would be another photon.  It's non-sense.  Guess what.... Photons don't intereract.  (well, not as far as your concerned, not in terms of the way your trying to make things, that is quantum mechanics and your not ready.)

Geez.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 30, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.
> ...



*"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth"*

Yes, that would be an absolutely correct statement.  We were not exactly sure, up until Einstein demonstrated that Brownian motion was fully accounted for by the statistical nature of moving molecules.

Einstein on Brownian Motion - David Cassidy

"The second law of thermodynamics says that most natural processes are irreversible, in contradiction to the Newtonian mechanics of atoms. Boltzmann in particular resolved this contradiction by interpreting the second law as a new type of law: *a statistical*, not an absolute, law. Since there are so many atoms or molecules, even in a tiny ice cube, it is extremely unlikelybut not impossiblefor the myriads of molecules in a melted cube to return in a finite time from the disorder of a liquid to their original orderly, crystalline arrangement. The macroscopic properties of heat and material objects, such as irreversibility, arise from the *statistical behavior* of numerous mechanical atoms, a behavior to be described by a new "statistical mechanics.""

"Boltzmann and the American physicist J. Willard Gibbs provided the first accounts of how exactly the second law of thermodynamics arises from the *statistical behavior* of myriads of randomly moving atoms, Unaware of these writings, Einstein devoted three brilliant early papers during the years 1902 to 1904 to an independent derivation of the second law in the course of developing his own *"statistical mechanics,"* based on atoms and mechanics. Continuing in this work, Einstein used mechanics, atoms, and *statistical* arguments to achieve what he called a "general molecular theory of heat," confirming that both laws of thermodynamics are, indeed, fully explicable on mechanical grounds."

Absolutely correct, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics.

The second law says that when shit hits the fan, it randomly spreads out everywhere.

"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth" is a perfectly sound statement.  Why would anyone think otherwise?


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 31, 2013)

SSDD said:


> So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature?  Really?  *When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics?*  Are you really that far out there?
> 
> It is sad that you can't differentiate between an actual force and an attempt to mathematically describe what that force will do.  That is the sort of misunderstanding an uneducated boob might make, but you claim to be educated.



It isn't that, philosophically, it's a bad idea.  After all, mass moves because something makes it move.  There is a force.  But that is as far as it goes, philosophically wrong.

The reality is that energy is motion.  Energy is (1/2) m v^2.  Energy is motion times motion.  Momentum is mass times motion.  Energy and momentum are conserved quantities in the universe and they are motion.  They are movement.  c, the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, it is energy, it is fundamental motion.  There is no need for a force to cause energy and momentum to move, they are movement, that is exactly what energy and momentum measure, conservation of movement.

And light is pure motion, pure movement.  It is energy and momentum and nothing else.  It is philosophically odd, sure.  But that is physics. This is why we have to make the measurements, read the equations, and refrane from making philosophical statements that the equations don't support.

SSDD really should meditate on this.

Energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared.

Momentum equals mass times the velocity.

Even mass is E=m c^2.

Motion, movement, velocity, is everything in the universe. 

Without motion, there is no mass.  Without motion, there is no time.

Energy doesn't need a force to move.  It is movement.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 31, 2013)

One interesting observation is that gravity effects EM radiation which demonstrates that it has mass if extremely small. It's direction is slightly changed by passing large masses like stars. On the other hand,  if it has mass,  how can it go the speed of light?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature?  Really?  *When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics?*  Are you really that far out there?
> ...



Words used to defend ignorance demonstrate ignorance and you have expended a lot of them.   

Look up the word mechanism and then go ask an adult if a branch of mathematics is one


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

SSDD,

Why do you do these things?  Is this a particular strategy that you've adopted as your core trollishness?

You have been shown often enough that the laws of thermodynamics may be derived from a statistical examination of the behavior of the components which make up any system you care to examine, that for you to deny it simply makes you look foolish: just as foolish as you are made to look by your absurd viewpoint regarding radiative heat transfer. 

Is it self-deprecation in extremis or have you sussed out the truly masochistic nature of the troll?


----------



## IanC (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD,
> 
> Why do you do these things?  Is this a particular strategy that you've adopted as your core trollishness?
> 
> ...



SSDD does it for the same reason as you believe in catastrophic global warming. He has over read and misinterpreted the meaning from definitions of the second law. You have taken the trivially true mechanism of CO2 absorption and used it as proof of the exaggerated doomsday conclusions that may happen. Both of you are wrong but only one of the fallacies is causing billions of dollars of wasted spending.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...



We have the works of the IPCC to support what we believe.  What scientific evidence can you offer to support what you believe? 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## IanC (Sep 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...




That is wayyyy to general of a question to answer. 

The range for climate sensitivity is an example though. The early estimate of 3 is incorporated into the climate models. 1C for doubling CO2 times 3 for positive feedbacks. Climate sensitivities, especially those based on actual measured data have been dropping like a rock for the last few years, as I said they would. The doomsday scenarios are predicated on large temperature increases that are only happening in CO2 controlled climate models, not the much lower reality of actual temperature measurements. I am not going to dredge up links because no one here changes their mind anyway.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 1, 2013)

Sometimes I think that the real difference between you and the IPCC is reflected in your choice of words like catastrophic and doomsday. I don't think that our problems stem from high magnitudes of weather change as much as the fact that we've over populated and over industrialized the planet to the point of small weather changes having very costly impact on civilization. 

Plus the certainty that pure supply and demand will make fossil  energy increasingly unaffordable ,  so inaction is the most expensive alternative. 

If these issues had occurred even 100 years ago,   the urgency to react would have been much lower.


----------



## IanC (Sep 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Sometimes I think that the real difference between you and the IPCC is reflected in your choice of words like catastrophic and doomsday. I don't think that our problems stem from high magnitudes of weather change as much as the fact that we've over populated and over industrialized the planet to the point of small weather changes having very costly impact on civilization.
> 
> Plus the certainty that pure supply and demand will make fossil  energy increasingly unaffordable ,  so inaction is the most expensive alternative.
> 
> If these issues had occurred even 100 years ago,   the urgency to react would have been much lower.



Wow! Abrupt change of direction.

I agree that population size is linked to energy usage. Hahaha. I am not stupid enough to get bogged down in that quagmire.

Peak oil is always predicted and never seems to occur..

Amelioration of possible consequences seems a more realistic solution than spending gobs of money on inadequate and immature technology that is unlikely make any impact on CO2 production.

The much reduced temp increases will help food production and 'extreme' weather seems to be exactly like the old weather. I, for one, sm not going to jump on the doomsday train until a lot more actual evidence is presented because I don't think the models have any skill st predicting the future.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I think that the real difference between you and the IPCC is reflected in your choice of words like catastrophic and doomsday. I don't think that our problems stem from high magnitudes of weather change as much as the fact that we've over populated and over industrialized the planet to the point of small weather changes having very costly impact on civilization.
> ...



No change in direction on my part. 

We have no alternative to ''amelioration of possible consequences''.  It's a given. 

We have no alternative to stop wasting so much energy. 

We have no alternative to getting off fossil fuels except some rapidly expiring timing wiggle room. 

There is absolutely no economic reason not to be pushing forward on sustainable energy technology.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 1, 2013)

AGW is only one more reason to address the energy economic mess that we've gotten ourselves in. We simply can't afford to be stupid.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 2, 2013)

We should throw 50 billion behind our own fusion reactor that is twice as big as ITER.

Now that will get us off of oil and shit.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One interesting observation is that gravity effects EM radiation which demonstrates that it has mass if extremely small. It's direction is slightly changed by passing large masses like stars. On the other hand,  if it has mass,  how can it go the speed of light?



You should revise.  The photon is not a mass carrier. As it turns out, mass warps the topology of space-time.  Light then simply follows the straight path which, from our cartesian perspective, appears curved.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...



Except that AWG is demonstrated scientifically as is CO2 absorbtion.  You just fail to grasp the fundamental aspect of the science, choosing instead to believe in some unrecognized magical cause rather than what is demonstrated.

Of course, you are welcome, at any time, to provide demonstated scientific evidence of this other thing.  Or that the temp record is demonstratably wrong.

Rather, the issue is the same SSDD, yourself, and others, an inability to grasp the statistical nature of reality and science.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



What the F are you talking about?  Look up the word machine.

Light travels at the speed of of light because a changing magnetic field causes an electric field and a changing electric field causes a magnetic field.  In free space, the speed of light falls naturally out of Maxwells equations.  It is the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the permiability and permativity of free space.  There is no "mechanism".  It simply is. And, light transfers only energy and momentum.

The problem your having is you don't know the physics or the math so your making up the meaning of termonology as you go, out of analogies of your own making. 

The mathematics is necessary to make the measures and specify the processes of physical reality.  These then define the words.  The mathematics defines the mechanics, the dynamics, the mechanism, the machinary... 

Force, mass, energy, momentum, permitivity, permeability, velocity, force displacement, time, acceleration, volts, amperes, joules, etc...  these are the terms of physics.  They are defined by physical measurement, have definitive functions...

Mass times acceleration is Force.
Force over distance is energy.
Light is equivalent in energy, identical in conservation of energy, a law more fundamental than your entropy bs.
Light simply propogates because it is light.  See Maxwell's equations.

That IS the mechanism, the machnery, the mechanics, the electrodynamics.

Your vague bs means nothing.  Your a moron.  You have no mechanism to describe. You have no force to describe.  You have no quantities to describe with, no measurements to make, no mathematics to relate them.

And I've just guaranteed that you always will be because you are set on rejecting the real physics that I've set forth.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I think I will keep mine and you will be getting rid of yours.
> ...



Ignorance is bliss and you must be enormously ignorant if you believe my sig line reflects on you in any positive way.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I know a whole lot about frequency and amplitude.



Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't keep asking the question....but is fun to watch you pretend to know and try to compare apples to watermelons.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> The second law isn't only describing radiation, it I'd describing many processes both macroscopic and microscopic. The same statistical rules govern photons or ink diffusing in a glass of water.



So you say....and so you have said many times.  How about a link to an observable lab experiment that proves it.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you think a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechamism of the most fundamental law of nature?  Really?  *When and if we ever discover what force actually makes energy move from one place to another...you realy think that force will be a branch of mathematics?*  Are you really that far out there?
> ...



Lots of equivocating, but you are saying nothing.  

Do you, in fact, believe that a branch of mathematics (statistics) is the fundamental mechanism of the second law or do you believe a branch of mathematics is used to attempt to describe what the mechanism will do?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



Actually, it isn't.  It is, in fact, one of the stupidest things ever said on this board.  Statistics may be used to attempt to describe the fundamental mechanism of the second law of thermodynamics, but it is not the fundamental mechanism itself.  What is funny is the sheer number of words you idiots have epended in an attempt to defend such an ignorant statement.




itfitzme said:


> The second law of thermodynamics says that most natural processes are irreversible,



Which is why energy can never move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state....ie neither heat nor energy can move from a colder object to a warmer object.




itfitzme said:


> Boltzmann in particular resolved this contradiction by interpreting the second law as a new type of law: *a statistical*, not an absolute, law.



And finally we come to the crux of the issue.  An interpretation.  An interpretation which even to this day remains unrpoven.  Feel free to believe if you like, so long as you understand that what you believe is an interpretation of a physical law that remains unproven.



itfitzme said:


> new "statistical mechanics.""



A new and unproven statistical mechanics.



itfitzme said:


> and the American physicist J. Willard Gibbs provided the first accounts of how exactly the second law of thermodynamics arises from the *statistical behavior* of myriads of randomly moving atoms,



Actually, they provided their opinion of how their interpretation of the second law operated...they never proved anything and even all these years later, there has never been an observation of energy moving in any way other than the statement of the second law provides....had they actually proven anything, the statement of the second law would reflect the proof.



itfitzme said:


> correct, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics.



Imagine....someone else as stupid as mamooth.  Statistics may be used to describe what the fundamental mechanism of the laws of thermodynamics may do, but the mechanism itself isn't statistics.  You fail right out of the chute, because you don't, apparently know what the word mechanism means.



itfitzme said:


> second law says that when shit hits the fan, it randomly spreads out everywhere.



That's not what it says at all.  If you must paraphrase, then it says that when the shit hits the fan, it moves to a state of more entropy and can not return to a state of less entropy unless some work is done to return it to that state.



itfitzme said:


> Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth" is a perfectly sound statement.  Why would anyone think otherwise?



No, statistics is a means to attempt to describe the fundamental mechanism, not the fundamental mechanism itself.  Congratulations though, on proving that you are as stupid as mamooth.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD
> 
> You have been shown often enough ........



 [/QUOTE]

One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously.  When you can't make a point honestly, you lie.  There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing.  It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.

Your believe in a two way net flow is exactly that...a belief since it has not, can not, and never will be SHOWN,  It is a mathematical idea that can not be demonstrated in the physical world.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Except that AWG is demonstrated scientifically as is CO2 absorbtion.  You just fail to grasp the fundamental aspect of the science, choosing instead to believe in some unrecognized magical cause rather than what is demonstrated.



AGW has never been "demonstrated" in the physical world.  None of the fingerprints predicted by the hypothesis ever materialized and now going on 2 decades of flat temperatures while CO2 continues a record increase....the hypothesis has failed.



itfitzme said:


> course, you are welcome, at any time, to provide demonstated scientific evidence of this other thing.  Or that the temp record is demonstratably wrong.



There have been plenty of examples of tampering with the temperture record provided already.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously.  When you can't make a point honestly, you lie.  There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing.  It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.
> 
> Your believe in a two way net flow is exactly that...a belief since it has not, can not, and never will be SHOWN,  It is a mathematical idea that can not be demonstrated in the physical world.



Please, just hypothesize, what is it that stops the cold body from radiating in the hot body's direction.  I want to hear you say it just one more time.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 3, 2013)

Someone needs to explain to SSDD how air conditioning works.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD
> ...



One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously.  When you can't make a point honestly, you lie.  There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing.  It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.

Your believe in a two way net flow is exactly that...a belief since it has not, can not, and never will be SHOWN,  It is a mathematical idea that can not be demonstrated in the physical world.[/QUOTE]

A cold broadcasting antenna sending energy to a warm receiving antenna.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Someone needs to explain to SSDD how air conditioning works.



F'ing idiot. Work is being performed to make it happen in an AC.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



A cold broadcasting antenna sending energy to a warm receiving antenna.[/QUOTE]

Also a f'ing idiot.  Learn a bit about frequency and amplitude and how they obey the second law.  Then perhaps you can stop trying to make your ignorant non point.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously.  When you can't make a point honestly, you lie.  There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing.  It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.
> ...



Also a f'ing idiot.  Learn a bit about frequency and amplitude and how they obey the second law.  Then perhaps you can stop trying to make your ignorant non point.[/QUOTE]

I know about frequency and amplitude.  The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics does not.  It only knows about the probabilities of the kinetic behavior of large numbers of individual molecules or atoms.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I know about frequency and amplitude.  The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics does not.  It only knows about the probabilities of the kinetic behavior of large numbers of individual molecules or atoms.



So prove it.  You seem quite sure.....lets see the proof.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> One of many reasons you guys can't be taken seriously.  When you can't make a point honestly, you lie.  There has been a great deal of talk about the theoretical statistical nature of thermodynamics, but no actual showing.  It is not possible to actually show any such thing because every time energy movement is observed, it is moving as predicted by the statement of the second law....that is from a state of less entropy to a state of more entropy.
> 
> Your believe in a two way net flow is exactly that...a belief since it has not, can not, and never will be SHOWN,  It is a mathematical idea that can not be demonstrated in the physical world.



This is very simple.  Go find Einsteins paper on Brownian motion.  In it he presents the experiment and results that proves a) molecules b) kinetic energ of molecules c) the validity of statistical mechanics.  No credible science has taken classical thermodynamics as anything but statistical since.

Your failure to accept the sciencs is... well... your failure.  A large part of that is the failure to grasp that it is the measures and the math that defines the reality of physics.  There are three parts to the mathematics, algebraic, procedural, and statistical.  There is no other description.  If you go read Einstein's 1913 paper on the electrodynamics of movimg bodies, he begins by describing the measure, method and the mathmatics of time and space, the most fundamental of all measures.   You cannot describe reality in any definative mannet except by measure and math.  Without it, all you have is so
much BS.

The net flow follows from Einstein's Brownian motion demonstration and statistical mechanics.

You have nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I know about frequency and amplitude.  The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics does not.  It only knows about the probabilities of the kinetic behavior of large numbers of individual molecules or atoms.
> ...



Prove the second law of thermodynamics? 

The good thing about science is that there are things that have been established as true, that can be assumed as givens,  and used to prove additional things. 

The second law is one of those things.  The conservation and balance of energy are others.  We can assume that they're true. 

Thats the difference between our science and your politics.  You can't assume that anything from politics is true.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ]
> 
> Prove the second law of thermodynamics?



Prove 2 way net energy flow.  Don't worry about the obvious dodge.  It was expected. 



PMZ said:


> ]The good thing about science is that there are things that have been established as true, that can be assumed as givens,  and used to prove additional things.



Don't guess you are old enough to know about the problems associated with assuming.  No surprise.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...



Do you understand this? 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Prove 2 way net energy flow.  Don't worry about the obvious dodge.  It was expected.


[MENTION][/MENTION]

Prove it is gross flow.

Otherwise go study statistical mechanics and look up "einstein brownian motion thermodynamics"  It's all there.  And, while you are at it, stop lying and dodging the obvious, that you have no proof it is gross flow and that your science knowledge hasn't gotten past the 1800's.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Do you understand this?
> 
> Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Nothing there even begins to prove two way net energy flow.  If you believe it does, then you know even less than I had given you credit for.  If you knew half of what you beleive you know, you would just walk away and shut the hell up because if you knew as much as you think you know, you would know that no proof exits or is likely to ever exist.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Prove it is gross flow.



I don't need to.  The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.



itfitzme said:


> go study statistical mechanics and look up "einstein brownian motion thermodynamics"  It's all there.  And, while you are at it, stop lying and dodging the obvious, that you have no proof it is gross flow and that your science knowledge hasn't gotten past the 1800's.



There is nothing like proof of two way net energy flow there.  You believe in an unprovable mathematical concept which can not be demonstrated in the real world because the real world simply won't cooperate.

And again, I don't need to prove anything.  The statement of the second LAW of thermodynamics backs me up.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand this?
> ...



I realize that. That's why I didn't claim it did. 

Let me ask again. Do you believe that all objects warmer than absolute zero continuously and always radiate EM energy at a wave length and intensity proportional to their absolute temperature?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it is gross flow.
> ...





The ability and quantification of all substances to absorp, reflect, or transmit EM is easily measured and endlessly cataloged. For the energy that they absorb their reaction in contact with, or separate from, other matter has been fully understood for well over 100 years. 

You keep raising the question of how much of that, if any, you personally know and understand. That's both irrelevant, and unknowable, by anybody but you.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And yet, you reference it in response to a challenge to prove net two way flow.



PMZ said:


> me ask again. Do you believe that all objects warmer than absolute zero continuously and always radiate EM energy at a wave length and intensity proportional to their absolute temperature?



Of course.  What I don't believe is that they must radiate in every direction...especially a direction in which the energy would move to a lower entropy state.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



So, we're making progress. You believe in radiation and EM energy. 

But, you also believe that EM radiation is either preferentially attracted to only objects warmer than the emitting object, or repelled by colder objects. 

Which do you think that it is? Both?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

Good Wikipedia explanation of the difference between statistical and quantum mechanics.

Black-body radiation[edit source]
Main article: Planck's law


Intensity of light emitted from a black body at any given frequency. Each color is a different temperature. Planck was the first to explain the shape of these curves.
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Planck was investigating the problem of black-body radiation first posed by Kirchhoff some forty years earlier. It is well known that hot objects glow, and that hotter objects glow brighter than cooler ones. The reason is that the electromagnetic field obeys laws of motion just like a mass on a spring, and can come to thermal equilibrium with hot atoms. When a hot object is in equilibrium with light, the amount of light it absorbs is equal to the amount of light it emits. If the object is black, meaning it absorbs all the light that hits it, then it emits the maximum amount of thermal light too.
The assumption that blackbody radiation is thermal leads to an accurate prediction: the total amount of emitted energy goes up with the temperature according to a definite rule, the Stefan&#8211;Boltzmann law (1879&#8211;84). But it was also known that the colour of the light given off by a hot object changes with the temperature, so that "white hot" is hotter than "red hot". Nevertheless, Wilhelm Wien discovered the mathematical relationship between the peaks of the curves at different temperatures, by using the principle of adiabatic invariance. At each different temperature, the curve is moved over by Wien's displacement law (1893). Wien also proposed an approximation for the spectrum of the object, which was correct at high frequencies (short wavelength) but not at low frequencies (long wavelength).[5] It still was not clear why the spectrum of a hot object had the form that it has (see diagram).
Planck hypothesized that the equations of motion for light are a set of harmonic oscillators, one for each possible frequency. He examined how the entropy of the oscillators varied with the temperature of the body, trying to match Wien's law, and was able to derive an approximate mathematical function for black-body spectrum.[6]
However, Planck soon realized that his solution was not unique. There were several different solutions, each of which gave a different value for the entropy of the oscillators.[6] To save his theory, Planck had to resort to using the then controversial theory of statistical mechanics,[6] which he described as "an act of despair &#8230; I was ready to sacrifice any of my previous convictions about physics."[7] One of his new boundary conditions was
to interpret UN [the vibrational energy of N oscillators] not as a continuous, infinitely divisible quantity, but as a discrete quantity composed of an integral number of finite equal parts. Let us call each such part the energy element &#949;;
&#8212;Planck,*On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum[6]
With this new condition, Planck had imposed the quantization of the energy of the oscillators, "a purely formal assumption &#8230; actually I did not think much about it&#8230;" in his own words,[8] but one which would revolutionize physics. Applying this new approach to Wien's displacement law showed that the "energy element" must be proportional to the frequency of the oscillator, the first version of what is now termed "Planck's relation":

Planck was able to calculate the value of h from experimental data on black-body radiation: his result, 6.55 × 10&#8722;34 J·s, is within 1.2% of the currently accepted value.[6] He was also able to make the first determination of the Boltzmann constant kB from the same data and theory.[9]


Note that the (black) Raleigh-Jeans curve never touches the Planck curve.
Prior to Planck's work, it had been assumed that the energy of a body could take on any value whatsoever &#8211; that it was a continuous variable. The Rayleigh-Jeans law makes close predictions for a narrow range of values at one limit of temperatures, but the results diverge more and more strongly as temperatures increase. To make Planck's law, which correctly predicts blackbody emissions, it was necessary to multiply the classical expression by a complex factor that involves h in both the numerator and the denominator. The influence of h in this complex factor would not disappear if it were set to zero or to any other value. Making an equation out of Planck's law that would reproduce the Rayleigh-Jeans law could not be done by changing the values of h, of the Boltzmann constant, or of any other constant or variable in the equation. In this case the picture given by classical physics is not duplicated by a range of results in the quantum picture.
The black-body problem was revisited in 1905, when Rayleigh and Jeans (on the one hand) and Einstein (on the other hand) independently proved that classical electromagnetism could never account for the observed spectrum. These proofs are commonly known as the "ultraviolet catastrophe", a name coined by Paul Ehrenfest in 1911. They contributed greatly (along with Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect) to convincing physicists that Planck's postulate of quantized energy levels was more than a mere mathematical formalism. The very first Solvay Conference in 1911 was devoted to "the theory of radiation and quanta".[10] Max Planck received the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta".


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 4, 2013)

Yeah, SSDD continues to hold on to his bullshit, "The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state."

The second law says no such thing.  He can't do the math so he has no clue what it measures.  Rather, he read some general statement on a physics for idiots website and now thinks he's a genius.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it is gross flow.
> ...



The second law says no such thing.  Your a moron that can't count, can't do math, and can't do physics.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

SSDD says that he doesn't have to prove anything because his version of what the 2ond Law says is a given.  

Not bad for a politician.

Here's what I want to be true,  and if you empower me,  I will make it come true,  I promise.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 4, 2013)

He has replaced "heat" with "energy" and overgeneralized thermo.  By his own reckoning, he continues to lie.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I know a whole lot about frequency and amplitude.
> ...



I asked a simple question.  How do cold transmission antennas broadcast to warm receiving antennas?  You have no answer because your kiddie version of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics says that they can't.  Empirically wrong.  Proof that you have no idea what your talking about. 

Gee,  who's surprised?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> So, we're making progress. You believe in radiation and EM energy.



If course, who doesn't?



PMZ said:


> , you also believe that EM radiation is either preferentially attracted to only objects warmer than the emitting object, or repelled by colder objects.



And you demonstrate once more that you are stuck on stupid.   Why do you think that I must believe in some preference on the part of energy.  Do you think a dropped rock prefers to fall to earth?  Do you think it is repelled by the sky?  Do you think a marble set on an incline prefers to roll down hill, do you think the top of the incline repels it somehow?  Do you think that air in a punctured balloon prefers being outside or that it is repelled by the balloon?  Or do you think that these things behave as they do because there is no choice involved but are simply doing the only thing they can do because natural forces demand that they do what they do?

Why do you believe there is magic in an object not radiating towards a warmer object, but have no problem at all with energy moving in only one direction down a power line...in the direction of more entropy?  Every energy exchange is in the direction of more entropy and no observation has ever been made where energy moved spontaneously in the direction of less entropy.



PMZ said:


> do you think that it is? Both?



What I think is that you are an idiot with a very small mind with very limited thinking critical thinking skills.  You have no problem with natural forces causing most things, but believe only magic can drive the most fundamental physical law of the universe.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Describe an experiment that proves one way flow of radiated EM.



Put a warm thermometer in a bucket of ice.  Name one repeatable, real world, experiment that provides observed proof of two way net energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Good Wikipedia explanation of the difference between statistical and quantum mechanics.
> 
> Black-body radiation[edit source]
> Main article: Planck's law
> ...



So prove two way net flow.  I see that volumes have been written on the topic but not one sentence has ever been written describing an actual observation.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Yeah, SSDD continues to hold on to his bullshit, "The second law says that it is not possible for either heat or energy to move from cooler objects to warmer objects....energy doesn't spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state."
> 
> The second law says no such thing.  He can't do the math so he has no clue what it measures.  Rather, he read some general statement on a physics for idiots website and now thinks he's a genius.



Of course that's what it says...which is why you are so frustrated.  If the statement of the second law spoke of statistics you would have an argument...it doesn't.  It is a statement made in absolute terms...energy never moves spontaneously from a hither entropy state to a lower entropy state.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD says that he doesn't have to prove anything because his version of what the 2ond Law says is a given.
> 
> Not bad for a politician.
> 
> Here's what I want to be true,  and if you empower me,  I will make it come true,  I promise.



I have no version of the second law.  I only have the statements that physics has provided over the years.  None of them say anything about statistics, or QM.  They all say that energy does not spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.  There are numerous ways of saying it, but they all say the same.  I have never provided a statement of the second law of my own making...the one I use most often comes from the physics department of the University of Georgia.  Do you want to tell me that they are not credible?

Your argument has failed, you have become frustrated and resorted to lying and character assasination.  Congratulations on behaving exactly like the loser you are.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> He has replaced "heat" with "energy" and overgeneralized thermo.  By his own reckoning, he continues to lie.



Sorry, but I haven't.  I have never invented a statement on the second law. If lies are being told, it is you and yours who are telling them.  Here, from the physics department of the University of Georgia:



> 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



This is not my statement.  It is a perfectly valid statement from a physics department whose reputation is sterling.  Both energy and heat are covered and neither replaces the other.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.

Climate sensitivity calculations need to take into account the total increase in global heat content: atmosphere, land surface and the entire depth of the ocean.  Doing so indicates the only change in heat accumulation rate lately has been upward.  The best estimate of climate sensitivity is still ~3C/doubling.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



I have told you repeatedly that if you take the time to learn about frequency and amplitude, and how they are slaves to the second law as well,  you would not need to keep asking such a stupid question.  Clearly you are under the impression that heat is the only form of energy.  If you actually understand frequency and amplitude as you claim, and grasp how the second law governs them, then why do you keep asking such a stupid and pointless question?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Ssdd=troll


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

```

```



Abraham3 said:


> Ssdd=troll



He's either a near professional troll or the slowest among us by a mile. You're probably just trying to give him a break by using the troll alternative.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



You guys enjoying your little circle jerk?  Prove two way energy flow or admit that you can't.  May as well admit that you can't since we (or at least i) know that there is no such proof.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Another would be the simple experiment originall done to connect work to thermal energy, the paddle wheel in an insolated bath.  There is no restriction, with the exception of the level of insulation that can be achieved, to the amount of energy that can be introduced through mechanical work.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ```
> ...



Where does this idea come from that people who understand science owe people who don't, anything at all? 

If you are unable or unwilling to invest in whatever education that you need to catch up to current climate science that is entirely your problem.  It has nothing to do with us,  science,  attaining the energy future,  nothing at all.  

You've said,  'I have chosen irrelevance'. 

Fine with me.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ```
> ...



Prove one way energy flow.  Prove conservation of energy and momentum.  Prove the second law of thermo.

You can't because there is no laboratory experiement that "proves" them.  The only proof is a statistical demonstration and deductive reasoning. And those lead to Brownian motion, the existance of the molecule and atom, and the statistical nature of thermodynamics.

And I can guarantee that you haven't a clue how to derive kinetic energy and momentum from Newton's laws of mechanics.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.
> 
> Climate sensitivity calculations need to take into account the total increase in global heat content: atmosphere, land surface and the entire depth of the ocean.  Doing so indicates the only change in heat accumulation rate lately has been upward.  The best estimate of climate sensitivity is still ~3C/doubling.



Yeah, but it leads to some interesting things. I was going over Newtons derivations, 

Work = Energy = F*&#916;d=&#8747;F*dx

and

I = Impulse = Momentum = F*&#916;t =&#8747;F*dt

From these, the concervation of energy and momentum are deductively proven.

Work = Energy = F*&#916;d=&#8747;F*dx  leads to

=&#8747;ma*dx  

= m&#8747;(d²x/dt²)*dx  

= m&#8747;(dv/dt)*dx  

Then the amazing part, he switches dx and dv

= m&#8747;(dx/dt)*dt

= m&#8747;v*dt

= m (1/2) v²

For momentum it is

=&#8747;ma*dt

= m&#8747;(d²x/dt²)*dt 

= m&#8747;(dv/dt)*dt

Then the amazing part, he switches dt and dv

= m&#8747;(dt/dt)*dv

= m&#8747;(1)dt

= m v

Because two colliding particles impart equal and opposite force on each other, and the time and distance for the interaction is the same, the conservation of force and energy is clear.

The rest is simply a statistically significant number of times that it has never failed to be true.  But, it was some time, as new forms of energy were discovered, before this was taken as being a fundamental law beyond Newtonian mechanics.  That E=hv and p=h/&#955; were not immediately considered as conserved until it was demonstrated as statistically significant.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



What the F are you talking about?  You couldn't list the forms of energy without looking it up on wikipedia and have no clue what your talking about with your frequency and amplitude bs.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.
> 
> Climate sensitivity calculations need to take into account the total increase in global heat content: atmosphere, land surface and the entire depth of the ocean.  Doing so indicates the only change in heat accumulation rate lately has been upward.  The best estimate of climate sensitivity is still ~3C/doubling.



As far as the second law is concerned, there is no conservation of entropy and it is, by itself, a fairly useless concept except to say that there are no perfectly elastic collisions.

The significant law is the first law, the conservation of energy, and the concept of enthalpy which is an accouting of the actual energy in a system.  

There are

dU = dQ - dW = T*dS - dW

dG = dH - T dS

dH = dE - d(PV)

The important part is the energy available.  All the second law says is that, for a mass system, some energy will leak out into other available modes.

Unlike energy and momentum, entropy is not conserved, making it a far less useful measure.  Like energy and momentum, every time a new form of energy was revealed, it took time before the second law was considered to be of some relevance.  The fact is that, at a moleculer level, it has no value.  It only has meaning at a mass level.  At best, at a molecular level, it says that if a molecule can absorb a photon into any one of a number of modes, it will absorb them into any one of a number of modes. That is all it says, nothing more.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Nothing like proof to support your claims.  Why am I not surprised.  Unable to win your point so to claim I am stupid?   If you think I am stupid and I have you backed into a corner you can't defend, how much more stupid does that make you?

You can't prove your claims and aren't even grown up enough to acknowledge it.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.
> ...



Do you ever get tired of talking yo yourself?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



My claims are accepted by science as givens.  That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it.  You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true.  Thats by definition Dunning-Kruger. 

If you want to learn,  consider a two way radio antenna.  Your ignorance says that that can't be.  Our knowledge says that it happens every second of every day. You say that your ignorance deserves equal consideration to our knowledge.  

No.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> My claims are accepted by science as givens.  That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it.  You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true.  That&#8217;s by definition Dunning-Kruger.



One of the problems with having a pretend education such as yours is that your own biases limit it to what you want to believe.  You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.  The theory is discussed, but ideas such as backradiation which is dependent on two way energy flow are not taught.  Such ideas are mostly restricted to climatolgy...a soft science.  Two way net flow of energy is one feature of a hyopothesis that has not, nor is likely to ever be proven.  Anyone who accepts such as a given, is quite frankly, stupid.  History won't be kind to post modern science which is profoundly guilty of skipping over the scientific method and accepting theory as fact.

And your idiot reference to dunning kruger is a fine example of how your pretend education fails you.  I am the first to admit to things I don't know.  In fact, I have said repeatedly that I can't begin to explain the mechanism that forces energy transfers in one direction but believe that to be the case anyway because it is what the second law of thermodynamics says.  By your own definition, I do not fit the profile for dunning-kruger.   You, on the other hand do.  You chose to believe theory is fact and disregard physical law in favor of what you choose to believe.



PMZ said:


> you want to learn,  consider a two way radio antenna.  Your ignorance says that that can't be.  Our knowledge says that it happens every second of every day. You say that your ignorance deserves equal consideration to our knowledge.
> 
> No.



I don't guess you are aware that electromagnetic waves are also forms of energy and are also slaves to the second law just like heat.  Your pretend education has failed you again.  Again, do a bit of reading on the topics of frequency and amplitude and how the second law applies to them just as it applies to all energy transfers.  

You grasped the idea from a tongue in cheek comment by flacalten.  Clearly he does grasp electromagnetism as he dropped the whole topic when I mentioned frequency and amplitude to him.  He knows that his comment was half assed and didn't persue it.  Being barely half assed yourself, you think you are on to something and continue to make a fool of yourself in public with it.  I encourage you to continue.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > My claims are accepted by science as givens.  That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it.  You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true.  Thats by definition Dunning-Kruger.
> ...



Nothing pretend about my education. I worked hard at it.  

Your remarks about how the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics prevents two way RF communications antennas from working speak for themselves. You apparently have again avoided learning anything.  

That is precisely Dunning-Kruger.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.



Dang. I must have imagined that semester of Statistical Mechanics. Or is that "soft science" now? Given it was part of the core Physics curriculum, one would think it was hard science.

(I think I got a "B" in it.)


----------



## PMZ (Sep 6, 2013)

Education is not something that conservatives value.  It is so much easier to be ignorant and so much easier to believe we are all helpless victims than responsible achievers.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Your to fin stupid to talk to.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.
> ...



The guy obviously has no education, so he makes up shit, pretending that he knows what is taught in physics.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > My claims are accepted by science as givens.  That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it.  You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true.  Thats by definition Dunning-Kruger.
> ...



There is no mechanism that forces energy transfer in one direction.  That's your problem, you keep harping on this magical concept of yours for which you have no evidence.  It demonstrates your lack of education in physics and engineering. You can't list the forms of energy. You can't do the calculations necessary to show how the forms of energy are related.  You don't even know what energy is.  Your making up your own bs with nothing to back it up.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


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



As far as I know there is no proof that the transfer of molecular kinetic energy doesn't always go from high to low as conduction.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



And there is proof that kinetic energy moves in both directions.

It is called Brownian motion.  I know I keep harping on it, but it is the definitive experiment and observation that proves a) the existance of molecules  and atoms, b) the statistical nature of classical thermodynamics, and c) that the kinetic energy does move from the low concentration to the high concentation, just less often.

"At first the predictions of Einstein's formula were seemingly refuted by a series of experiments by Svedberg in 1906 and 1907, which gave displacements of the particles as 4 to 6 times the predicted value, and by Henri in 1908 who found displacements 3 times greater than Einstein's formula predicted.[11] But Einstein's predictions were finally confirmed in a series of experiments carried out by Chaudesaigues in 1908 and Perrin in 1909. *The confirmation of Einstein's theory constituted empirical progress for the kinetic theory of heat. In essence, Einstein showed that the motion can be predicted directly from the kinetic model of thermal equilibrium. The importance of the theory lay in the fact that it confirmed the kinetic theory's account of the second law of thermodynamics as being an essentially statistical law*."

Brownian motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The paper is available at users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/eins_brownian.pdf*

This google search will provide a wealth of reading material,

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=einstein+brownian+motion

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=How+does+einstein+brownian+motion+and+heat+effect&spell=1

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=How+does+einstein+brownian+motion+and+heat

COS 126 Programming Assignment: The Atomic Nature of Matter

"In one of his "miraculous year" (1905) papers, Einstein formulated a quantitative theory of Brownian motion in an attempt to justify the "existence of atoms of definite finite size." His theory provided experimentalists with a method to count molecules with an ordinary microscope by observing their collective effect on a larger immersed particle. In 1908 Jean Baptiste Perrin used the recently invented ultramicroscope to experimentally validate Einstein's kinetic theory of Brownian motion, thereby providing the first direct evidence supporting the atomic nature of matter. For this work, Perrin won the 1926 Nobel Prize in physics. "

The bottom line of it is this.  Grains of pollen are just the right size that they are visible under the microscope and small enough to be significantly impacted by the difference in momentum and kinetic energy of the individual molecules.    Under a microscope, pollen grains or materal beads of sufficient size can be seen and counted as they move in random directions due to the random movement of the molecules.  When they are introduced into the liquid, all at one end, they will tend towards being evenly distributed throughout the liquid.  But, at any particular moment of time, a statistically calculatable quantity of beads can be seen moving in the opposite direction, in the direction of higher concentration.

This alone is sufficient to prove that statistical mechanics is correct and that classical mechanics is the result of the statistical properties of large number of atoms.  And, it proves that energy does move against the temperature gradient, just not en mass.

The reason it proves it is simple.  The proof of molecules and atoms proves it.  The proof of atoms and molecules makes the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules sufficient to explain heat transfer.   Being sufficient to explain heat transfer, having buries the caloric idea, then the gross movement of kinetic energy in opposition to the thermal gradient is proven.

One of the things with physics, and why some with never get it, is some things are understood well enough that further investigation is simply unnecessary.  One could extend the brownina motion experiment to a thermal gradient experiement, but why bother? 

No one with a physics education is stupid enough to think like SSDD.  We all know.  That he thinks otherwise is sufficient evidence to prove he doesn't have an education in engineering or physics.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Certainly the statistical evidence suggests that within any sample there will be a range of kinetic energies amoung the molecules.  My point is at the scale of a single molecule.  Can a lower kinetic energy molecule transfer energy to a higher energy molecule.  No statistics required.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In perfectly elastic collisions, that five suspended steel ball clacker thing is the best example. The moving one stops and the stopped one moves.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 7, 2013)

Hence my original statement.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *the confirmation of einstein's theory constituted empirical progress for the kinetic theory of heat. In essence, einstein showed that the motion can be predicted directly from the kinetic model of thermal equilibrium. The importance of the theory lay in the fact that it confirmed the kinetic theory's account of the second law of thermodynamics as being an essentially statistical law*."



*Bravo*




itfitzme said:


> no one with a physics education is stupid enough to think like ssdd.  We all know.  That he thinks otherwise is sufficient evidence to prove he doesn't have an education in engineering or physics.



*Bingo*


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> One of the problems with having a pretend education such as yours is that your own biases limit it to what you want to believe.  You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.  The theory is discussed, but ideas such as backradiation which is dependent on two way energy flow are not taught.  Such ideas are mostly restricted to climatolgy...a soft science.  Two way net flow of energy is one feature of a hyopothesis that has not, nor is likely to ever be proven.  Anyone who accepts such as a given, is quite frankly, stupid.  History won't be kind to post modern science which is profoundly guilty of skipping over the scientific method and accepting theory as fact.



Man, Ssidd can I use this to fertilize my garden?

And can I call you Ssidd?  It's actually three syllables shorter.  I'll live longer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



THis is actually an impressive argument in that true thermal flows are often assumed to all have definitively large thermal differences (gradient)  to force a unidirectional flow. Thus no bidirectional equations are ever presented in "normal" THERMAL energy calculations.. 

Because 

If the thermal gradient driving a flow reduces to Brownian motion as the primary driver or significant driver --- then the body supporting the flow is near thermal equilibrium.. Close enough to equilibrium to not worrying about calculating a thermal flow.. 

The RADIATIVE analogy is when 2 bodies exchanging energy primarily thru EM IR are also near thermal equilibrium.. This is also a "low gradient" exchange, but this is not neccessarily a "low flow" thermal exchange. You could have 2 bodies at very high temps --- very close in BBody emission effectively canceling a rather large exchange of photons being exchanged.. Not like brownian motion, but TRUE Bi-directional thermal flow.


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Excellent point.

Also, unlike matter, photons can occupy the same space.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 8, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I don't know that that is true.  My ex-wife used to get into my head all the friggin time.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 8, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





An experiment could be to shine two CO2 lasers at each other.  One could be put in a hot room, the other in a refrigerator.  With them seperated by a double pane window, I suspect that the hotter laser would crap out first, needing to absorb less radiation to reach meltdown.  It is, after all, starting out hot.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 8, 2013)

That steel ball click clack thing is an excellent example of heat and the second law in a simple example.  

The contraption doesn't provide perpetual motion.  The steel balls are not perfectly elastic and each impact loses a tiny bit of energy to heating the steel ball.  The energy, initially nice and uniform motion, gets spread out into other available modes, acoustic ringing of the steel ball which degrades into vibrations of the steel molecules.  Over time, the entropy of the system increases from the single energy mode of oscillation between kinetic and potential energy into all possible randomized modes that that individual atoms can take on.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Not the kind of experiment that your University is gonna sanction anytime soon.. Maybe you could schedule a grudge match next session on "Robot Wars"... 

In the Radiative case... If the thermal gradient is small, even IF there is a large flux of photons flowing in both directions --- over sufficiently small integration times, you would occasionally see statistics that indicate reverse flow of EM IR..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




In the Radiative case... If the thermal gradient is small (or large or in between) , even IF there is a large (or small  or in between) flux of photons flowing in both directions --- over sufficiently small (or large or in between) integration times, you would occasionally (or always) see (data that) statistics  that (would) indicate reverse flow of EM IR..

This is the modern equivalent of Jabberwocky.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Why don't you go harass the gardening or pet forums with you lack of social and scientific skills for awhile??


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So as to not be ambiguous or misleading, the basics of Newtonian mechanics between two individual particles should be clarified.

What Newton did for science is to release it from the bonds of "why", leaving that as simply "because", and allow us to simply describe what is.

I did the derivation of momentum and energy previously, showing how F=ma, when taken over a distance or time period leads to work and momentum. (If you know this stuff, then you know this stuff.  If you don't, you shoulds) It also leads to conservation of the two quantities which are simply

  W=F x &#916;d, that is work equals force times distance   (1)
  KE=(1/2)mv², that is kinetic energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared  (2)

and 

  I=F x &#916;t, that is impulse equals force times time    (3)
  p=mv, that is momentuam equals mass times velocity.   (4)

Clearly, if one objects is bouncing off another object, they experience the exact but opposite force and distance over the same period of time.  That is where the conservation of momentum and energy initially comes from.

For two particles, like two pool balls, they are a system.  The total energy and momentum is the same after as it was before.  So,

  p=m1*v1_b + m2*v2_b = m1*v1_a + m2*v2_a where a and b are after and before.  (5)

  E=½m1*v1_b² + ½m2*v2_b² = ½m1*v1_a² + ½m2*v2_a²   (6)

m1 and m2 are the same before and after.  v1_b and v2_b are what we start with.

So, we solve for eq 5 for v2_a, 

   v2_a=m2*v2_b-m1(v1_a-v1_b)/m2                                 (7)

stuff it into eq 6  

   ½m1*v1_b² + ½m2*v2_b² = ½m1*v1_a² + ½m2*(m2*v2_b-m1(v1_a-v1_b)/m2)²

and solve that for v1_a.

   m1*v1_b² + m2*v2_b² = m1*v1_a² + m2*(m2*v2_b-m1(v1_a-v1_b)/m2)²

   v1_a=function(m1,m2,v1_b,v2_b)

What we get is an ugly looking equation that includes a square root and therefor has two solutions. 

One of the solutions is the before that we started with  {v1_b, v2_b}, leaving the other solution {v1_a, v2_a}.

Here is the thing, there is no "why".  If we started with the values given by {v1_a, v2_a}, we would end up with the same pair of solutions.  This is why it is said that physics mechanics is reversable with no time arrow.  If two pool balls were filmed colliding and the film run backwards, it would be equally valid.

What is also notable is that, like the click clack steel ball thing, after the collision the slow ball is fast and the fast ball is slow. Do the two swap momentum and energy values or does some net momentum and energy get transfered from one to the other?  

 In truth, that is a philosophical question that goes towards the unanswerable question of "why".  The thing is that, philosophically, there is always another why beyond the why.  At some point, it doesn't matter.  At some point, it is just what it is.  For all we know, the reality is that there is something that is responsible for slowness, after all, the speed of light is the fixed reference, and the slowness gets transfered.  It really doesn't matter.

There are a host of videos and demonstrations of this concept to be found with a search;
https://www.google.com/webhp#q=classical+mechanics+collisions

The full equation is

v1_a=(m1*v1_b+m2*v2_b)/(m1+m2) +/- (sqrt(m1*v1_b+m2*v2_b)*sqrt(m1*(v1_b-2)+m2*(v2_b-2))/(sqrt(m1)*(m1+m2)))

And, being symetrical, the 1's and 2's can be swapped around to get v2_a.  This is the one dimensional case.  The three dimensional case requires breaking it down to tangential and normal components which then becomes a one dimensional equation.  

What doesn't happen is the slow one doesn't get slower and the fast one faster. This fact, that the slow one gets sped up and the fast one slows down, isn't the second law of thermodynamics.  It seems like it, but it isn't. And this fact is only demonstrated, here, for collisions of two particles.  There is an article in Wiki titled "Multi-particle collision dynamics".  It is incomprehensible. For the most part, the probability of three or more particles colliding with absolute simulanaity is near impossibility. It would be interesting to know what happens, in any case.  As far as I can tell, it would be two equations with three unknowns, so I'm not sure what it would yield.

When it comes to a mass of particles in a thermodynamic system, like steam or freon, the velocities are spread out.  The ideal distribution is given as a MaxwellBoltzmann distribution.  This distribution, though, is not necessarily the distribution at any specific instance of time.  It is the average distribution.  At any specific instance of time, the velocities could be anything, as long as the total energy and momentum of the system is conserved.

Tanner's General Chemistry - Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution Law

What the second law is saying, with the entropy tends towards maximum, is that if there are no prefered velocities and directions, then all velocities and directions will be equally represented. In a real molucular gas, like CO2, the bonds themselves will absorb kinetic energy and momentum. O-C-O leads to symetrical and asymetrical bending and stretching.  Searching under "CO2 vibration modes" will yield some info.  Those modes will decay to emit a photon which will then be absorbed by another molecule.  And it doesn't much matter if the other molecule is sitting still or moving at a velocity.  That is with the exception of relativistic effects which change the wavelength from the perspective of the molecule.  So, over time, the modes become not just kinetic energy but also vibrations and photons bounding about the thermodynamic system.  This is why statistical mechanics uses the vague quantity &#937;(E) in S=k*ln(&#937;(E)), because &#937;(E) represents all the modes available at energy level E.

And this is where physics is interpreting a direction of time.  Over time, the energy of the system gets spread out among all the modes that are available.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You could have said, in plain English,  all matter at temperatures above 0 Kelvin, emit EM radiation,  over a spectrum,  and at an intensity, defined by Planck's Law.


----------

