# Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

Something that really struck me the other Day when posting Greenland Ice Cores was the rapid fall into cooling that happens cyclically every 1.2 thousand years. And each event is preceded by a warming trend spike just before a rapid decrease in global temperatures. 






Temperatures spiked and rise ended in 1998, according to balloon data sets used to certify satellite measurements. Our current spike will look like many others in the Holocene very soon as Grand Solar minimum happens every 1,200 years.



 
Each of the cooling events following there warming spikes has resulted in a 0.5 deg C drop in temperature before then forming a new cooler base line.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

Now lets look closer..  The sun has cycles(red lined grand minimums) initially faster (800-900 years) then elongating (out to 1200 years) then a pause before a Grand minimum where massive  cooling occurs. The pause warming is liner and sloped.  We have reached that slope maximum and now were headed to cooling. Given the cycle progression we should expect 1-1.5 deg C drop in global temperatures over the next 60-90 years..

People refuse to look at the historical "writing on the wall" but the pattern is clear..


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 21, 2018)

Gore looked at it and said, "I could make  millions  convincing idiots that this is our fault..."

Notice that they no longer call it "warming".  Now it's,  "Oh no! Climate!  Send lots of money to the UN so they can offset climate!"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

The Irish Ram said:


> Gore looked at it and said, I could make  millions  convincing idiots that this is our fault...








7 years ago gore said we would be ice free up north and snow would be a thing of the past....  He LIED!


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 21, 2018)

Lol, I smell desperation!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Lol, I smell desperation!


Not at all...I have scientific fact and observed physical evidence on my side... You have what, failed models..??


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 21, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Lol, I smell desperation!



Nope, that's science and common sense you smell. You're just not used to it....


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 21, 2018)

Lol.....snow flurries here in NY today. October 21st! 

Doy


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Oct 21, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Lol.....snow flurries here in NY today. October 21st!
> 
> Doy




Climate Change Strikes again?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Lol, I smell desperation!



Alas, the desperation belongs to you guys...maybe because you are starting to realize that you have been scammed...or maybe you know it is a scam and are worried about the fallout of the world learning about it.  Did you know that the hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.  What does that say for all the "science" you people believe you have on your side?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 21, 2018)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Lol.....snow flurries here in NY today. October 21st!
> ...



Yep.....global cooling is ghey


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 21, 2018)

Lol, 3 of the first 4 posts are you high-fiving yourself.  That's desperation.  Yes, I know the usual climate deniers will flock in here to defend you but they are as desperate as you are.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, I smell desperation!
> ...


Sorry, but that is so incorrect as to be delusional.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Lol, 3 of the first 4 posts are you high-fiving yourself.  That's desperation.  Yes, I know the usual climate deniers will flock in here to defend you but they are as desperate as you are.


Please provide proof of your claim... Empirically observed and quantified evidence that can be verified..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

Crepitus said:


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


Another "because I said so" claim without evidence of any kind to back it up.. Your the one who is delusional..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

The Irish Ram said:


> Gore looked at it and said, "I could make  millions  convincing idiots that this is our fault..."
> 
> Notice that they no longer call it "warming".  Now it's,  "Oh no! Climate!  Send lots of money to the UN so they can offset climate!"


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2018)

Billy looked at it and said "I've got nothing... but I guess I can always go back to semantics"


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2018)

Crepitus said:


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



Prove me wrong...  Lets see a paper that empirically measures and quantifies the warming attributed to man made CO2.  

Of course you won't be able to...just as you can't show a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, or a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

But is it sweet that you believe such that papers have been published and data showing those things exists even though you can't manage to find any of them.  By the way...that's called being a dupe.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Lol.....snow flurries here in NY today. October 21st!
> 
> Doy


LOL

We have three passes up here that usually don't close until mid November and they have been closed now for about two weeks and have 3-5 feet of snow on them.. We've had a warm week and will have about one more and then were into snow season.. The animals at elevation are all low where the food is that they can still get too...  Its going to be cold and snowy one, indefrence to what NOAA stated in its forecast..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> maybe you know it is a scam and are worried about the fallout of the world learning about it.


It will be real evident in the next ten years and there will be no amount of "adjustments" that will be able to hide what is happening...

Current, unadjusted, data sets are already showing the cooling trend.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 21, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Lol, I smell desperation!



What I see is that you made three comments here that are NOT counterpoints to the first two postings at all. All you did was babble a lot with no evidence, facts or cogent observations.

The desperation is actually YOU!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, I smell desperation!
> ...



He doesn't ever try to defend his statements...which is good I suppose, you don't have to wade through a bunch of pseudoscientific clap trap to get to the end point that it is all output from failing models.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
> 
> Something that really struck me the other Day when posting Greenland Ice Cores was the rapid fall into cooling that happens cyclically every 1.2 thousand years. And each event is preceded by a warming trend spike just before a rapid decrease in global temperatures.
> 
> ...



Our baseline will be the coolest ever!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, 3 of the first 4 posts are you high-fiving yourself.  That's desperation.  Yes, I know the usual climate deniers will flock in here to defend you but they are as desperate as you are.
> ...


Why am I not surprised...

Not even a semi-inteligent response...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 23, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
> ...


Lets just hope this isn't the Grand Minimum which triggers the next glacial cycle.. Or it just might be the coolest man has seen in 14,000 years.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Lol, what's the point?

I could tattoo it on your face in reverse so you see it every time you look in a mirror and you'd still deny it.  That's why you kids are referred to as "climate deniers".


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 23, 2018)

Crepitus said:


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


And you continue to talk out your ass....


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


That's only because you keep blowing smoke up it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 23, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


LOL.. Your head is firmly implanted... Sorry but that smoke is coming from you..  Mouth/ASS same smell..

Let me know when you pull your head out... Just maybe you will have an intelligent thought or comment that has any proof to it..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


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



And the wait continues for you to show a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, or a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or for that matter,  a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

There is no observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas hypothesis, nor has there ever been a peer reviewed, published paper that empirically measured and quantified the claimed warming due to increased CO2 and yet you believe..and are deluded enough to call people who actually expect science to produce some evidence of their claims deniers?  

We are able to support our position with as much observed, measured evidence as you would like while you can't support yours with a single piece of such evidence...alas, I am afraid that it is you who is in denial...denial over the fact that there is no real evidence in support of what you believe to be true.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You have to love it...post after post after post and they never put up anything real with which to support their beliefs...and this clown can't even put up model results...all he has is impotent harangue which doesn't even amount to real school yard bully material.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
> 
> Something that really struck me the other Day when posting Greenland Ice Cores was the rapid fall into cooling that happens cyclically every 1.2 thousand years. And each event is preceded by a warming trend spike just before a rapid decrease in global temperatures.
> 
> ...


Only a science hater could think that the sun has an impact upon the earths climate.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Yeah, that was one of the most desperately confused come back attempts I've ever seen.

Weak.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


And you produce...................... Nothing.!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
> ...


Its really interesting how I provide context and facts and the moron Creper cant even get past "But, but, but they told me to say this". No cognitive thought ability just a god damn parrot for left wing bull shit.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


It’s like talking to a bot. Their limited programming has three responses.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 24, 2018)

Billy has been predicting imminent cooling for as long as he's been here, for exactly the same reasons he's using now. He's been hilariously wrong for years running now.

A non-retard would think "Hmm. Billy's predictions have always failed hard. Nothing has changed. Hence, his predictions are obviously going to fail hard again." Alas, most of the deniers on this thread chose to jump up on to the retard wagon with Billy, and ride off with him into retard land.

One bright point for them: Being a denier means being free from the curse of long term memory. So what if all your predictions fail every time? Just forget about it. It doesn't matter. The other deniers won't care, as they also get everything totally wrong every time. Being totally wrong is a badge of honor in the denier cult, because it proves you're not one of those dirty liberals who uses science and gets things right.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Billy has been predicting imminent cooling for as long as he's been here, for exactly the same reasons he's using now. He's been hilariously wrong for years running now.
> 
> A non-retard would think "Hmm. Billy's predictions have always failed hard. Nothing has changed. Hence, his predictions are obviously going to fail hard again." Alas, most of the deniers on this thread chose to jump up on to the retard wagon with Billy, and ride off with him into retard land.
> 
> One bright point for them: Being a denier means being free from the curse of long term memory. So what if all your predictions fail every time? Just forget about it. It doesn't matter. The other deniers won't care, as they also get everything totally wrong every time. Being totally wrong is a badge of honor in the denier cult, because it proves you're not one of those dirty liberals who uses science and gets things right.


Another fact-less post...  Keep your head up your ass.  It will keep you from seeing you freeze to death..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Billy has been predicting imminent cooling for as long as he's been here, for exactly the same reasons he's using now. He's been hilariously wrong for years running now.
> 
> A non-retard would think "Hmm. Billy's predictions have always failed hard. Nothing has changed. Hence, his predictions are obviously going to fail hard again." Alas, most of the deniers on this thread chose to jump up on to the retard wagon with Billy, and ride off with him into retard land.
> 
> One bright point for them: Being a denier means being free from the curse of long term memory. So what if all your predictions fail every time? Just forget about it. It doesn't matter. The other deniers won't care, as they also get everything totally wrong every time. Being totally wrong is a badge of honor in the denier cult, because it proves you're not one of those dirty liberals who uses science and gets things right.




True to form hairball, you project precisely what you are doing on to others.  The predictions of warmers have failed miserably over the areas and when they fail to materialize, does it matter at all?  Of course not...you just claim that they were accurate and move on in your ignorance.

Tell me hairball. are you aware that the hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date?  That being the case, exactly what is your belief in AGW based upon?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There is no observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas hypothesis, nor has there ever been a peer reviewed, published paper that empirically measured and quantified the claimed warming due to increased CO2


The back radiation from greenhouse gases has been observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas theory.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas hypothesis, nor has there ever been a peer reviewed, published paper that empirically measured and quantified the claimed warming due to increased CO2
> ...


Produce the paper showing that natural forces are not responsible for the warming...  By the way, There is no mid-topospheric hot spot anywhere on earth, so your hypothesis fails as there is no evidence of heat/energy retention as stated in the hypothesis..


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.

The chronically missing "hot spot" is fatal to the "greenhouse Theory", thus the whole stupid thing should have been dropped by now.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 25, 2018)

SSDD denies back radiation exists. EM theory disagrees. The chart shows back radiation was observed and measured. That is all I was addressing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas hypothesis, nor has there ever been a peer reviewed, published paper that empirically measured and quantified the claimed warming due to increased CO2
> ...



That's great.  So what's the expected temperature increase on planet Earth by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?  What does your lab work show?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD denies back radiation exists. EM theory disagrees. The chart shows back radiation was observed and measured. That is all I was addressing.




The chart shows that radiation was measured with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...that isn't back radiation..that is energy movement from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument.  If you want to show back radiation, then you need to be measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...alas, you won't see that happening spontaneously anywhere...anytime.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The chart shows that radiation was measured with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...that isn't back radiation..that is energy movement from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument. If you want to show back radiation, then you need to be measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...alas, you won't see that happening spontaneously anywhere...anytime.



In fact the spectrum analyzer was cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature to reduce the noise level. The spectrometer measured radiation from a warmer atmosphere to the very cold detector. Do you disagree that they measured GHG back radiation? If so where do you think the radiation came from?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 25, 2018)

My goodness, it is cooling so fast;






Climate Reanalyzer






It has cooled by +0.7 degree C for the world. By +1.1 degrees C for the northern hemisphere. That is some cooling, Silly Billy.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 25, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.



See? More of that total denier failure at every bit of science that I was talking about. This one fails to understand the basics of an equilibrium system. If I make $1000 each week and spend $1000 each week, my bank account remains steady. If I make $1030 each week and spend $1000, my bank account steadily rises, even though it's only a 3% increase.



> The chronically missing "hot spot" is fatal to the "greenhouse Theory", thus the whole stupid thing should have been dropped by now.



And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> In fact the spectrum analyzer was cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature to reduce the noise level. The spectrometer measured radiation from a warmer atmosphere to the very cold detector. Do you disagree that they measured GHG back radiation? If so where do you think the radiation came from?



I'm interested in how SSDD's very peculiar theory explains the peaks and troughs in the measured IR spectrum, and why they match the IR absorption spectrum of greenhouse gases. His insane theory is that the photoreceptors in the instrument know to emit more when pointed at a colder object. However, that theory doesn't explain the frequency variation. It should yield a smooth line across all frequency bands, and the lack of such a smooth line means his bizarre theory fails hard in yet another way.

Maybe he'll regale us with tales of photons that aren't just intelligent or super-intelligent, but super-duper-duper-intelligent. These photons emitted by the receptor actually know they're supposed to mimic, in reverse, the emission spectrum of greenhouse gases. But only when they're pointed at greenhouse gases.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The chart shows that radiation was measured with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...that isn't back radiation..that is energy movement from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument. If you want to show back radiation, then you need to be measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...alas, you won't see that happening spontaneously anywhere...anytime.
> ...



You tell yourself that...and don't bother wondering why discrete wavelengths can be measured moving from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere without cooling the instrument but if you want to measure discrete wavelengths coming from cooler objects, you must cool the instrument to temperatures lower than the instrument.  Don't ever ask yourself that because you might have to come face to face with the reality that you are and have been wrong all along.

As I said...backradiation if it existed, is by definition radiation moving from a cool object to a warmer object...measuring energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument is not measuring back radiation as energy moving from warm to cool is not back radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.
> ...



Is that energy which is supposedly "trapped" changing its frequency?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

mamooth said:


> I'm interested in how SSDD's very peculiar theory explains the peaks and troughs in the measured IR spectrum, and why they match the IR absorption spectrum of greenhouse gases. His insane theory is that the photoreceptors in the instrument know to emit more when pointed at a colder object. However, that theory doesn't explain the frequency variation. It should yield a smooth line across all frequency bands, and the lack of such a smooth line means his bizarre theory fails hard in yet another way.



Idiot.  I never said that so called greenhouse gasses don't absorb radiation...typical of warmers, you make up some ridiculous argument to rail against rather than what I actually said.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Idiot.  I never said that so called greenhouse gasses don't absorb radiation...typical of warmers, you make up some ridiculous argument to rail against rather than what I actually said.



You don't know what you say from post to post. That's one reason why everyone laughs at you so hard.

So, why does the IR spectrometer measure an IR spectrum that shows the peaks and troughs that correspond with greenhouse gas emissions?

Remember, your explanation for why an uncooled camera shows colder clouds so accurately is that the camera sensors know to radiate more towards colder parts of the sky. You flat out rejected the idea that backradiation was being detected by the camera.

So, we have the IR spectrometer. It would work uncooled as well, though with less accuracy, and show those peaks and troughs across the spectrum corresponding with GHG emission bands.

According to your theory, that has to somehow be caused by the receptors in the camera. So how do they do it? How do they know to restrict single frequencies from emitting?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot.  I never said that so called greenhouse gasses don't absorb radiation...typical of warmers, you make up some ridiculous argument to rail against rather than what I actually said.
> ...




Step on up to the plate hairball...and show me a measurement of discrete radiation bands from so called greenhouse gasses made with instruments not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the gasses they are measuring.  When you can do that, then you can show a measurement of back radiation....anything else is nothing more than you being fooled by instrumentation.  

And I asked you if the energy your so called greenhouse gasses are trapping  changing in frequency...and if so, can you demonstrate that it is changing?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Step on up to the plate hairball..



Expound to us on your retard theory some more.

At exactly what point does the instrument switch from 'absorb' to 'emit' mode? I mean, temperature is a statistical quality, not a hard quality. Some molecules in any gas are moving fast, some moving slow.

So, is the transition from 'absorb' to 'emit' mode by the receptor make a sharp cutoff when the whole collection of gas reaches a certain statistical average temperature, or does each molecule of the receptor scan the gas molecule-by-molecule, flipping at super speeds from 'absorb' to 'emit' and back again?

And when the instrument is in 'absorb' mode,can it still be emitting in a different direction, based on  the colder sky? How does the math for that work? And how does the object know to flip?

You clearly haven't thought this through.



> And I asked you if the energy your so called greenhouse gasses are trapping changing in frequency...and if so, can you demonstrate that it is changing?



Obviously it's changing. Was there any point to such a stupid question, or was it just a diversion on your part?

And remember, rage-weeping at me won't make you less of my sweet beeyatch, so don't be doin' that.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 25, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Step on up to the plate hairball..
> ...



So you can't produce any measurement of discrete wavelengths from so called greenhouse gasses made with instruments at ambient temperature.  That's what I said.  To bad you don't know why such measurements can't be made.




mamooth said:


> Obviously it's changing. Was there any point to such a stupid question, or was it just a diversion on your part?[/qyite]
> 
> Evidence?  Or is it changing just because you said so? And to what frequency is it changing?
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 25, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.
> ...



No the "hot spot" has *NOT *been shown to exist in the real world, it lives on in models and brainless warmists fevered imagination, who amazingly fail to produce the real world physical evidence of it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 25, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness, it is cooling so fast;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow...

Old Fraud, The unadjusted data says it is cooling. Only your Karl Et Al garbage and your failed modeling says its warming..  Looks like I need to post up current balloon data sets again...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 25, 2018)

Now Silly Billy, I do think that I will go with the real scientists, rather than some burger flippin' liar on the internet. LOL


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You tell yourself that...and don't bother wondering why discrete wavelengths can be measured moving from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere without cooling the instrument but if you want to measure discrete wavelengths coming from cooler objects, you must cool the instrument to temperatures lower than the instrument. Don't ever ask yourself that because you might have to come face to face with the reality that you are and have been wrong all along.
> 
> As I said...backradiation if it existed, is by definition radiation moving from a cool object to a warmer object...measuring energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument is not measuring back radiation as energy moving from warm to cool is not back radiation.



You are digressing and not making any sense. The detector is facing the sky. You are making no sense when you say "you must cool the *instrument *to temperatures lower than the *instrument*." I said the liquid nitrogen detector temperature was much lower than anything in the atmosphere.

You talk about wavelengths moving from the warmer surface to the atmosphere. That is a digression. I was clear that the detector is facing up and is not looking at the surface. 

You are said that "measuring energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument is not measuring back radiation as energy moving from warm to cool is not back radiation." For the third time, "warm to cool" has nothing to do with the detector setup. *My question again: if you don't think it is back radiation hitting the very cold detector, then what is generating the complex spectrum?* The detector setup is very simple and the question is very simple. Do you agree or disagree with the researcher's statement that they were measuring back radiation.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 25, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Silly Billy, I do think that I will go with the real scientists, rather than some burger flippin' liar on the internet. LOL


You better go back to flipping your burgers.. There are real scientists doing real science and you aint it..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 25, 2018)

Unlike you, I have made no false claims. I am a 75 year old fully employed millwright with a strong interest in science. Strong enough I have taken university classes in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Geology. Plus several Calculus classes.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



remember when they claimed that they detected the hot spot via wind?  Thermometers couldn't detect it but it was easily detected with an anemometer?  To bad their models didn't predict a windy spot.  Guess that was about the only thing they haven't predicted.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are digressing and not making any sense. The detector is facing the sky. You are making no sense when you say "you must cool the *instrument *to temperatures lower than the *instrument*." I said the liquid nitrogen detector temperature was much lower than anything in the atmosphere.



Of course it is facing the sky...but it is cooled to a temperature lower than the temperature of the radiation source it is measuring.....you can't measure discrete wavelengths of radiation from sources that are cooler than the instrument but you can measure discrete wavelengths from sources that are warmer than the instrument.  Why do you suppose that is?



mamooth said:


> You are said that "measuring energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument is not measuring back radiation as energy moving from warm to cool is not back radiation." For the third time, "warm to cool" has nothing to do with the detector setup.



Of course it does since you can't measure discrete wavelengths of energy with an instrument that is warmer than the source of the energy.  It is all about energy moving from warm to cool but not in the other direction.  You can't measure it moving in that direction because it isn't going in that direction.
*


Wuwei said:



			My question again: if you don't think it is back radiation hitting the very cold detector, then what is generating the complex spectrum?
		
Click to expand...

*
Energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument is making the spectrum...warm the instrument to ambient temperature and you will no longer be able to measure the spectrum because the energy is not moving in that direction.



Wuwei said:


> The detector setup is very simple and the question is very simple. Do you agree or disagree with the researcher's statement that they were measuring back radiation.



No...the researchers are being fooled by instrumentation.  Back radiation, is by the definition of climate science, radiation moving from a cooler area to a warmer area.  Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.  Set up an identical instrument right next to the cooled one except don't activate the cooling..you won't measure any such spectrum because no energy will be moving from the cooler atmosphere to that warmer instrument.  Claim that the cooling is necessary to eliminate noise all you like, but if you turn that uncooled instrument down towards the warmer surface, you will be able to measure discrete wavelengths moving from the warmer surface.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Unlike you, I have made no false claims. I am a 75 year old fully employed millwright with a strong interest in science. Strong enough I have taken university classes in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Geology. Plus several Calculus classes.



So with such a "strong" interest in science...and those university classes under your belt, why do you believe in man made global warming when the greenhouse effect has been in dispute since it was first suggested and after 120 years there still isn't a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support it and  the hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date? 

It seems that any educated person with no financial, or political interest in either hypothesis would realize that there isn't a whit of actual empirical data in support of either after billions upon billions upon billions of dollars being spent and be very skeptical of the whole proposition.  Of course it you are a political whore, or need crisis in order to keep the funding flowing, I can see why you might discount logic, common sense, and the abject lack of any sort of empirical evidence and promote the scam.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 26, 2018)

SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD thinks his smart matter/smart photons know what is going to happen many years in the future in a spot many light years away. Not only does his theory claim faster-than-light communication over vast distances, it claims magical perfect knowledge of random future events at those vast distances.

If only SSDD could demonstrate his theory's claimed FTL communication here on earth, he'd revolutionize science. Difficult, being that his theory says that  photons magically change their behavior depending on the measuring apparatus in their path. His beliefs are tailored so they can't be easily disproved, putting them in the realm of religion.

However, some sort of quantum entanglement experiment could get around SSDD's logic barrier. SSDD, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to have such an experiment designed and implemented.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

Your post was totally obsessed with '*warm to cool -- good*', but  '*cool to warm -- bad*'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object. 

This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:


SSDD said:


> Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.


Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea? 

.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?

Snicker.....


----------



## mamooth (Oct 26, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?



I addressed it directly in post #48, by pointing out you're just repeating a fraudulent claim.

I do get it. All the science says all of your cult talking points are fraudulent. The only tactic you now see as viable is making up an alternate reality that you can escape into.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 26, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?
> ...



Yeah here is his dead on arrival reply:

"And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him."

Since you didn't post any evidence, you must not have any, as you are so busy with your condescending replies.

My later REPLY never got addressed at all:

"No the "hot spot" has *NOT *been shown to exist in the real world, it lives on in models and brainless warmists fevered imagination, who amazingly fail to produce the real world physical evidence of it. "

You don't have anything to counter with apparently.​


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.



So lets see some observed, measured data which supports your claim that absorption and emission equals warming...

Guess we all know no such data will be forthcoming.  Simply assuming a thing and calling it physics is pseudoscience.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD thinks his smart matter/smart photons know what is going to happen many years in the future in a spot many light years away. Not only does his theory claim faster-than-light communication over vast distances, it claims magical perfect knowledge of random future events at those vast distances.['quote]
> 
> Not my theory hairball...just the logical conclusion of photons behaving as science claims they act.  I am not the one who said that photons exist at every point along their path simultaneously.
> 
> Typical...no actual argument so you make up an argument to rail against.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your post was totally obsessed with '*warm to cool -- good*', but  '*cool to warm -- bad*'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.
> 
> This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:
> 
> ...



Are you really that dense?  Really?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Like all warmers, the hairball believes that because it is assumed by people on her side of the discussion it must be true...no evidence required...so it goes with the sheep.


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.
> ...




Absorption of a photon increases the total energy of a molecule. Emission of a photon decreases it.

Temperature, and the conditions of warming or cooling, are only applicable to large cohort of particles not individual molecules. A cohort of molecules is warming if it is getting more energy from absorption than it is losing by emission. Only the NET movement of energy affects the temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

IanC said:


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



Sorry ian.....if the frequency of the energy present is not changing...increasing, then it is not getting warmer...in case you missed the memo, the only way to see an increase in temperature is for the frequency spectrum of the radiation to increase..you can trap as much 70 degree air in a space as you like, but it isn't going to get any warmer than 70 degrees unless some parameter of the atmosphere in that space changes...pressure, etc.  Absorption and emission is never going to cause an increase in temperature.....only increasing the frequency of the radiation will cause an increase in temperature.

If the radiation CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses were actually being trapped, then all you would get, eventually, would be a standing wave pattern field of the associated radiation spectrum which would be that emitting from the surface of the earth...you won't ever get a temperature increase unless you increase the temperature (increase the emitting frequency) of the energy source.


----------



## Muhammed (Oct 26, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy looked at it and said "I've got nothing... but I guess I can always go back to semantics"


That's your ilk's hockey schtick.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Your post was totally obsessed with '*warm to cool -- good*', but  '*cool to warm -- bad*'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.
> ...


Is that your final answer? Really?

You didn't answer the simple question what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere? It is dark and no sun. Are you saying you have no idea?

 If you have no idea, methinks you are the one a bit dense.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



The same thing that causes it all the time...energy flows from warm to cold. You think the sun has something to do with the direction that energy flows other than the change in temperature its energy causes?  You think energy can flow from cool to warm at night when no one is looking?

 You can't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because energy doesn't move in that direction.  Doesn't it strike you as strange that you have no problem easily measuring energy  with an instrument if the energy source is warmer than said instrument, but if you want to measure energy moving from something that is cooler than the instrument, you must cool said instrument to a temperature lower than of the energy source?

Isn't that undeniable physical evidence that energy only moves from warm to cool...you can't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because it doesn't move in that direction.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The same thing that causes it all the time...energy flows from warm to cold. You think the sun has something to do with the direction that energy flows other than the change in temperature its energy causes? You think energy can flow from cool to warm at night when no one is looking?
> 
> You can't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because energy doesn't move in that direction. Doesn't it strike you as strange that you have no problem easily measuring energy with an instrument if the energy source is warmer than said instrument, but if you want to measure energy moving from something that is cooler than the instrument, you must cool said instrument to a temperature lower than of the energy source?
> 
> Isn't that undeniable physical evidence that energy only moves from warm to cool...you can't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because it doesn't move in that direction.



Wow, you sure are excited about a topic that is irrelevant to a cold instrument aiming up at a warmer dark sky. Your post, in so many words, said 5 separate times '*warm to cool -- good*', but '*cool to warm -- bad*'. 

You are sure dancing away from this simple question. What causes that spectrum of the detector looking at the sky where the peaks are the emission spectra of the various GHGs??? That energy is certainly not radiating down from outer space. It's certainly not the earth in back of the detector. What is left but the atmosphere? Hmmm? Any ideas?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Wow, you sure are excited about a topic that is irrelevant to a cold instrument aiming up at a warmer dark sky. Your post, in so many words, said 5 separate times '*warm to cool -- good*', but '*cool to warm -- bad*'.
> 
> You are sure dancing away from this simple question. What causes that spectrum of the detector looking at the sky where the peaks are the emission spectra of the various GHGs??? That energy is certainly not radiating down from outer space. It's certainly not the earth in back of the detector. What is left but the atmosphere? Hmmm? Any ideas?



I don't encounter people who are as dense as you very often.  If you point an instrument at a warmer object, you can measure discrete wavelengths of energy...that is because energy moves freely from warm to cool...point the same instrument at an object cooler than itself...cooler by any amount, and you will no longer be able to measure discrete wavelengths of energy because energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

If it did, then you wouldn't need to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the source in order to measure discrete wavelengths.  Feel free to prove me wrong by producing measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from the atmosphere to the earth made by an instrument warmer than the atmosphere.

We both know you can't do it because no such measurements exist...only one of us, however, is willing to accept the reason no such measurements exist.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If you point an instrument at a warmer object, you can measure discrete wavelengths of energy.



You certainly can measure energy from a warmer object. I never said you couldn't. Just what do you think that warmer object is in the experiment I cited and why is it radiating in GHG emission bands? Any ideas? You are welcome to guess.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If it did, then you wouldn't need to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the source in order to measure discrete wavelengths.



We've been here dozens of times before, and this thread topic is not an appropriate place to do it again. You should really start another thread on your denial of the physics of radiative "heat transfer".. 

Let's not "do the time warp" again here in this thread.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> We've been here dozens of times before, and this thread topic is not an appropriate place to do it again. You should really start another thread on your denial of the physics of radiative "heat transfer"..
> 
> Let's not "do the time warp" again here in this thread.


This is a new topic of a new paper SSDD cited.
If you want to kill it I'm sure SSDD will be glad.

Edit: Oops, I was thinking of a different thread.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If it did, then you wouldn't need to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the source in order to measure discrete wavelengths.
> ...


Thanks that was entertaining.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

OK, SSDD, FLACALTENN suggested you not belabor the cold to warm stuff any more. Try to stop because it is irrelevant. Here is the graph of the upward looking cold spectrometer again for you to study and figure out just what warmer object is providing this spectrum:


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If it did, then you wouldn't need to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than the source in order to measure discrete wavelengths.
> ...



And after all this time I am still waiting for a measurement of discrete radiation frequencies from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an uncooled instrument.  It can't me measured because it simply isn't happening.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> OK, SSDD, FLACALTENN suggested you not belabor the cold to warm stuff any more. Try to stop because it is irrelevant. Here is the graph of the upward looking cold spectrometer again for you to study and figure out just what warmer object is providing this spectrum:



You really are an idiot....if the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere, then the warmer atmosphere is providing the spectrum...warm the instrument up to ambient temperature and the spectrum disappears because energy will no longer be moving from the atmosphere to the instrument as the instrument will be warmer than the atmosphere and energy doesn't move in that direction...no matter how may times you ask...no matter how you twist it..and no matter what sort of mental gymnastics you engage in, you can't get energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...just doesn't happen.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> the warmer atmosphere is providing the spectrum.


That's right the down-welling radiation provided the spectrum. It must have come from the GHG molecules don't you think? 

In the rest of your post you said only four times, in so many words, 
'*warm to cool -- good*', or, '*cool to warm -- bad*'. 
Your record was saying that 5 times in the same post. You are slipping Your obsession is waning a bit. 

We were talking about a very cold detector, so that was irrelevant..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 26, 2018)

Cooling?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > the warmer atmosphere is providing the spectrum.
> ...


You don’t seem to be able to grasp the obvious point,  The radiation is only “downdwelling” to the cooled instrument as evidenced by the fact that if you place an instrument which is not cooled next to the cooled instrument instrument, the instrument which is warmer than the atmosphere will not measure that spectrum as it is not downdwelling to said warmer instrument or to anywhere else that is warmer than the atmosphere, ie., the surface if the earth.  Can you grasp that Bucky?

Empirical evidence that my argument is correct.  Unless you have evidence to the contrary, ie., measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy made with an uncooled  instrument measuring energy coming from a cooler source than itself, the discussion is closed,


----------



## Crick (Oct 27, 2018)

You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.


Tell me,

A photon at 32um has how much power vs a photon at 1.2um? They are not the same.

Now take a molecule that is vibrating at 1.2um and tell me what happens when you bombard it with photons at 32um..  What does the molecule do?  IT COOLS...

Do you know why?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.
> ...



The answer is quite simple.  The warmer molecule must expend energy to warm and then re-emit the particle. It is consuming energy in order to function.

This is why a colder object can not warm a warmer one.

Now back to Topic...

Can any one refute the premise I laid out in the OP? I showed cyclical and provable function of earths systems, so why can no one refute what we see?.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.




Ive been asking for years for you to provide some observed, measured evidence to the contrary and you just can't manage to find it...can you...all you have been able to provide is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to grasp the obvious point that your ideas about EM radiation are complete and utter nonsense.
> ...



Notice that warmists have not answered my statement about the chronically missing "hotspot", fails to produce evidence that it exist OUTSIDE of climate Models or their imaginations?

Still waiting.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


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


They are great at hurling impotent insults...and parroting whatever their preists tell them to say but providing evidence to support their position?....not so much.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.



You don't get out much do you?  Or bother to do even the first bit of research.  No less than Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that the greenhouse gas hypothesis was nothing but a lot of hot air.  All three agreed that the “greenhouse effect” is solely a consequence of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities, and is not due to “trapped radiation” from IR-active or ‘greenhouse’ gas concentrations.

Given that Maxwell formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, I would say that he might know a thing or two more about radiation than Arrhenius.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*if you place an instrument which is not cooled next to the cooled instrument instrument, the instrument which is warmer than the atmosphere will not measure that spectrum as it is not downdwelling to said warmer instrument or to anywhere else that is warmer than the atmosphere,*

Of course! 

Smart photons "know" to avoid the warmer instrument.
Just like those smart solar photons "know" they can't travel toward the hot corona.

DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*The warmer molecule must expend energy to warm and then re-emit the particle.*

A molecule can "warm" a low energy photon? Link?


----------



## Flash (Oct 27, 2018)

I wonder how many Moon Bats will commit suicide when they don't get the global warming that they have been promised for the last 25 years?

Who would have ever figured that the temperature of the earth was going to be determined by the output of sun?  These Moon Bats thinks the temperature of the earth is determined by the number of SUVs that Trumpsters drive.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Come on Todd your more intelligent than this..  A molecule emits at its temperature therefore, any energy it receives at a lower state must be brought to that of the molecules state to be re-emitted..

Use your damn head.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course!
> 
> Smart photons "know" to avoid the warmer instrument.
> Just like those smart solar photons "know" they can't travel toward the hot corona.
> ...



Care to explain why one instrument measures a spectrum and the other doesn't?

Didn't think so....snide one liners are all you have...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



* A molecule emits at its temperature therefore, any energy it receives at a lower state must be brought to that of the molecules state to be re-emitted..*

Awesome. Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Of course!
> ...



*Care to explain why one instrument measures a spectrum and the other doesn't?*

Care to explain why photons know one instrument is too warm and the other one isn't?

Maybe link to a book or article that backs up your theory?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Like I said....no answer.  Never any sort of answer from the toddster...or should it be toddler?  

 And exactly why do I need a book when plain old observation tells me that the instrument that is cooler than the radiation source will measure a spectrum and the one that is warmer than the radiation source won't.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why?  You need a book to tell you something as straight forward as that?  Do you need a book to tell you how to wipe your ass?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


WAY to GO!

No cognitive thought...  If EM is propagated at 32UM what must happen to make it propagate ate 1.2um?  What energy consumption is necessary to make that particle matter vibrate faster?

I don't expect an intelligent answer to this from you.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Don't ever expect any sort of answer from toddster...he doesn't do answers..and isn't really interested in getting them unless they agree with what he believes.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Oct 28, 2018)

When they changed the name from "Global Warming".....to "Climate Change".....and the Environuts couldn't see the manipulation game they were playing.......
It was apparent they could tell them anything and they'd fall in line....like the good little lemmings they are.
Lots of proof in this thread (especially the OP) that what we're seeing is NATURAL and CYCLICAL.
Lots of nothing from the other side so far.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Like I said, Same Shit, Different Day.

* And exactly why do I need a book when plain old observation tells me that the instrument that is cooler than the radiation source will measure a spectrum and the one that is warmer than the radiation source won't. *

I agree, you shouldn't need a book to tell you that a cooled instrument is more accurate than an uncooled one.
You do need one to back up your claim that the atmosphere refuses to emit toward the warmer one, while emitting toward the cooler one, 5 feet away.

Maybe you could ask Dr Raeder?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Way to go, no backup. What are you afraid of?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like I said, Same Shit, Different Day.



And still no answer.....how completely unsurprising is that?

Let me know when you have one.  Maybe you could ask michael mann.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, Same Shit, Different Day.
> ...



Still no answer? You're the one taking on all of science.

And I mean physics, not bullshit AGW.

Michael Mann is full of shit. Just like you.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You said my explanation for why a cooled instrument can measure a radiation spectrum from a warmer object and a second instrument uncooled, right next to it can not measure a spectrum from the object which is  cooler than that instrument was not the actual reason...so what is your explanation for it?  Let me know when you have an answer.

You claim to know physics...so explain it.,  If you have no explanation...if you have nothing, then you really have no basis for thinking that my explanation is anything other than the actual reason.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



* was not the actual reason.*

Just to be clear, your "reason" is because photons from the atmosphere can't travel to a warmer instrument on the ground, but can travel to a cooler instrument......because the 2nd Law. Is that close enough?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 28, 2018)

You really need to listen to what comes out of their mouths.  This man works for the UN.  In the climate change dept.  Let's listen to what he is telling us:
1.  "Climate change"  is merely a means of redistributing  our money to whom ever has a hand out.
2. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT.

* *


> *Ottmar Edenhofer, the UN IPCC official:*
> But one must say *clearly *that we redistribute de facto <(in reality) the world's wealth by climate policy.
> One has to free oneself from *the illusion* that international climate policy is environmental policy.



This little scam perpetrated on us has nothing to do with science and everything to do with global manipulation.  How stupid are we?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



So you have an explanation or not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



The photons hit both instruments, obviously.

Now you explain why I'm wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Not obviously...both instruments are perfectly capable of measuring and recording a spectrum, yet only the one that is cooler than the radiation source measures one...why?

Do you have a rational, scientifically valid reason or not?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 29, 2018)

Back to the subject. Even though there is a slight decline in the TSI, we are not seeing that reflected in the real world temperatures.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



It's been posted before that cooling reduces internal interference.






Net thermal flux is larger if the instrument is cooled.

Now, about your claim that atmospheric photons only hit a cooled instrument, and not an uncooled one.

Are you the only person in the world who knows the secret?
Seems  that way.
Weird.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 29, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Back to the subject. Even though there is a slight decline in the TSI, we are not seeing that reflected in the real world temperatures.


For today, we are looking at +0.9 for the world, and +1.3 for the Northern Hemisphere. Now that is some cooling.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 29, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the subject. Even though there is a slight decline in the TSI, we are not seeing that reflected in the real world temperatures.
> ...


Only in your Karl Et Al  world...  The rest of us know better..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Weird...  And for some reason you don't have a clue why less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object... You really can't grasp basic physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



* And for some reason you don't have a clue why less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object... *

If you have a source that backs up your claim, post it.

And you should tell SSDD that photons from cooler matter are allowed to hit warmer matter.

He needs some help.


----------



## boedicca (Oct 29, 2018)

I keep reminding you all to buy a decent cheap used fur coat on Ebay before the prices go through the roof.  Anyone who lives in an area that already has a snowy season is going to get hammered.  And those of us who are used to lows in the 40s and now snow, are going to be in shock if we don't get proper gear.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The radiation is only “downdwelling” to the cooled instrument as evidenced by the fact that if you place an instrument which is not cooled next to the cooled instrument instrument, the instrument which is warmer than the atmosphere will not measure that spectrum as it is not downdwelling to said warmer instrument or to anywhere else that is warmer than the atmosphere, ie., the surface if the earth.


Certainly an instrument at ambient temperature would be swamped by a high level of internal long wave radiation noise.

So do you think the observed long wave radiation that was downwelling to a cooled detector would stop radiating elsewhere, or would it still be downwelling elsewhere but stop short of hitting the earth. Or would it somehow impede some of the upwelling radiation from the warm earth?

Recall that the SB equation says the earth is radiating around 400 W/m² . You have to consider where all that upwelling long wave IR energy goes, because at the TOA the outgoing LW radiation was observed to be only 240 W/m².


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You show me a drawing depicting an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and offer that up as proof?  Proof of what exactly?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Net thermal flux is larger if the instrument is cooled.



Point the instrument at the ground and you get a spectrum....point it at open sky and you don't...which interference are you talking about?  Isn't there supposed to be better than 330 wm^2 radiating down from the sky?  Those few wm^2 make so much interference that you can't measure any discrete frequency at all?  Really?  Point the instrument away from open sky and at the sun and you get a spectrum...seems that there would be a whole lot more interference there.  It is clear that you are easily fooled by instrumentation and fooled by whatever someone may tell you about instrumentation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


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








*You show me a drawing depicting an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and offer that up as proof?*

You're acting like I drew that diagram myself.
That's from one of your sources.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

It's cute that you think you know more than they do.

*which interference are you talking about? *

As the diagram from The Handbook of Modern Sensors shows, 
the sensor responds to the net flux.  Do you need the definition of "net"?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're acting like I drew that diagram myself.
> That's from one of your sources.
> The Handbook of Modern Sensors.



Doesn't much matter who drew it any more than who drew the graphs and diagrams suggesting that salt raises your blood pressure, or any of the other myriad of graphs that supposedly showed one thing or another that turned out to simply not be true.

The istruments are showing you something...puzzle it out and let me know when you have an answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're acting like I drew that diagram myself.
> ...



*Doesn't much matter who drew it *

Cute. 

Do you have a similar professional source that backs up your claim that photons are
emitted toward a cooled instrument and are not emitted toward an uncooled instrument?

Of course you don't.

Every time you post a real source, it contradicts your claims.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2018)

So you don't have an answer...all you have is your belief.  Unsurprising...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you don't have an answer...all you have is your belief.  Unsurprising...



All by yourself...…...weird.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't have an answer...all you have is your belief.  Unsurprising...
> ...



All by myself with nothing but the observable, measurable evidence to support me, while you have nothing but unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, models.  

I'll take it.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*All by myself with nothing but the observable, measurable evidence to support me,*

If that were true, you'd have plenty of sources, all agreeing with your belief that the atmosphere will emit toward a cooled instrument but not toward an uncooled one.

You'd have plenty of sources, as respectable as the Handbook of Modern Sensors, all saying that energy only flows one way, instead of none agreeing with you and all of them showing a two way flow of energy.

And you'd have a source, any source, that agrees with your claim that at equilibrium, all radiation stops.

But you don't have any sources, with all that "observable, measurable evidence" that you claim backs you up.

Because you're all by yourself. Weird.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Oct 29, 2018)

God, I'm going to regret opening my mouth in this echo chamber, but I'm actually curious.

It seems very reasonable to point out that lowering the temperature of the instrument, however necessary, skews the results. The cooled instrument would obviously be measuring more than back radiation. At risk of sounding like an idiot, but there's got to be some way to at least ballpark measure how much more.  No?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

Tresha91203 said:


> God, I'm going to regret opening my mouth in this echo chamber, but I'm actually curious.
> 
> It seems very reasonable to point out that lowering the temperature of the instrument, however necessary, skews the results. The cooled instrument would obviously be measuring more than back radiation. At risk of sounding like an idiot, but there's got to be some way to at least ballpark measure how much more.  No?








http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Page 106 in the pdf.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 29, 2018)

Tresha91203 said:


> God, I'm going to regret opening my mouth in this echo chamber, but I'm actually curious.
> 
> It seems very reasonable to point out that lowering the temperature of the instrument, however necessary, skews the results. The cooled instrument would obviously be measuring more than back radiation. At risk of sounding like an idiot, but there's got to be some way to at least ballpark measure how much more. No?



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


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If that were true, you'd have plenty of sources, all agreeing with your belief that the atmosphere will emit toward a cooled instrument but not toward an uncooled one.
> .



If the observable measurable evidence isn't enough for you, then you have my sympathy.  Unlike you, I don't need to be part of a herd and have people around me to hold my hand and tell me that my position is good and true even if the observable measurable evidence doesn't support it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Tresha91203 said:


> God, I'm going to regret opening my mouth in this echo chamber, but I'm actually curious.
> 
> It seems very reasonable to point out that lowering the temperature of the instrument, however necessary, skews the results. The cooled instrument would obviously be measuring more than back radiation. At risk of sounding like an idiot, but there's got to be some way to at least ballpark measure how much more.  No?




Really?  Point the uncooled instrument at the ground which according to science is radiating 350+ wm^2 and you will measure a spectrum of discrete frequencies of radiation...just turn that instrument up towards open sky which according to climate science is radiating down 330+ wm^2 and all of the spectrum of frequencies disappears...you don't get a spectrum that is less clear because of interference...you get nothing as in nothing coming in.    No instrument can measure back radiation...that is radiation moving from a cooler object to a warmer object because radiation doesn't move in that direction...the second law of thermodynamics says pretty clearly that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object without some work having been done to make such movement happen.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > God, I'm going to regret opening my mouth in this echo chamber, but I'm actually curious.
> ...



Again...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.  If that illustration represents reality, why can't you measure it at ambient temperature?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



A spectrometer/spectroscope measures nothing but incoming radiation. It takes that incoming radiation and breaks it into its spectral components.   It has to if you want an accurate spectrum of the object you are pointing it at.  If it were measuring its own internal radiation, the spectrum would not represent just the object it were pointed at.  Once again, you don't have the slightest idea what the various instruments are measuring which goes a long way towards explaining why you are so easily fooled by them.  It isn't as if there aren't hundreds if not thousands of pages on the web explaining how they work.

You remind me very much of an actor who was on the series Cheers...his name was Cliff Claven.  He believed that he knew most everything and was perfectly willing to spew is ignorance in public.  It might have taken you 45 seconds to look up the workings of a spectrometer/spectroscope and then you wouldn't have given perfectly terrible, and completely wrong information to Tresha91203.  I do hope that she doesn't simply take your word for what the instrument in question measures or she may in turn go about spreading your ignorance.

Now go ahead and tell me that you weren't aware that we were talking about spectroscopes even though the entire topic of the conversation revolves around measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation.  Let me guess, you though they were measured with a pyrogeometer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If that were true, you'd have plenty of sources, all agreeing with your belief that the atmosphere will emit toward a cooled instrument but not toward an uncooled one.
> ...



* Unlike you, I don't need to be part of a herd *

I know, you're unique in your misinterpretation.
And you know more about sensors than The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

You're like a new Einstein.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Tresha91203 said:
> ...



Still claiming that an instrument that is uncooled isn't being hit by the same number of photons as
the cooled instrument 2 feet away? Still hilarious.

Maybe I should ask Dr Raeder if he agrees?

Unless you have another source that will disagree with your claims?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



It doesn't matter what kind of sensitive optical or IR instrument you are talking about. To maximize the SNR, cooling the detector minimizes the Johnson noise. That is why detectors are cooled. 

Thermal energy from the detector body itself also adds to the incoming radiation measured, (as we both said.)  That's what I told TRESHA91203 .


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It doesn't matter what kind of sensitive optical or IR instrument you are talking about. To maximize the SNR, cooling the detector minimizes the Johnson noise. That is why detectors are cooled.



We aren't talking about noise...we are talking about the lack of any measurable energy coming in from cooler objects...if it were just noise, then you might get a degraded spectrum, or a spectrum missing certain frequencies...but we are talking about the absence of measurable radiation...that is hardly noise.

Again..fooled by instrumentation that you don't even begin to understand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter what kind of sensitive optical or IR instrument you are talking about. To maximize the SNR, cooling the detector minimizes the Johnson noise. That is why detectors are cooled.
> ...



*we are talking about the lack of any measurable energy coming in from cooler objects..*

You feel that if energy is not measurable, it's not hitting the receiver.

Like if they hadn't cooled the receiver, CMB radiation wouldn't hit the Earth. Just silly.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> We aren't talking about noise.


Yes we are. That is why detectors are cooled. 


SSDD said:


> .if it were just noise, then you might get a degraded spectrum


That is exactly what happened when the CMB was first observed and measured with a detector cooled to 4 degrees K when the input from the CMB was a warmer 2.7K. 


SSDD said:


> .but we are talking about the absence of measurable radiation...that is hardly noise.


Correction: Not WE. Only YOU are talking about that. No scientist is. Yes yes. I know. You don't believe Quantum Mechanics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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




* And for some reason you don't have a clue why less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object... You really can't grasp basic physics*

Still looking for a basic physics source to back up your claim?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So you don't understand even basic molecular energy transfer. I gave you that link long ago and you refused to use it... Go find it yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You don't understand, "post a link"?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That is exactly what happened when the CMB was first observed and measured with a detector cooled to 4 degrees K when the input from the CMB was a warmer 2.7K.



So now you are going to attempt to compare the problems associated with receiving a resonant radio frequency equating to background radiation that is barely there to the 300+ wm^2 that climate science claims is returning to the surface of the earth from the atmosphere?  Is there any foul sewer you won't drag your intellect through in an attempt to support your failed argument?



SSDD said:


> Correction: Not WE. Only YOU are talking about that. No scientist is. Yes yes. I know. You don't believe Quantum Mechanics.



So show me a measurement of a discrete C02 emission frequency made with an uncooled instrument...either you can or you can't...and we both know that you can't.

The fact remains that the greenhouse hypothesis has been in dispute since it was first proposed...Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius all said that it was bullshit and after 120+ years you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence in support of it and what bit of pitiful evidence you do provide only demonstrates that you are easily fooled by instrumentation primarily because you don't have the faintest idea of what they are measuring or how it is being measured,


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So now you are going to attempt to compare the problems associated with receiving a resonant radio frequency equating to background radiation that is barely there to the 300+ wm^2 that climate science claims is returning to the surface of the earth from the atmosphere?


It's cold radiation hitting a warm dish. It has nothing to do with resonance at that point.


SSDD said:


> Is there any foul sewer you won't drag your intellect through in an attempt to support your failed argument?


You lash out like a troll again when you are faced with solid physics.


SSDD said:


> The fact remains that the greenhouse hypothesis has been in dispute since it was first proposed...Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius all said that it was bullshit and after 120+ years you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence in support of it and what bit of pitiful evidence you do provide only demonstrates that you are easily fooled by instrumentation primarily because you don't have the faintest idea of what they are measuring or how it is being measured


You have given no cogent reply as to why radiation is stopped in its tracks when aiming toward earth, but not a cold detector. And more lashing out at science. Do you have any theory at all? Or is emotionally lashing out your best and only retort?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2018)

OK, so where is that cooling?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Are you not posting a link because you're a pussy like SSDD?
Or is it because you realized your mistake and are trying to forget?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No I have the link, I just think that you ignoring it once tells me how you will behave again.. So why waste my time?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You have a link that says "*less energetic photons cause cooling in a warmer object"?*

I don't believe you.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You are wasting your time...toddster is looking for a peer reviewed, published paper that says what you are telling him in terms that a 5th grader can understand...saying it in the form of mathematics doesn't mean anything to him...it's like his insistence that the SB equation for the emission of matter in the presence of other matter describes a two way exchange of energy even though the equation clearly describes a one way equation...he wants someone, in a peer reviewed paper to actually comment on the equation pointing out that it describes a one way exchange of energy.

He want's hard science to be written in a manner that a 10 year old can understand...imagine the wiggle room you would have if science were written like that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How about a paper that backs up your silly equilibrium claim? LOL!

I notice you're still running away from your "Matter that absorbs outside energy never emits spontaneously" claim.

Why you scared, bro?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2018)

My goodness, just look at the cooling!

Climate Reanalyzer

And it has cooled right down to an El Nino;

Climate Reanalyzer


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness, just look at the cooling!
> 
> Climate Reanalyzer
> 
> ...



You see to be obsessed with el nino...an element of natural variability...do you believe somehow CO2 causes el nino and la nina?  Explain that mechanism?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 3, 2018)

Goodness, look at the cooling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > My goodness, just look at the cooling!
> ...


Oh go play with your silly smart photons. Never even hinted at such a thing. But the dumb asses like you and Silly Billy are constantly talking about a 'cooling'. And the climate is going in the opposite direction.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


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



So you have nothing and feel the need to lash out at me because I remind you that you have nothing.  If you were a thinking person, instead of a mewling, hand wringing, hysteric, you would be lashing out at climate science for not providing you even one piece of observed, measured evidence that you might use to slap me down.


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

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

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


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


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



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

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


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

That was a minute chunk of it fool.  And, of course, you continue to lie.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> That was a minute chunk of it fool.  And, of course, you continue to lie.




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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

Asked and answered


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2018)

New Little ICE Age Instead of Global Warming?
Theodor Landscheidt,
First Published May 1, 2003 Research Article PAYWALLED

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Abstract
Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ‘skilful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Asked and answered




You are a liar skidmark....pretending that you provided anything beyond a steaming pile of excrement isn't fooling anyone...you are a laughing stock...

But do feel free to prove me wrong ass wipe....simply copy the address of the thread where you posted the evidence I asked for...

We both know you won't and everyone knows you are a liar.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So show me a measurement of a discrete C02 emission frequency made with an uncooled instrument...either you can or you can't...and we both know that you can't.


An uncooled instrument is of less importance than the GHG back radiation hitting the earth.

You have given no meaningful reply as to why GHG radiation is stopped in its tracks when aiming toward earth, but not a cold detector.  Do you have any theory at all?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> [
> An uncooled instrument is of less importance than the GHG back radiation hitting the earth.
> 
> 
> ...



Nor am I required to.  If I ask you precisely what causes objects to fall when dropped...what is the precise mechanism of gravity, you will have no answer.  You can see it happen, you can observe it, you can measure it, you can test it, but you still don't know exactly what causes it.  There are several theories, but we aren't making much headway towards eliminating any of them because our technology isn't to the point where we can derive tests and experiments that will show us which, if any of them are right.

There are all manner of things out there that we can observe, measure, and test all the live long day, but we have little to no idea of what the basic mechanisms are.  The fact that energy isn't being absorbed and measured by the uncooled instrument is obvious by the lack of a measured spectrum...why it is not striking the instrument and being measured is unknown.  

The second law doesn't attempt to say why energy won't move spontaneously from a less ordered state to a more ordered state...it just says that it won't.  Someday we may know..but not today.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Still looking for that link? LOL!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You have given no meaningful reply as to why GHG radiation is stopped in its tracks when aiming toward earth, but not a cold detector. Do you have any theory at all?





SSDD said:


> Nor am I required to. If I ask you precisely what causes objects to fall when dropped...what is the precise mechanism of gravity, you will have no answer. You can see it happen, you can observe it, you can measure it, you can test it, but you still don't know exactly what causes it. There are several theories, but we aren't making much headway towards eliminating any of them because our technology isn't to the point where we can derive tests and experiments that will show us which, if any of them are right.
> 
> There are all manner of things out there that we can observe, measure, and test all the live long day, but we have little to no idea of what the basic mechanisms are. The fact that energy isn't being absorbed and measured by the uncooled instrument is obvious by the lack of a measured spectrum...why it is not striking the instrument and being measured is unknown.



I already told you that metaphysics is not the way to think of practical physical systems. That is for philosophers and is a lame excuse for you attempt to reinvent science.

Science already knows the mechanism for accelerating charges radiating, and that mechanism has never failed. If you say that accelerating charges in a colder body cannot radiate, you have violated fundamental principles of Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics. Net flow does not violate those well established principles.

You already said that both net flow and one-way flow are both consistent with observations and measurements, so why do choose to believe the one that violates physics?

I am not trying to change your mind. Nobody can. But if your mind thinks up something preposterous, I would like to know why somebody can possibly think that way. I see you have nothing in mind.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I already told you that metaphysics is not the way to think of practical physical systems. That is for philosophers and is a lame excuse for you attempt to reinvent science.



And since I don't think of systems in those terms, I am not sure what point you are trying to make other than perhaps you don't know, or understand the definition of metaphysics.



Wuwei said:


> Science already knows the mechanism for accelerating charges radiating, and that mechanism has never failed. If you say that accelerating charges in a colder body cannot radiate, you have violated fundamental principles of Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics. Net flow does not violate those well established principles.



No, science doesn't...Science has a pretty good idea of why, but not much of an idea of how.  It is within the how that the mechanism may be found.  You folks don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism...



Wuwei said:


> You already said that both net flow and one-way flow are both consistent with observations and measurements, so why do choose to believe the one that violates physics?



Yeah...you keep saying that, but when I ask for an example of discrete frequencies moving in both directions between objects with an instrument at ambient temperature, you can't provide it...so it isn't consistent with either measurements or observations since neither have ever been made.  Again...the failure is yours...you don't understand what the instruments are measuring or how those measurements are derived....as a result, you are easily fooled.  Sad, but that's just the way it is.  You have proven it over and over.


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 4, 2018)

Had to chuckle when I got an email from a friend in California.  Where he lives they have never had measurable snow until a few days before Christmas.

He's bitching about having to shovel ten inches of what looks suspiciously like snow but Algore keeps telling him it's just granular global warming.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And since I don't think of systems in those terms, I am not sure what point you are trying to make other than perhaps you don't know, or understand the definition of metaphysics.


Nope, what you are saying is that you have no idea what you are thinking. One-way energy flow totally violates physics. The physics we observe and measure negates what you think.



SSDD said:


> No, science doesn't...Science has a pretty good idea of why, but not much of an idea of how. It is within the how that the mechanism may be found. You folks don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism...


The mechanism for EM accelerating charges has been measured and observed. It is contrary to your smart photons. You don't need to know any thing more than that to invalidate one-way emission.



SSDD said:


> Yeah...you keep saying that, but when I ask for an example of discrete frequencies moving in both directions between objects with an instrument at ambient temperature, you can't provide it...so it isn't consistent with either measurements or observations since neither have ever been made. Again...the failure is yours...you don't understand what the instruments are measuring or how those measurements are derived....as a result, you are easily fooled. Sad, but that's just the way it is. You have proven it over and over.


Nope. That is pure  BS. I told you many times. Your reinvention of physics violates known physics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The mechanism for EM accelerating charges has been measured and observed. It is contrary to your smart photons. You don't need to know any thing more than that to invalidate one-way emission.
> 
> OK...do describe the underlying mechanism for EM accelerating charges.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The mechanism for EM accelerating charges has been measured and observed. It is contrary to your smart photons. You don't need to know any thing more than that to invalidate one-way emission.
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models with you...not going to happen.

You and your sycophant toddster can believe, and congratulate each other till you reach a simultaneous mental orgasm...hope you both have a great time....you deserve each other.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models with you...not going to happen.
> 
> You and your sycophant toddster can believe, and congratulate each other till you reach a simultaneous mental orgasm...hope you both have a great time....you deserve each other.


You are lying. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. are all measured, observed, and tested. *Not mathematical models*. I see you are no longer bored of your lie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical models with you...not going to happen.
> 
> You and your sycophant toddster can believe, and congratulate each other till you reach a simultaneous mental orgasm...hope you both have a great time....you deserve each other.



Don't forget Dr Raeder.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.



Every shiny thing?

You mean every source you ever posted? LOL!

Post another one, I love it when your sources disagree with your claims.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.
> ...



What do you know...still nothing...not surprising at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Post another one! LOL!


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 5, 2018)

Now that it's clear that a new ice age looms we can expect Fr. Algore to start asking people send him money so he can burn it to keep things from getting too frosty. 

Oh, he'll burn it....buying energy to warm his mansion!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.


So no more science is coming from you? Just ad hominem.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry that your knowledge base is so shallow that you are easily fooled by every shiny thing that passes your way.
> ...



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


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


My "foolishness" is science and physics. Your's is made up pseudoscience. Science wins. Your merry go round has just derailed.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



No...your foolishness is not knowing how instrumentation works, what it is measuring, and how it derives the values it produces.  Your foolishness is believing in models over reality.  Your foolishness is continuing to argue with me because I am always going to ask for observed, measured evidence and you are never going to be able to produce it so the best you will ever manage with me is a mewling, bleating, whining claim that I just don't believe in science....

Here is the definition of science according to the science dictionary:

The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. ♦ Science makes use of the scientific method , which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.

Nothing there about belief in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...science is all about producing observable, measurable, reproducible results...if you aren't doing that, then you aren't doing science...

The scientific method requires experimentation, and experimentation always produces observable, measurable data...since no data exists that answers any of my claims, one of two things has happened...either the results were unacceptable, and never made it into the public sphere, or no experimentation or measurement was ever done in which case, we aren't talking about science at all.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> .since no data exists that answers any of my claims, one of two things has happened.


Nope, you are dead wrong. We covered that many times. Modern science that is involved with interactions of matter is represented by precise experiments and result in thoroughly tested models. If you don't believe that you don't believe science, but you of course said that many times already.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .since no data exists that answers any of my claims, one of two things has happened.
> ...



Much of modern science doesn't even live within the definition of science..therefore it isn't.  Redefining what you call science doesn't alter the fact.  And how do you suppose models represent the reality of mechanisms which we have yet to grasp?    The whole point of actual experimentation is to learn about actual reality.  If you base a model on hypothetical mechanisms, then it will produce the results those hypothetical mechanisms might produce if they were real, but that is not an experiment that will give you a greater grasp on reality...it is little more than  a video game programmed to provide a particular outcome.  Models attempting to replicate physical realities that we have little or no understanding of are useless.

the greenhouse hypothesis is a fine example...it only works here even though the realities of energy movement through atmospheres are the same across the solar system...a hypothesis that is on the right track should be able to predict the temperature in any atmosphere and should not require an ad hoc fudge factor.  Running those models is not experimentation...it is political grandstanding.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Much of modern science doesn't even live within the definition of science..therefore it isn't. Redefining what you call science doesn't alter the fact. And how do you suppose models represent the reality of mechanisms which we have yet to grasp? The whole point of actual experimentation is to learn about actual reality. If you base a model on hypothetical mechanisms, then it will produce the results those hypothetical mechanisms might produce if they were real, but that is not an experiment that will give you a greater grasp on reality...it is little more than a video game programmed to provide a particular outcome. Models attempting to replicate physical realities that we have little or no understanding of are useless.
> 
> the greenhouse hypothesis is a fine example...it only works here even though the realities of energy movement through atmospheres are the same across the solar system...a hypothesis that is on the right track should be able to predict the temperature in any atmosphere and should not require an ad hoc fudge factor. Running those models is not experimentation...it is political grandstanding.


Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models. 

Models attempting to replicate complex physical systems are called simulations which use the basic models. Simulations depend on finding and expressing all influences on the system. These are not as accurate, and certainly would have larger error bars. Often the error bars are found by considering the extrema of each influence. That is why when you see future projections they will have a wide variation. 

One example is hurricane path prediction where the influences would be hard to project accurately. 

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.


To bad those models fail to reflect reality... And that is the problem..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.
> ...



Not like cooling photons? LOL!


----------



## Aurora Woman (Nov 9, 2018)

One of my favorite topics. From Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020

"But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown."

See also:
"The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been
absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper 
atmosphere is responding.

“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the 
edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.""
( Solar Maximum (and Solar Minimum) 2009-2020 )


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 9, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.
> ...



By basic physics I mean principles such as quantum electrodynamics, QED. That theory underwent intense experimental verification of various properties.  Agreement between theory and many experiments are in parts per billion. The magnetic dipole moment of the electron and the Rydberg constant in spectroscopy show theoretical accuracy measured in parts per trillion. 

Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia

I would say that kind of experimental accuracy really does reflect reality. 
Do you think QED is "fairy dust"? Your friend SSDD does.

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Basic physics principles are expressed highly accurately in mathematical models.



Except that your "highly accurate" mathematical models don't model observable, measurable reality.  It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that.



Wuwei said:


> Models attempting to replicate complex physical systems are called simulations which use the basic models. Simulations depend on finding and expressing all influences on the system. These are not as accurate, and certainly would have larger error bars. Often the error bars are found by considering the extrema of each influence. That is why when you see future projections they will have a wide variation.



And models attempting to simulate the climate and energy movement through the atmosphere invariably fail miserably...and why?  Simple, because they are based upon an "interpretation" of the physics of energy movement that simply is not real...When you base a model on flawed physics, the model is bound to fail.  If you based a flight simulator on flawed physics, you wouldn't get off the ground, or you might gain enough altitude to kill yourself...but you would not get an accurate representation, or simulation of flight....climate models don't give an accurate simulation of the climate because they are based on flawed physics.



Wuwei said:


> One example is hurricane path prediction where the influences would be hard to project accurately.
> 
> .



If, we had a more complete understanding of how energy moves through the atmosphere, what effect it has on systems and how those systems effect other systems, we could probably not only predict the path of hurricanes, we could probably predict their development, and have a pretty good idea of how strong they would be before the clouds even begun to form.  The FACTt that we can't predict with any real accuracy where they are going and the FACT that we routinely get surprised by what they do is evidence that we have little idea of how the energy is moving through the system...and the FACT that we can't even predict with any real degree of accuracy where a structure as organized as a hurricane is going to go, and how powerful it will be should clue you in to how far we are away from understanding something as complicated and chaotic as the global climate.  We essentially know JACK, and you are living under the delusion that we understand it all and have it all in hand.  We can't predict the path and strength of an organized entity like a hurricane, but we can predict and simulate the global climate?  

In which institution for the bewildered do you reside?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia
> 
> I would say that kind of experimental accuracy really does reflect reality.
> Do you think QED is "fairy dust"? Your friend SSDD does.
> ...



So tie QED to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard stepchild, AGW and tell me precisely how and why energy moves through the troposphere.  You keep bringing up QED as if it somehow proves the greenhouse hypothesis  I haven't seen anything in the literature attempting to use QED to prove either AGW of the greenhouse hypothesis.  So do explain why you keep bringing it up in the context of the climate...is it just a diversion from the fact that you can't provide observed measured evidence to support your claims.

So QED is a fine predictor...it doesn't go much into underlying mechanisms beyond making some wild assed guesses...it is possible to have yourself a fine method of predicting but be completely wrong about why your predictions are so accurate.  I will wait to see what the theory of QM looks like when it becomes physical law....maybe I will see it in my next life...or the one after that...or maybe the one after that...certainly not in this one.  I mean, they have been at it for a good long time now and can't even agree on what QM means.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


All matter has a temperature.. All matter looses energy...

Basic physics you ignore and climastrologists ignore..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So tie QED to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard stepchild, AGW and tell me precisely how and why energy moves through the troposphere.


I deal with global circulation models every day and not one of them can accurately predict energy movement let alone pressure and temperature changes..

The whole thing is bogus... SWAG (and I shudder to call it 'scientific')


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*All matter has a temperature.. All matter looses energy...*

Exactly. No smart emitters in sight.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Except that your "highly accurate" mathematical models don't model observable, measurable reality. It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that.


That is self contradictory. The phrase "highly accurate" means that deviations of theory from *observed measured* experiments is statistically zero. Then you immediately say they don't model o*bservable, measurable* reality. That really is weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You keep bringing up QED as if it somehow proves the greenhouse hypothesis I haven't seen anything in the literature attempting to use QED to prove either AGW of the greenhouse hypothesis. So do explain why you keep bringing it up in the context of the climate...is it just a diversion from the fact that you can't provide observed measured evidence to support your claims.



Quantum Electrodynamics has been observed and measured to high accuracy.

QED demands that all objects on earth radiate EM energy. 

QED demands that if EM radiation traverses near nuclei, atoms, or molecules that radiation will be absorbed with a probability depending on the Q factor, cross section and frequency. The particle will then be in a less stable excited state. (Look up the physics definitions if you don't know them.)

QED says that if the relaxation time is long enough (as it is in the atmosphere) a molecule will re-radiate isotropically if it is in an excited state. (all directions with equal probability)

QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter. 

These principles of QED together show that back radiation of GHGs is allowed to happen from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You keep bringing up QED as if it somehow proves the greenhouse hypothesis I haven't seen anything in the literature attempting to use QED to prove either AGW of the greenhouse hypothesis. So do explain why you keep bringing it up in the context of the climate...is it just a diversion from the fact that you can't provide observed measured evidence to support your claims.
> ...


And yet the GCM's that are based on QED FAIL... Without exception.

So what is it that fails empirical review? Knowing it fails why do you want to derive policy from them?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 10, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> And yet the GCM's that are based on QED FAIL... Without exception.


It is not the fault of QED.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the GCM's that are based on QED FAIL... Without exception.
> ...


Try again... QED is unsettled science and I personally do not trust it.. Not one of their models reflect reality. Yet you want to use it to force your political ideology onto to others...  No Thanks...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter.


This is one that shows just how out of touch with observed science it is..  

Tell me, A photon is sucked into a black hole, right? If your premise were true then a photon would not be pulled by gravity...  You lose!  QED shown falsified by simple OBSERVATION..


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > QED demands that nothing on earth can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter.
> ...


Reread it.
  "QED demands that *nothing on earth* can can affect a photon energy or trajectory except an interaction with matter."


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Try again... QED is unsettled science and I personally do not trust it.. Not one of their models reflect reality. Yet you want to use it to force your political ideology onto to others... No Thanks...


I get it. Just like sunsetommy, and SSDD. If you don't believe in modern physics I'm not going to try to talk you into it. 
Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 11, 2018)

Now that is some cooling


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Except that your "highly accurate" mathematical models don't model observable, measurable reality. It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that.
> ...




Maybe you don't know what one means when one puts quotation marks around a word in that context.  In case you are that ignorant, the quotation marks denote sarcasm...SARCASM...  It is like talking to a very small child.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the GCM's that are based on QED FAIL... Without exception.
> ...



Sure it is...what else might you blame it on other than an abject lack of understanding of how energy moves through the atmosphere, how that energy effects climate, and how that energy may interact with unknown, or poorly understood factors and how those factors may affect the climate or affect each other and how those effects between unknown or poorly understood factors may affect the climate...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Can QED provide evidence that photons even exist...remember, they are theoretical particles...they are a story we use as a place holder to explain properties of light that we don't really understand...talking about what a theory demands of a theoretical particle is hardly short of the ravings of a mad man...or someone who is so deluded by science that he literally views it as a religion...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Try again... QED is unsettled science and I personally do not trust it.. Not one of their models reflect reality. Yet you want to use it to force your political ideology onto to others... No Thanks...
> ...



Still waiting on the observed, measured evidence...still waiting.....still waiting....still waiting.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Try again... QED is unsettled science and I personally do not trust it.. Not one of their models reflect reality. Yet you want to use it to force your political ideology onto to others... No Thanks...
> ...


PSEUDO SCIENCE...  A kin to witch-doctoring...  They have the same level of proof.

Tell me,  Which MODEL have they proven by empirical review and solid empirical evidence?  NONE!  A mathematical construct is only as valid as its input and knowledge of the system it is OBSERVED to mimic.  IF it fails to mirror the system it was designed for it is considered FAILED and unreliable..  Now why would we place faith in that? Did you stick the pin in the Voodoo doll in the right p[lace?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Way to go...  SO earth has no gravity?  Good to know..

Again you cherry pick your point of view in the hopes you can fool someone...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Can QED provide evidence that photons even exist...remember, they are theoretical particles...


Are they qwark material? Subatomic matter? Energy particles? EM wave?  

Its called unsettled science where you can change the properties at will, so you can fool people who don't know they are being duped...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


OK, so what does your "sarcasm" mean? You don't believe the accuracy of parts per billion? I would have understood sarcasm if you put the quotes around "mathematical models" If you want to be sarcastic try to learn how to do it right.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sure it is...what else might you blame it on other than an abject lack of understanding of how energy moves through the atmosphere, how that energy effects climate, and how that energy may interact with unknown, or poorly understood factors and how those factors may affect the climate or affect each other and how those effects between unknown or poorly understood factors may affect the climate...


OK. Again, you don't believe in basic modern physics such as QED. I get it.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still waiting on the observed, measured evidence...still waiting.....still waiting....still waiting.


We already gave it to you. But you don't believe physics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it is...what else might you blame it on other than an abject lack of understanding of how energy moves through the atmosphere, how that energy effects climate, and how that energy may interact with unknown, or poorly understood factors and how those factors may affect the climate or affect each other and how those effects between unknown or poorly understood factors may affect the climate...
> ...



Dodge much?  Which is to blame, QED or abject lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of the system it is supposed to be modeling...it has to be one or the other.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting on the observed, measured evidence...still waiting.....still waiting....still waiting.
> ...



No...you gave me models...perhaps you don't grasp the difference between models and reality.....and your gross misunderstanding of what is actually being measured, is evidence of nothing more than how easily you are fooled.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*PSEUDO SCIENCE... A kin to witch-doctoring... They have the same level of proof.*

You think Quantum Electrodynamics has no proof? Seriously? Dude!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Dodge much? Which is to blame, QED or abject lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of the system it is supposed to be modeling...it has to be one or the other.


QED is verified and agreed on by all physicists. If you want to think it's fairy dust then your opinion is void.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No...you gave me models...perhaps you don't grasp the difference between models and reality.....and your gross misunderstanding of what is actually being measured, is evidence of nothing more than how easily you are fooled.


Nope. I gave you observed measured physics of CMB, luminescence, spontaneous emission, etc. Not models. You are the one who believes in fairy dust, and not the body of science.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Dodge much? Which is to blame, QED or abject lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of the system it is supposed to be modeling...it has to be one or the other.
> ...



So if it isn't QED, Then it is an abject lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of the system it is supposed to be modeling. Ask yourself why you can't bring yourself to simply say it.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No...you gave me models...perhaps you don't grasp the difference between models and reality.....and your gross misunderstanding of what is actually being measured, is evidence of nothing more than how easily you are fooled.
> ...



Sorry, you mistook a resonant radio frequency for CMB...lucky thing the experts didn't.  being fooled...and throwing around the thing that fooled you as evidence for something else doesn't make you look smart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*Sorry, you mistook a resonant radio frequency for CMB*

Is this you claiming "colder photons/waves didn't hit the antenna, they missed the Earth entirely, but we still detected them in New Jersey"?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So if it isn't QED, Then it is an abject lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of the system it is supposed to be modeling. Ask yourself why you can't bring yourself to simply say it.


If you mean AGW by your reference to "system", I have not addressed that. I have not studied the plethora of material in the IPCC or elsewhere. I am merely pointing out that you don't believe the underlying physics of any concept of any system that is as involved with the atmosphere. So your ideas of atmospheric systems is vacuous and void. The IPCC use of physics is not vacuous and void. However to me that doesn't mean it's all correct. I simply haven't studied it.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry, you mistook a resonant radio frequency for CMB...lucky thing the experts didn't. being fooled...and throwing around the thing that fooled you as evidence for something else doesn't make you look smart.


You surely know by now that Tod's answer is correct. You are just posting a meaningless response, simply to just have a response. Try harder.


----------



## badger2 (Nov 13, 2018)

Science Magazine, 1897: The Coming Ice Age
(Not a secure site)
science.sciencemag.org/content/5/116/483?cited-by=yes%3b5/116/483

In the Russian version of the theory in the 1960s, a warming trend preceded the onset of the ice age.

Dawkins, The Word Wu, 'Shaman,' as Graphic Camouflage (New China Review, 1920)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

badger2 said:


> Science Magazine, 1897: The Coming Ice Age
> (Not a secure site)
> science.sciencemag.org/content/5/116/483?cited-by=yes%3b5/116/483
> 
> ...


If you look closely at the paleo record, a warming spike is seen right before each and every glacial cycle..  Our current spike looks very similar to those in the record...  Only time will tell.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

NASA's Dr David Archibald gives us an update on the solar grand minimum.

*"The Modern Warm Period is now in the rear vision mirror though and we have returned to 19th century levels of activity. Warmth and pleasantness are boring; the climate is going to get a lot more interesting. Thus the record cold currently in the northeastern US may become more common."*

I have a sneaking hunch this is going to put a whole bunch of panties in a twist.. The AGW fear mongers will not like this one..  One more hole in the AGW hypothesis by NASA..

Its a very informative but technical article..

Solar Cycle Update for November 2018 – warmth sticking around, or cooling ahead?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

Were returning to the energy levels of the LIA from our sun....






And the natural cycles are displayed very nicely... Cooling for the next 70 years is a very real possibility and highly likely.

Source


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

I believe that there are going to be some very upset pseudo-scientists who believe in MM Global warming who are about to lose funding...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2018)

Some cooling


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2018)

My goodness, all of that red does not look very cool. LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Some cooling


More fantasy pictures that do not reflect reality..  Tell me again Old Fraud why do you use a fantasy?   We know by empirical observation that there are temperatures well below -72 deg C happening at both poles...  SO why are they missing?


----------



## Crick (Dec 8, 2018)

They aren't.  

Billy, I won't ask you to identify the paper as that would obviously violate anonymity, but where were you published?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cooling for the next 70 years is a very real possibility and highly likely.



Again?

I'm sure your predictions of the upcoming Holy Ice Age will come true this time, totally unlike the ones your side has been making nonstop for the previous 40 years. This time is totally different.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness, all of that red does not look very cool. LOL



I am growing to love your wildly deceptive graphs rocks...so much so, that I am going to start posting a graph showing those temperature anomalies in terms of actual temperature to show just how dishonest alarmists are.  Let's begin now shall we?

Here is the "serious" global warming we are experiencing in terms of actual temperature rather than anomalies...It is easy to scare the uneducated with anomalies, but when you show what the hoo baa is all about in terms of actual temperature, you are show to be nothing more than a hand waving hysteric.  Get used to it...whenever I see one of your alarmist graphs, I will be providing some of these in an attempt to keep you honest....you...honest...that's a laugh, isn't it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness, all of that red does not look very cool. LOL



Red dots are imaginary "heat spot" above faked data points.

Ooooohhhhhhhh scary!


----------



## polarbear (Dec 9, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > My goodness, all of that red does not look very cool. LOL
> ...


This is the way it works. A 100 F hot spot in India shows up in the media as a red hot global anomaly and half of Canada at -40 F is irrelevant because it wasn`t  as global as a hot city in India, or a forest fire in California or some streets that flooded in Texas.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 9, 2018)

polarbear said:


> This is the way it works. A 100 F hot spot in India shows up in the media as a red hot global anomaly and half of Canada at -40 F is irrelevant because it wasn`t  as global as a hot city in India, or a forest fire in California or some streets that flooded in Texas.



So you're telling us you have no 'effin idea how anomalies work. 

You really shouldn't be bothering the grownups.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > This is the way it works. A 100 F hot spot in India shows up in the media as a red hot global anomaly and half of Canada at -40 F is irrelevant because it wasn`t  as global as a hot city in India, or a forest fire in California or some streets that flooded in Texas.
> ...



Anomalies are a technique of fooling the uneducated into thinking that what bit of temperature change we have experienced is much more profound than it is.  Once you look at the actual temperature change since 1900 in terms of actual temperature, it is clear why anomalies are used...if they posted actual temperatures...they would be laughed out of their ivory halls.

It is good to see who is easily fooled by such tactics though...Tell me hairball, which part of the graphs below, which are presented in terms of actual temperature rather than anomalies speak to you of impending disaster?  Go ahead...say both so that you can prove beyond any doubt that your opinion is not informed, but just one someone with a political agenda gave you.


----------



## Crick (Dec 10, 2018)

I keep opening your posts thinking I'll find something to say something about.  But all that I ever find is that, god are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

Crick said:


> I keep opening your posts thinking I'll find something to say something about.  But all that I ever find is that, god are you stupid.



You still haven't said what part of those graphs of the actual temperatures of your "uncontrolled" warming you find alarming?  What's the matter skidmark?  To embarrassed over believing in the crisis when it is clear that there is none?


----------



## Crick (Dec 10, 2018)

No.  You're just too stupid to waste my time with.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 11, 2018)

Crick said:


> No.  You're just too stupid to waste my time with.


When identifying stupidity you only need look into your own mirror..

Your a parrot and all you do is parrot what your masters tell you to say.. Its sad that your too stupid to reason with but the fact that you intentionally refuse to learn is far worse.  Your religion is all you have and you refuse to look beyond your blinders and your handlers..


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)

Jesus.  You sound like a fucking 4th grader.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No.  You're just too stupid to waste my time with.
> ...



When is the paper about your magic energy destroying tube being published?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> When identifying stupidity you only need look into your own mirror..
> 
> Your a parrot and all you do is parrot what your masters tell you to say.. Its sad that your too stupid to reason with but the fact that you intentionally refuse to learn is far worse. Your religion is all you have and you refuse to look beyond your blinders and your handlers..


Follow this advice:


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> .Tell me hairball,



Apologize for your constant unprovoked namecalling, and I'll debate you. I only debate those who behave like adults.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .Tell me hairball,
> ...



No answer...didn't think so.  And you can't debate me hairball...you only have talking points and buzz words.  Those are hardly the tools of anyone but a tool.

What you don't have is actual observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No answer...didn't think so.  And you can't debate me hairball...



As expected. Instead of debating, you screamed more insults. It's how you operate. You deliberately act so childishly that all the adults shun you, and then you proclaim victory to an empty room.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2018)

Now that is some cooling!


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> What you don't have is actual observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs.


What you don't have is a basic understanding of physics to support your idiotic beliefs. The science involved in thermodynamics and radiation physics has been established and describe the behavior atomic levels precisely. This was done through much actual observed, measured evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Now that is some cooling!



For all your hysterical handwaving, this is what the warming looks like since 1900 in terms of actual temperature...Which part of this looks alarming to you?


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2018)

The part where your data show the globe's temperature going up over 0.75C despite massage therapist Bob Tisdale's use of a whoopee graph to try to make it disappear.  You should be embarrassed as fuck putting up a graph like that.  A third grader can see what you're doing.  But it's good to see you agree with the mainstream on what global temps have done.

PS: your data are from 

“…it is the change in temperature compared to what we’ve been used to that matters.” – Part 1

and were captioned:

_But, Bob, I can hardly see the long-term and short-term variations in the global mean surface temperature anomaly data._

_Bingo! That’s precisely the reason I went to all the trouble to prepare and present these comparisons._


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> The part where your data show the globe's temperature going up over 0.75C despite massage therapist Bob Tisdale's use of a whoopee graph to try to make it disappear.  You should be embarrassed as fuck putting up a graph like that.  A third grader can see what you're doing.  But it's good to see you agree with the mainstream on what global temps have done.



You act like that is something to be alarmed over...gold standard temperature reconstructions, and studies from every corner of the globe tell us that it is just business as usual..and barely even that...greater changes have happened in less time just in the past 10,000 years..never mind the entirety of earth's history._._


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> greater changes have happened in less time just in the past 10,000 years.



Prove it


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > greater changes have happened in less time just in the past 10,000 years.
> ...



Two gold standard temperature reconstructions...one from the arctic...one from the antarctic....both showing very similar temperature spikes, both increasing and decreasing.  

For decades now, climate science has been telling us that the polar regions are the "canary in the coal mine"  and what happens in the polar regions are just precursors to global conditions.  Have they been lying to us about that also?

And do feel free to offer up a rational, scientifically valid reason why you might see similar temperature increases and decreases that are greater than anything we have seen, and happening faster than we have seen in both of the polar regions but not happening in the space between the poles.

And since you clearly have trouble with graphs, I suppose I should point out that the blue one begins on the left about 10,000 years ago while the pretty red one begins on the  left at the present.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

Isolated locations dickhead.  Show us the whole fucking world changing as fast as the whole fucking world is changing now.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> Isolated locations dickhead.  Show us the whole fucking world changing as fast as the whole fucking world is changing now.



So climate science lied about the polar regions being the canary in the coal mine?  



Crick said:


> Isolated locations dickhead.  Show us the whole fucking world changing as fast as the whole fucking world is changing now.



Two locations on opposite sides of the earth skidmark...I am still waiting for a rational, scientifically valid explanation for how those same spikes and dips in temperature might have occurred at roughly the same time at the poles, but the rest of the earth was left out.....how many times are you going to dodge that glaring flaw in your reasoning?    I can ask as many times as necessary till you finally just tuck tail and run....may as well go and do it now.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The part where your data show the globe's temperature going up over 0.75C despite massage therapist Bob Tisdale's use of a whoopee graph to try to make it disappear.  You should be embarrassed as fuck putting up a graph like that.  A third grader can see what you're doing.  But it's good to see you agree with the mainstream on what global temps have done.
> ...



The Tisdale graph we were discussing was global.  We both know there is no value in single location data. When you claimed that greater changes had happened in less time, the implication that EVERYONE here assumed was that you were talking global data.  So where the fuck is it?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Crick said:


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



Dodging on this thread also skidmark?  Is that what you have been reduced to these days...nothing more than a mouthpiece for whoever gave you your opinion?

I asked you a question...answer it..  Are you afraid?....or just to f'ing stupid.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 21, 2018)

The Irish Ram said:


> Gore looked at it and said, "I could make  millions  convincing idiots that this is our fault..."
> 
> Notice that they no longer call it "warming".  Now it's,  "Oh no! Climate!  Send lots of money to the UN so they can offset climate!"


how about something like this?


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2018)

Deniers that bring up "global warming" > "climate change" mark themselves as folks that haven't been in the conversation for several years.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> Deniers that bring up "global warming" > "climate change" mark themselves as folks that haven't been in the conversation for several years.



Answer the question skidmark...or are you just afraid to acknowledge that I have handed you your ass yet again...


----------



## Crick (Dec 22, 2018)

What you think might be my ass that you might hand me back is actually the result of my shitting on you.  And you can just keep it. I challenged you to produce the GLOBAL data showing a greater increase than current rates and you tried to bullshit us all with data from single locations.  You fail.  You fail at everything.  I'm guessing that's required for you to maintain your trollship.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 22, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Lol, I smell desperation!



A clear sign you should change your panties.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> Deniers that bring up "global warming" > "climate change" mark themselves as folks that haven't been in the conversation for several years.


What term will the lying alarmist use tomorrow?


----------



## baileyn45 (Dec 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> Deniers that bring up "global warming" > "climate change" mark themselves as folks that haven't been in the conversation for several years.


Copernicus was a denier.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2018)

baileyn45 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers that bring up "global warming" > "climate change" mark themselves as folks that haven't been in the conversation for several years.
> ...


The religious zealots jailed them in the 1300-1800 time span.  Heretics is what they were called for not bowing to the religious dogma of the day.. And today the Catholic Church is again using their religious power to dupe the masses.. Why do we allow this crap to happen over and over again?


----------



## baileyn45 (Dec 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> baileyn45 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


For the most part people aren't bright. I hate to say that but it's much easier to accept "expert" opinion than to do the tough thinking yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2018)

Crick said:


> What you think might be my ass that you might hand me back is actually the result of my shitting on you.  And you can just keep it. I challenged you to produce the GLOBAL data showing a greater increase than current rates and you tried to bullshit us all with data from single locations.  You fail.  You fail at everything.  I'm guessing that's required for you to maintain your trollship.



So you aren't going to give me a rational, scientifically valid reason that the two poles might show temperature increases faster, and of a greater magnitude than anything we have seen but the globe between the poles did not experience the same sorts of change.

Not to worry skid mark..I didn't expect you too...that would call your beliefs into question...you just accept that it was magic...similar changes at the poles, but the rest of the earth remained calm...

How do you look at your self in the mirror?


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2018)

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.



Way to go retard..   Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.
> ...



You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 28, 2018)

Crick said:


> Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.



 Still waiting for YOU to provide such high resolution of yearly data or decadal warming trend data, in the last 10,000 years.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2018)

If it's not available, SSDD has no basis for his claim that he had evidence of such a thing.  Much obliged.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims..  HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends..  He has NOTHING..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?

*Sure they do..*

Why?

​*This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.*​
Because I'm not discussing Crick's claims.
​*Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.*​
When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?​


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> If it's not available, SSDD has no basis for his claim that he had evidence of such a thing.  Much obliged.



Ice core temperature reconstructions are considered to be the gold standard...and they simply don't support your claims of the present being unprecedented either in absolute temperature or the speed at which the temperature changes.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2018)

Wow.  Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.

Your argument is that since climate is cyclical, that nothing can affect the climate.

What we have is mankind with the onset of the industrial revolution alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that has increased the greenhouse gas effect & is warming the planet.  This effect is added to any cyclical aspect of the climate. 

This is SCIENCE.

The only ones being duped are the deniers who believe that paid spokespeople  of the fossil fuel industry & those who do it for political purposes to try to gain the trust of the poorly educated voters.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate.   We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved.  This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false., 

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat.  Greenhouse gases trap that heat.  These are facts.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Wow.  Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.
> 
> Your argument is that since climate is cyclical, that nothing can affect the climate.
> 
> ...


Alas, it is you and yours who have been duped. 

For all your talk of science, there is precious little to support your position.

There is not a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by mankind’s CO2 has been empirially quantified and ascribed to our CO2 production.

You have been duped by activist pseudoscientists and the media...science is about searching for evidence to support hypotheses...there is no observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...none.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.
> ...


Google Scholar

Take your pick.

Any works by Michael Mann.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The only temperature reconstructions with any respectable level of resolution at all are ice cores, and they show that in the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when temperatures both rose higher,  and faster than any change wee have seen

As to CO2 trapping heat, there isn’t the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  You seem to have what is fact and what is model output confused.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.
> ...



To say there is no research published on this proves are are an ignorant fool.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



More CO2 => more greenhouse gas effects => warmer temperatures

This is a PROVEN fact.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


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





RealDave said:


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


Step on up to the plate Bucky and provide the title of the paper and the author here...or dont...since there are none


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


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


So stop telling me it is fact and show me the empirical evidence...my bet is you wouldn’t know empirical evidence if it bit you on the ass,


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> The sun provides the heat.  Greenhouse gases trap that heat.  These are facts.



You really should check with the infrared heating industry....they have about a million hours of observation, testing,  design, experiment, and commercial and residential installation that demonstrates pretty conclusively that infrared radiation does not warm the air...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


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


UMmmmmmm

No it is not... Our atmosphere is not a closed system and there are multiple paths for energy to escape. Your modeling FAILS empirical review EVERY TIME.  Now be useful and provide empirical evidence of man's influence and how it was proven, using the scientific method and ruling out all other factors.  I'll wait..


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > The sun provides the heat.  Greenhouse gases trap that heat.  These are facts.
> ...





RealDave said:


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



Gee how did the planet have its first GLACIATION phase when CO2 levels in the atmosphere was at least 4,000 ppm?







LINK


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


1. The cause of warming and cooling is still at a point of great distention. All climate modeling fails to this day, illustrating how badly (poorly) we understand the system. Every single model to date has to be retrained every three years due to diverging from reality (FAILING).

2.The resolution of your proxies is 150-250 year data point plots. Thus you do not posses the data to make these claims.

I find it amusing when you make these claims and have no evidence to support your assumptions. If we place today's warming into the the proper resolution of the rest of the proxies, the current warming trend is nonexistent, showing how insignificant and within natural variation it is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?

*Sure they do..*

Why?

*This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.*

Because I'm not discussing Crick's claims.
*Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.*

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


1)  It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

2)  Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago.  You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

3)  It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.*

How many new nuclear plants do we need to build?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> 1)  It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.



If infrared radiation can not warm the air, exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming?  There is not a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that it does.



RealDave said:


> 2)  Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago.  You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.



When you look back millions of years, you see just how insignificant the bit of warming we have seen is....at the point where the ice age in which the earth is still exiting began, atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 1000ppm...an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm...and climate science is threatening run away warming if CO2 gets much above 400 or 500 ppm?  



RealDave said:


> 3)  It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 1)  It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.
> ...



*If infrared radiation can not warm the air, *

What gave you that idea?

*exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming? *

If it absorbs IR, it warms.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If infrared radiation can not warm the air, *
> 
> What gave you that idea?



A million plus hours of experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems.  What gave you the idea that it did?  Let me guess, an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.

*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming?
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> If it absorbs IR, it warms.



Really?  Got any observed, measured evidence to support that claim?  Didn't think so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *If infrared radiation can not warm the air, *
> ...



*A million plus hours of experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems. *

That is your proof that IR isn't absorbed in the air? Doesn't heat the air? 
That's funny.

*Really?  Got any observed, measured evidence to support that claim? *

You need evidence that CO2 absorbs IR? 
That's funny.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That is your proof that IR isn't absorbed in the air? Doesn't heat the air?
> That's funny.



Of course it is absorbed...than emitted...no warming.  And it figures that you would disregard actual observed, measured data showing that IR does not warm the air in favor of a model...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You need evidence that CO2 absorbs IR?
> That's funny.



Poor stupid child...I need evidence that the absorption of IR by CO2 results in warming..and since there isn't the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence showing such a thing, you are left simply proclaiming your faith...not discussing observable measurable phenomena...but then, that's your speed...isn't it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That is your proof that IR isn't absorbed in the air? Doesn't heat the air?
> ...



*Of course it is absorbed...than emitted...no warming. *

All of it is emitted? 100%? Is there warming for the period after absorption, before emission?

*And it figures that you would disregard actual observed, measured data showing that IR does not warm the air in favor of a model...*

Where is your observed data that it doesn't warm the air?

*I need evidence that the absorption of IR by CO2 results in warming.*

Post your data that shows matter doesn't warm after it absorbs IR. 
I'll be happy to point out your error.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> All of it is emitted? 100%? Is there warming for the period after absorption, before emission?



Since the infrared heating industry has proven pretty conclusively that IR does not and can not warm the air, that would be a no....there is no warming.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where is your observed data that it doesn't warm the air?



Refer to the infrared heating industry...


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 1)  It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.
> ...



There you go again.  Claiming current climatologists are too stupid to consider anything beyond the present.  How are these PhDs so stupid & you are so smart?

You run in circles waving your arms screaming how CO2 levels were higher in the past yet you are too naive to consider what the Earth was like then.  Our civilizations are build on our current climate.

You ignore the ocean levels in those years with higher CO2 yet ocean levels of that time would devastate a high percentage of this planet's people.  Let alone our food production.  What if the higher temps lowered the production we get out of the bread belt?   This effect is happening now.

This is how uneducated you must be. It is the ignorant people like you that prevent Congress from taking more action.  Stupid, ignorant, uneducated assholes like you put my children's future in jeopardy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > All of it is emitted? 100%? Is there warming for the period after absorption, before emission?
> ...



*Since the infrared heating industry has proven pretty conclusively that IR does not and can not warm the air, that would be a no....there is no warming.*

Are their heating elements the same temperature as the Earth's surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


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



*It is the ignorant people like you that prevent Congress from taking more action.*

Is that why Kyoto received as many votes in the US Senate as it did?

How many votes was that again?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> There you go again.  Claiming current climatologists are too stupid to consider anything beyond the present.  How are these PhDs so stupid & you are so smart?



Got any examples of climate scientists pointing out that the past was much warmer than the present...or that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...or mentioning that the ice age the earth is exiting began with CO2 levels at or near 1000ppm?  Any examples of climate science pointing out that the past makes it apparent that we have little to worry about?



RealDave said:


> You run in circles waving your arms screaming how CO2 levels were higher in the past yet you are too naive to consider what the Earth was like then.  Our civilizations are build on our current climate.



At the onset of the ice age that the earth is presently exiting, the would have been almost indistinguishable from the present.  And civilization over the past 10,000 years developed in a warmer climate than the present.



RealDave said:


> You ignore the ocean levels in those years with higher CO2 yet ocean levels of that time would devastate a high percentage of this planet's people.  Let alone our food production.  What if the higher temps lowered the production we get out of the bread belt?   This effect is happening now.



CO2 levels had nothing to do with the climate...again, there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which suggests that CO2 has any effect on climate whatsoever.  But feel free to bring a piece of such evidence here if you believe it exists...good luck with that.



RealDave said:


> This is how uneducated you must be. It is the ignorant people like you that prevent Congress from taking more action.  Stupid, ignorant, uneducated assholes like you put my children's future in jeopardy.


Still waiting on the first piece of observed, measured  evidence to support the claim that action on CO2 needs to be taken...you clearly believe it does, but based on what actual evidence?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are their heating elements the same temperature as the Earth's surface?



So you think that warmer IR elements would not warm the air but cooler IR elements would?  How might the air know the difference?  Does it somehow only react to cooler IR than warmer IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Are their heating elements the same temperature as the Earth's surface?
> ...



*So you think that warmer IR elements would not warm the air but cooler IR elements would? *

You'd have to post the emission spectra of each.
Maybe you can find it in the millions of hours of "*experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems"*? 

* Does it somehow only react to cooler IR than warmer IR?*



You'd have to see where the emission spectra of the heating element overlaps with the absorption spectra of the air.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

knock yourself out...you won't believe any actual evidence that contradicts your beliefs anyway..


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAaaaaa what a fucking *MORON*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> knock yourself out...you won't believe any actual evidence that contradicts your beliefs anyway..



And you can't post any actual evidence that contradicts my beliefs, or that supports your beliefs.
Weird.
What's wrong,  millions of hours of  experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems not enough data for you?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > There you go again.  Claiming current climatologists are too stupid to consider anything beyond the present.  How are these PhDs so stupid & you are so smart?
> ...



Increasing temperatures the past 100+ years caused primarily by increases in greenhouse gases emissions If we can reduce these emissions, we can try to limit the  increase in temps in the future until the Earth can catch up & remove some of the excess CO2. This could take many decades.





.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Increasing temperatures the past 100+ years caused primarily by increases in greenhouse gases emissions



Since there has been no published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused due to our CO2 production has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, exactly what is your basis for making such a claim?  It certainly isn't anything you got from the literature...maybe you got it from an activist, or the media...certainly not from climate science.

But feel free to provide the paper, or the title and author if you believe such a paper exists.




RealDave said:


> If we can reduce these emissions, we can try to limit the  increase in temps in the future until the Earth can catch up & remove some of the excess CO2. This could take many decades.



Since you have no observed, measured evidence that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere, what makes you think that reducing CO2 will somehow have an effect on the global temperature?  Let me guess, the same activist or the media?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction. 

You do not have a clue....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



When is the magic energy destroying tube paper coming out?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> knock yourself out...you won't believe any actual evidence that contradicts your beliefs anyway..


And that is the problem.  Even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, they will profess AGW.
And to this day the Tropospheric Hot Spot has been proven not to exist... Without it the AGW lie falls apart...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Wow.. 

The shear ignorance you show is funny as hell.. 

The energy passes through the tube. Its was never captured by the atmosphere of the tube because it could not react to it. You don't even understand how or why the experiment was set up. We proved that >99% of the energy emitted by black bodies on earth is lost to space as the atmosphere is incapable of warming due to LWIR over >89% of the planet due to the lack of water vapor in the atmosphere.

You and your ilk can run in circles screaming at the sky but the facts are there and screaming wont change them...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That is your proof that IR isn't absorbed in the air? Doesn't heat the air?
> That's funny.


This is precisely the experiment we did that took two years to complete. No, LWIR does not heat CO2 or our atmospheric mixture devoid of water vapor. 6-20um energy is absorbed and re-emitted so quickly that CO2 will not warm.  But you know this and continue this scam,,, LWIR is transmitted but will not warm the atmosphere until it hits and is absorbed by a black body or grey body which is reactive to the bandwidth of the energy and is capable of holding and consuming the energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*The shear ignorance you show is funny as hell.. *

_verb (used with object), sheared, sheared or shorn, shear·ing._

_to cut (something). _
_to remove by or as if by cutting or clipping with a sharp instrument: to shear wool from sheep. _
_to cut or clip the hair, fleece, wool, etc., from: to shear sheep. _

the definition of shear

DURR!

*The energy passes through the tube. Its was never captured by the atmosphere of the tube because it could not react to it. *

You said the tube was opaque. And insulated. Were you lying, or just stupid?

*You and your ilk can run in circles screaming at the sky *

My ilk is mocking your idiocy, not screaming at the sky.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction.




HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaa what a fucking *LIAR*


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 29, 2018)

powering ancient underground cities with modern technologies would help us understand the concepts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and currently in the doctoral program. I work for a firm that does modeling and prediction.
> ...


I understand you have no training and that your triggered by facts...  Now be a good little useful idiot and fuck off..

I am amazed how many of you idiots will not face the facts. You will whine, cry and call names and NEVER ADDRESS THE SCIENCE OF THE MATTER..  You expose yourselves as the lying pieces of shit you are...

Please provide just one piece of OBSERVED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE(also known as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE) which proves your wild ass assumptions... Take your religious/cult zealotry and shove it up your ass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 29, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?

*Sure they do..*

Why?

*Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.*

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.*
> 
> When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.


LOL. That was one of the stupidest things I heard from a "doctoral student". He doesn't know what equilibrium is!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.*
> ...



Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured...your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says it is so, therefore, in your mind it must be so...and never mind every observation and measurement ever made.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



If you were actually a graduate student in physics, you would say to yourself - well, it's been warming for the last 150 years and shows no sign of stopping anytime soon.  It is extremely unlikely that it will cool faster than it warmed up.  So what is the minimum length of this hot pulse we'd have to be looking for?  Longer than the Holocene data resolution.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And so what happens in Same Shit Universe when two object attain equilibrium?  You believe they stop radiating.  That would be a violation of Planck's Law, wouldn't it.  What a fooking *IDIOT*


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What does that have to do with Billy's silly statement, "*Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate."?*


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


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



Here...I set two objects to the same temperature...solve for P if you have at least that much mathematical skill.







Here is a clue...P = 0


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



The two objects are still losing energy to the surroundings...when the two objects are in equilibrium, the warmer object is no longer losing energy to the surroundings and to the cooler object...the cooler object is no longer losing energy to the surroundings and gaining energy from the warmer object....  They will both now be losing energy to the surroundings based on their area, their emissivity and the difference in temperature between themselves and their surroundings...assuming of course, that the two objects are the same size...

Is this really that far over your head?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Let me guess...you think equilibrium is when both objects are radiating equal amounts of energy towards each other...even though such energy movement has never been observed, or measured*

Still waiting for your observation of objects at equilibrium ceasing all radiating.

You must have many observations, not just a model, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Every measurement ever made...there are plenty of measurements of energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects or of energy moving spontaneously between two objects at the same temperature...but feel free to go look for some if you think they exist...hell, people are still looking for El Dorado...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Every measurement ever made...there are plenty of measurements of energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects or of energy moving spontaneously between two objects at the same temperature...but feel free to go look for some if you think they exist...hell, people are still looking for El Dorado...


For God's sake. We went over this many many times. The cold CMB hits a warm antenna *before* it hits the tuned amplifier. That is cold radiation hitting a warmer surface. Your reply has always been total crap and it will always be total crap.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Every measurement ever made...there are plenty of measurements of energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects or of energy moving spontaneously between two objects at the same temperature...but feel free to go look for some if you think they exist...hell, people are still looking for El Dorado...
> ...



And no matter how many times you go over your mistake, it is still going to be nothing more than you confusing actual CMB with a resonant radio frequency...it is never going to change...but again, thanks for demostrating AGAIN, how easily you are fooled.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects*

So explain, for once, why does energy move from the cooler Sun's surface toward the hotter corona?
From the cooler Earth's surface toward the hotter thermosphere.
Explain.
Don't run away saying that you already explained it.

* or of energy moving spontaneously between two objects at the same temperature*

So you have no back up agreeing with your claim that they cease radiating?
That's a surprise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*And no matter how many times you go over your mistake, it is still going to be nothing more than you confusing actual CMB with a resonant radio frequency.*

Of course, the energy never hits the antenna. Hilarious!


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 30, 2018)

I think the sun is cool!


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


THAT IS TOTAL ꞱIHS FROM A TROLL. YOU ARE LYING AGAIN TROLL.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 30, 2018)

Some of you guys are hijacking threads with your endless thermodynamics arguments, I am seeing once good threads get destroyed in the process, can't you off topic boys stop getting so far off topic?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2018)

Why let threads continue with obvious, uncorrected errors?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Some of you guys are hijacking threads with your endless thermodynamics arguments, I am seeing once good threads get destroyed in the process, can't you off topic boys stop getting so far off topic?



The solution is to boot poster SSDD from the USMB board for trolling


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Some of you guys are hijacking threads with your endless thermodynamics arguments, I am seeing once good threads get destroyed in the process, can't you off topic boys stop getting so far off topic?
> ...



So now, asking for evidence that you can't provide is trolling?  You are the one who should be booted for making claims that you can't support with observed, measured evidence.  You sound more like the catholic church of the 14th century every day.... is " Excommunicate the heretics" your new slogan?...or do you still prefer that they simply be killed?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

Just from a real, factual viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to boot trolls like SSDD


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> Just from a real, factual viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to boot trolls like SSDD



I own you crick...lock stock and barrel.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

Is that why you've had two quotes from me as your sig for the last several YEARS?

BTW, the Earth is not cooling.

BEST






Met Office





NASA GISS





HadCRUT





JMA


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> Is that why you've had two quotes from me as your sig for the last several YEARS?



Two of the stupidest statements ever made on this board....stupidity like that deserves to not be forgotten.  It could well be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Some of you guys are hijacking threads with your endless thermodynamics arguments, I am seeing once good threads get destroyed in the process, can't you off topic boys stop getting so far off topic?


I agree the trolls that promote fake physics are destroying this thread.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Some of you guys are hijacking threads with your endless thermodynamics arguments, I am seeing once good threads get destroyed in the process, can't you off topic boys stop getting so far off topic?
> ...



Poor baby....don't like being asked for evidence you can't provide?  Whine a little for me....


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Poor baby....don't like being asked for evidence you can't provide? Whine a little for me....


You sound sore for being called out as a troll. 

Here it is again for you. The cosmic microwave background at 2.7K hits a warmer dish on earth and it bounces to a tuned amplifier at 4 K. That shows cold radiation hitting a large warmer antenna, but it also hits a slightly warmer amplifier. That shows that cold radiation can hit a warmer object.  Let's hear your opinion again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Poor baby....don't like being asked for evidence you can't provide? Whine a little for me....
> ...



Nah...I think it is funny that you two nitwits have been reduced to name calling.....whining for the mods to ban me so you won't have to suffer constant humiliation at my hands...



Wuwei said:


> Here it is again for you. The cosmic microwave background at 2.7K hits a warmer dish on earth and it bounces to a tuned amplifier at 4 K. That shows cold radiation hitting a large warmer antenna, but it also hits a slightly warmer amplifier. That shows that cold radiation can hit a warmer object.  Let's hear your opinion again.



Not CMB..but a resonant radio frequency to CMB...sorry this is all so hard for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



How close does the CMB get to the Earth's surface?

How close does the CMB get to the antenna?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

Shit, you don't seem to want to address this basic comment?  Do you actually think your adoring public here doesn't see that?  Your contention regarding IR radiation is complete and utter nonsense.  And since it is nonsense, so is your objection to the Greenhouse Effect and global warming.  Your entire argument has been in the shitter all this time but it should be becoming more and more obvious even to someone as dense and distorted as are you.  You'd be astounded what that makes you look like.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Not CMB..but a resonant radio frequency to CMB...sorry this is all so hard for you.


It seems your high school didn't teach physics.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> Shit, you don't seem to want to address this basic comment?  Do you actually think your adoring public here doesn't see that?  Your contention regarding IR radiation is complete and utter nonsense.  And since it is nonsense, so is your objection to the Greenhouse Effect and global warming.  Your entire argument has been in the shitter all this time but it should be becoming more and more obvious even to someone as dense and distorted as are you.  You'd be astounded what that makes you look like.


The idiot show his ignorance... AGAIN..

Show me how you get O2 to warm without any ability to react to LWIR in 99.4% of the atmosphere.  I'll wait..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not CMB..but a resonant radio frequency to CMB...sorry this is all so hard for you.
> ...



It seems your high school didn't teach science at all... Now propaganda you got down..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> It seems your high school didn't teach science at all... Now propaganda you got down.


So you too believe that the cosmic microwave background is not black body radiation, but is resonant frequencies?

Do you know where the 15,700 W/m² of radiation from the surface of Venus goes? SSDD can't answer the question. Can you show him up?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2018)

I just laugh at the shear ignorance of those who think they have the facts all sewn up yet they cant even understand basic energy transfer in our atmosphere.

The very basic premise of energy flow calls AGW a lie.  One must consider many things when looking at our atmosphere. Can the molecules react to the energy present? How long can the molecule hold onto the energy? How much energy is consumed by the molecule? IF the molecule collides, during its energy residency time, how much energy is transmitted as kinetic energy?

In order to answer these question you must know in which of the 8 ways a molecule will stretch, expand or bend its magnetic bonds with other molecules in the compound. Only 3 of the ways will result in warming of the molecule. Then you must also know how long a molecule can hold on to energy.

No one here is even remotely concerned with the facts. All you see is your political agenda and power.  One of our resident idiots likes to post up the bandpass graph of our atmosphere, yet he doesn't have a clue about what it represents.  Warming of a gas can only happen within the regions that it is reactive to the energy passing through it and only  if the molecule reacts and the energy is trapped long enough for the molecule to consume some of it. All these factors have to happen in the proper sequence and in a duration long enough to cause warming...

This is precisely why LWIR can not warm the atmosphere...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Shit, you don't seem to want to address this basic comment?  Do you actually think your adoring public here doesn't see that?  Your contention regarding IR radiation is complete and utter nonsense.  And since it is nonsense, so is your objection to the Greenhouse Effect and global warming.  Your entire argument has been in the shitter all this time but it should be becoming more and more obvious even to someone as dense and distorted as are you.  You'd be astounded what that makes you look like.
> ...



*Show me how you get O2 to warm without any ability to react to LWIR in 99.4% of the atmosphere. I'll wait.. *

Have a warmer molecule bounce off the O2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 31, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> I just laugh at the shear ignorance of those who think they have the facts all sewn up yet they cant even understand basic energy transfer in our atmosphere.
> 
> The very basic premise of energy flow calls AGW a lie.  One must consider many things when looking at our atmosphere. Can the molecules react to the energy present? How long can the molecule hold onto the energy? How much energy is consumed by the molecule? IF the molecule collides, during its energy residency time, how much energy is transmitted as kinetic energy?
> 
> ...



* Can the molecules react to the energy present? How long can the molecule hold onto the energy? *

CO2 can't "hold onto" any energy? Ever? LOL!

*only  if the molecule reacts and the energy is trapped long enough for the molecule to consume some of it. *

Consume? Is that a PhD term?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Consume? Is that a PhD term?


LOL !


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> Shit, you don't seem to want to address this basic comment?  Do you actually think your adoring public here doesn't see that?  Your contention regarding IR radiation is complete and utter nonsense.



And yet, you can't produce a single bit of observed, measured data that indicates that I am wrong...not a single one.  What does that make you look like?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > It seems your high school didn't teach science at all... Now propaganda you got down.
> ...



CMB is certainly black body radiation...but it can be, and was detected via a resonant radio frequency...No one ever said that CMB was not black body radiation...it has since been directly studied...with instruments cooled enough to actually receive it...the original discovery, however, was not actual CMB, but a resonant frequency of CMB...


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2019)

It was discovered via resonant frequencies.  It was first studied via dishes, antennas and receivers WARMER than 2.7K


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CMB is certainly black body radiation...but it can be, and was detected via a resonant radio frequency...No one ever said that CMB was not black body radiation...it has since been directly studied...with instruments cooled enough to actually receive it...the original discovery, however, was not actual CMB, but a resonant frequency of CMB


Everyone knows it was first detected by a tuned amplifier warmer than the CMB. But you are confusing the detection method with the original radiation itself. 

What you have been saying is tantamount to saying that black body radiation hitting a thermocouple instrument is really not radiation but is an amplified voltage. That is balderdash.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .I think it is funny that you two nitwits have been reduced to name calling


That is so funny and ironic. You say "*nitwits*" in the very same sentence of accusations of *name calling*!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> It was discovered via resonant frequencies.  It was first studied via dishes, antennas and receivers WARMER than 2.7K



Resonant radio frequency....what temperarture is a radio frequency?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It was discovered via resonant frequencies.  It was first studied via dishes, antennas and receivers WARMER than 2.7K
> ...



How close did the CMB come to the antenna?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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





Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Couldn't say...maybe if you read a bit, you might find out...I doubt that there will be much out there with pretty pictures though...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Couldn't say...maybe if you read a bit, you might find out..*

Maybe you have other examples of a signal detected with an antenna which doesn't touch the antenna?

*I doubt that there will be much out there with pretty pictures though...*

Pictures? Like the epicycles you need to continue denying modern physics?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CMB is certainly black body radiation...but it can be, and was detected via a resonant radio frequency...No one ever said that CMB was not black body radiation...it has since been directly studied...with instruments cooled enough to actually receive it...the original discovery, however, was not actual CMB, but a resonant frequency of CMB...



Yes. the CMB is black body radiation. It still is when it hits the warm antenna. It still is when it hits the detector. It no longer is black body radiation once it's internal to the detector and an when output voltage is read.

The conclusion is that cold radiation hits a warmer object (antenna). One counter example destroys your hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CMB is certainly black body radiation...but it can be, and was detected via a resonant radio frequency...No one ever said that CMB was not black body radiation...it has since been directly studied...with instruments cooled enough to actually receive it...the original discovery, however, was not actual CMB, but a resonant frequency of CMB...
> ...



Your conclusion, as always is flawed because you interpret the facts to mean what you need them to mean to agree with you conclusion....circular thinking much?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Your conclusion, as always is flawed because you interpret the facts to mean what you need them to mean to agree with you conclusion....circular thinking much?


You agreed the CMB is black body. What facts have I made up? You must be able to realize that you made up your "fact" that BB radiation becomes "resonant frequencies".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your conclusion, as always is flawed because you interpret the facts to mean what you need them to mean to agree with you conclusion....circular thinking much?
> ...



He never said how close he thought the CMB came to the antenna.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He never said how close he thought the CMB came to the antenna.


Well, it's hard to know what a pathological mind thinks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > He never said how close he thought the CMB came to the antenna.
> ...



Epicycles all the way down.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your conclusion, as always is flawed because you interpret the facts to mean what you need them to mean to agree with you conclusion....circular thinking much?
> ...



You claim that the initial discovery was an actual measurement of CMB...it wasn't...CMB was discovered via a resonant radio frequency.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > He never said how close he thought the CMB came to the antenna.
> ...



Alas you are the one with a pathological need to alter everything you read to mean what you need it to mean without regard to what the words actually say.  I spend as much time correcting your misrepresntations of what I have said as I do actually answering your comments


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*CMB was discovered via a resonant radio frequency. *

Was that before or after the CMB hit the antenna?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



CMB didn't...a resonant radio frequency did...it is tragic that all this is so difficult for you to understand....and apparently there is no one around you that might help...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*CMB didn't...a resonant radio frequency did...*

We can detect a signal with an antenna without the signal hitting the antenna? 

Hilarious!

*it is tragic that all this is so difficult for you to understand.*

It would be tragic if I suffered under the same delusion as you.

When you get a chance, explain how the CMB is somehow translated into this "resonant radio frequency".
And maybe post the frequency and how it compares to the CMB frequency?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Look at your infantile, terribly confused rebuttals...seek help...read something..take a remedial course...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



I'll take a remedial course, as soon as you flesh out your ridiculous claim.
A signal that never hits the antenna somehow gets translated into another frequency. Explain.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Resonace...In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency. Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are known as the system's resonant frequencies, or resonance frequencies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Resonace...In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency. *

Now give an example of when it happens without the original external force even approaching the antenna.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You really don't get this do you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



How could I "get" your imaginary signal at a distance fantasy.
You "feel" a signal, which never hits an antenna, somehow creates another signal that does. Magically.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sorry you are so limited in your understanding...you might google CMB and resonant frequency...the literature is full of references...not that you will be able to understand any of them...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Everything I've seen said the CMB hit the antenna.
Why don't you Google up some proof that says it didn't hit the antenna. 

Maybe if you use the search term, "SSDD's silly fantasy"?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sorry you don't get it...but then, even if you did, you would probably deny it in order to maintain your faith...not interested in helping you out at all..

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...your suggestion that CMB violates the second law is just stupid....if something were ever found to violate the second law, it would be earth shattering..the biggest news ever....CMB was discovered via a resonant radio frequency whether you are able to understand or accept what that means or not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Sorry you don't get it...*

And you can't post a single solitary source that backs up your claim so I could get it. Sorry indeed.

*The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...*

You're lying.

*your suggestion that CMB violates the second law is just stupid...*

Your suggestion that CMB cannot hit the Earth, because it is somehow repelled or prevented, because the Earth is warmer, is what's really stupid. CMB hit and was detected.....not a violation of the 2nd Law in sight.

Maybe there is a website talking about how the Penzias and Wilson Nobel Prize was fraudulent?
How the signal really didn't hit their antenna?

*CMB was discovered via a resonant radio frequency*

Cool story bro. What was the mechanism to convert the signal to a "resonant radio frequency" without the signal hitting the Earth? Was it aliens? 

If you can't explain your fantasy, if I have to Google your fantasy, it will be obvious you're inventing stuff again.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You claim that the initial discovery was an actual measurement of CMB...it wasn't...CMB was discovered via a resonant radio frequency.


Pathological liar.



SSDD said:


> Alas you are the one with a pathological need to alter everything you read to mean what you need it to mean without regard to what the words actually say. I spend as much time correcting your misrepresntations of what I have said as I do actually answering your comments


Now you are implying all physicists over the past hundred years or so are pathologically altering everything. Yep. You can (mis)read the words, but you don't understand them.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You claim that the initial discovery was an actual measurement of CMB...it wasn't...CMB was discovered via a resonant radio frequency.
> ...


You are aware that every EM transmission causes second, third, fourth and 5th value reflections, aren't you? The ripple effect causes what is known as a shadow or negative wave.These are at harmonic step decreases due to the wave reflections colliding.  This is CMB. 

The radio transmitter identified the energy because of its harmonic wave at a much lower resonating frequency.  The confused scientists then looked for the source, which took them years to isolate.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

The Earth is trending towards zero anomaly...  As the sun wains the earth cools... 

Cooling trend now going on four years..







UAH Global Temperature Update for December 2018: +0.25 deg. C «  Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## Crick (Jan 4, 2019)

You think that data show a cooling trend?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> You think that data show a cooling trend?




You don't?  Never mind...I almost forgot that you can't read a graph..


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

No, that data do not show a cooling trend.  They show a warming trend; unless you actually expect us all to accept the most blatant of cherry-picking.  "Look all of you, as winter came on it got colder".


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> No, that data do not show a cooling trend.  They show a warming trend; unless you actually expect us all to accept the most blatant of cherry-picking.  "Look all of you, as winter came on it got colder".



Cherry picking?  Like showing arctic ice from only the 70's...and all the other short views you wack jobs present rather than showing the bigger picture...take that graph back a thousand years..and tell me what it shows...

by the way idiot...look at the bottom of the graph...those numbers...they are years...do you think it has been winter since 2016?


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 6, 2019)

how much can we learn living in the underground cities left behind by previous civilizations?


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You think that data show a cooling trend?
> ...



That graph display the warming trend the Earth has been experiencing since long before that satellite data began.  If you really want to suggest that the Earth has NOT been getting warmer since the beginning of the industrial revolution, I suggest you see if the Flat Earth Society (www.theFlatEarthSociety.org) could share meeting space with you.  You have a problem with the OBSERVATIONS that clearly say otherwise.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


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



Actually, the earth has been getting warmer since the end of the little ice age...it is to be expected....


----------



## justoffal (Jan 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 223935
> 
> Now lets look closer..  The sun has cycles(red lined grand minimums) initially faster (800-900 years) then elongating (out to 1200 years) then a pause before a Grand minimum where massive  cooling occurs. The pause warming is liner and sloped.  We have reached that slope maximum and now were headed to cooling. Given the cycle progression we should expect 1-1.5 deg C drop in global temperatures over the next 60-90 years..
> 
> People refuse to look at the historical "writing on the wall" but the pattern is clear..



Holy shit! Look at that!
Summabitch! It's been there an along!

Good one!
Jo


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

Unfortunatetly, your graph is temperatures on Earth, not solar activity.  









Feel free to try to line those up.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> Unfortunatetly, your graph is temperatures on Earth, not solar activity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Too Funny Mann and Crick,, Tacking on 10 year plots to the end of 1000 year plots.. to make it look scary...  Why don't you get the author of that graph to show you where the breaks and changes of scale are located?   He's been called out for it by several real scientists..  SO why wont he correct it?


----------



## Crick (Jan 15, 2019)

You failed to address the real comment.  There is essentially zero correlation between actual TSI and the temperature pulses you are claiming they cause.

PS, let us see a link to a criticism of the way Usoskin appended modern observations (which start in 1600, not ten years ago) onto reconstructed data


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> You failed to address the real comment.  There is essentially zero correlation between actual TSI and the temperature pulses you are claiming they cause.
> 
> PS, let us see a link to a criticism of the way Usoskin appended modern observations (which start in 1600, not ten years ago) onto reconstructed data


LOL

What a pile of crap...





You want to tell me what happened to temp during this time? Or  shall I go on and prove you a liar?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 19, 2019)

Lets play COOLING Russian roulette:

Solar Physicists from NASA are now showing a significant change in solar output in the bands emitted from the sun which penetrate earths oceans and cause warming.  A Drop of 2.2w/m^2 has been detected over the last two years in the 0.2-1.3um wavelengths. 

This shift is blamed on the changing Solar magnetic fields which is also believed to be causing the solar shut down and decrease in TSI (Total Solar IR-radiance). While TSI has only dropped 0.3w/m^2 the shift from the bands which warm the oceans to bands that have little effect on the oceans is worrying scientists. Our oceans regulate the temperature on earth and the loss of energy into them will cause cooling of the planet.

The question is, How long will this band shift remain? Some of us believe that this, along with position of our earth in its elliptical orbit all play a roll in glaciation. Oceanic Plant life reconstructions indicate that this shift happens at each glacial cycle....

Are our AGW friends pulling the trigger on killing millions with their baseless claims?  I guess we will soon find out..

Solar Irradiance


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 19, 2019)

Say goodbye to MODOKI (or weak El Niño) ... When numbers are updated on Sunday it will be gone..











Input into the oceans is decreasing and the ocean is responding in buffered fashion...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 223935
> 
> Now lets look closer..  The sun has cycles(red lined grand minimums) initially faster (800-900 years) then elongating (out to 1200 years) then a pause before a Grand minimum where massive  cooling occurs. The pause warming is liner and sloped.  We have reached that slope maximum and now were headed to cooling. Given the cycle progression we should expect 1-1.5 deg C drop in global temperatures over the next 60-90 years..
> 
> People refuse to look at the historical "writing on the wall" but the pattern is clear..


 Four months since the first post and not one post in this entire thread discredits the observations in the OP or post 2...

The AGW drones time is very short... The cooling has begun and the cycle will not be swayed from its time line...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 19, 2019)

And the sun is showing the loss in DW energy...


----------



## mamooth (Jan 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Four months since the first post and not one post in this entire thread discredits the observations in the OP or post 2...



Don't lie. We pointed out the dishonesty of your cherrypicking scam. You had no response.

Temperature was well correlated with TSI up until about 1970, when it started going to opposite way. That's just when greenhouse gases started becoming really significant.

So, the hard data supports our theory, and debunks yours. Same old same old.



> The AGW drones time is very short... The cooling has begun and the cycle will n[Qot be swayed from its time line...



Your Ice Age Cult has been saying the same thing constantly for over 40 years now, yet your HolyIceAge never gets here. No matter. Your faith is undimmed. Each time your predicted IcyArmageddon fails to arrive, you simply push the date of the EndOfTheWorld back some more, just like any other end-times cult does.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Four months since the first post and not one post in this entire thread discredits the observations in the OP or post 2...
> ...


Just like your "were all gonna burn up" bullshit ....  Ice ages are predictable and cyclical. Your BS warming is not....

Isn't life grand!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

I just realized that solar farm output has been dropping for over 4 years now... Its now estimated that Solar Farm output has dropped 8.3% according to NASA and the DOE.. (when the same number and type of panels are revisited)

For history on this: Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics

Now to see how that shift is going to affect actual energy getting to the oceans and be absorbed.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Now you are implying all physicists over the past hundred years or so are pathologically altering everything. Yep. You can (mis)read the words, but you don't understand them.


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.

It is a pretty straight forward statement..which part am I misreading?  I accept it as written..clearly you do not...in fact, you said yourself that you are fine with the statement above so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> I just realized that solar farm output has been dropping for over 4 years now... Its now estimated that Solar Farm output has dropped 8.3% according to NASA and the DOE.. (when the same number and type of panels are revisited)
> 
> For history on this: Solar Spectral Shift And Earths Atmospherics
> 
> Now to see how that shift is going to affect actual energy getting to the oceans and be absorbed.



Like I said earlier...the oceans are hemorrhaging energy that isn't being replaced..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your conclusion, as always is flawed because you interpret the facts to mean what you need them to mean to agree with you conclusion....circular thinking much?
> ...



CMB is black body...what was initially discovered, however, and which led to the discovery of CMB was a resonant radio frequency...not BB.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



CMB hit the antenna....pretty cool, eh?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You really are ignorant of what CMB is and what it appears as..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Educate me.
How did they detect CMB that didn't hit the antenna?

And where is your "magnetic photons" evidence?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Resonant radio frequency....not actual CMB.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



How does CMB create this magical resonant frequency? At what distance?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Resonace...In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency. Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are known as the system's resonant frequencies, or resonance frequencies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



*Resonace...In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system *

After the CMB hits the antenna it "drives another system".

Does this help your claim or highlight your error?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Sorry this is so far over your head....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



And that's why you'll run away instead of explaining the magical detection at a distance, eh?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2019)

Very Interesting... No equatorial ocean warming in over 40 years....







Bob Tisdale put up a post earlier today over at WUWT.  While he was discussing the reasons others are ignoring the ENSO perturbations and why they are at step increases without incline during the ocean recharge phase (indicating no CO2 induced warming during the recharge phase of the ENSO), one of his charts took me by surprise.  The chart above shows no warming of the equatorial oceans.  Essentially a zero anomaly over 40 years.

This intrigued me to over lay the solar spectral shift of 0.2um to 0.8um and where it shifted to, obtained from the ACE and GRACE satellite's. Solar output preceded the ENSO by 2-3 months and there was fairly good correlation to the overall spectral drop or increase over time. The record is far to short to draw conclusions, but it looks very promising.

Back to topic; With no warming of the ocean there can be no warming of the land masses.  And if there is no warming then someones records have been altered to show warming...  We have seen this problem before, haven't we?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Very Interesting... No equatorial ocean warming in over 40 years....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still looking for your "photons are magnetic" source?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CMB is black body...what was initially discovered, however, and which led to the discovery of CMB was a resonant radio frequency...not BB.



I know the game you are  playing. We both know that you believe that the CMB hit the much warmer antenna of Penzias and Wilson. But, of course you don't want to admit that. So you do the next best thing for you and create a smoke screen. So yes, they discovered a resonant radio frequency. That was certainly not the CMB. 

I will go one step further and say they discovered a number on an amplitude meter or maybe an unexpected placement of a wiggly line on a chart recorder. That definitely was not the CMB either. It was just ink. They noticed that different tunings of the resonant radio frequencies all had signals that represent amplitude levels a bit higher than the noise level of their detector. Those excess signals above the noise level weren't the CMB either. They were just higher signal levels.

They also noticed that a plot of the excess signal levels followed a graph of black body radiation a few degrees above 0 K. That wasn't the CMB either. It was just a graph. But nevertheless without actually seeing the CMB with their own eyes, they got the Nobel Prize because they inferred the CMB hit their antenna and bounced to their resonant radio frequency detector. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I know the game you are  playing. We both know that you believe that the CMB hit the much warmer antenna of Penzias and Wilson. But, of course you don't want to admit that. So you do the next best thing for you and create a smoke screen. So yes, they discovered a resonant radio frequency. That was certainly not the CMB.



No...the RADIO ANTENNA received a resonant frequency which could not be explained...it led to the discovery of CMB which is BB radiation....the resonant radio frequency the RADIO ANTENNA received was not BB radiation.

It is unfortunate that you have the tendency to interpret everything with the aim of supporting your narrative...it is why you will never learn anything new...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I know the game you are  playing. We both know that you believe that the CMB hit the much warmer antenna of Penzias and Wilson. But, of course you don't want to admit that. So you do the next best thing for you and create a smoke screen. So yes, they discovered a resonant radio frequency. That was certainly not the CMB.
> ...



*No...the RADIO ANTENNA received a resonant frequency which could not be explained..*

Neat!
From where did this resonant frequency originate?

*the resonant radio frequency the RADIO ANTENNA received was not BB radiation.*

What was the wavelength of the resonant frequency? 
What was the wavelength of the BB radiation?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No...the RADIO ANTENNA received a resonant frequency which could not be explained...it led to the discovery of CMB which is BB radiation....the resonant radio frequency the RADIO ANTENNA received was not BB radiation.
> 
> It is unfortunate that you have the tendency to interpret everything with the aim of supporting your narrative...it is why you will never learn anything new...


Nope, you can't fool us anymore. You really do believe the CMB as full black body spectrum hit the antenna. 

It is unfortunate that you are pretending to interpret everything with the aim of supporting your narrative to salve your ego.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Very Interesting... No equatorial ocean warming in over 40 years....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a baldfaced liar you are. Tisdale's article shows ocean warming with step ups that coincide with strong El Nino events.

This does not preclude a CO2 influence but it does show that natural factors are capable of swamping it with much larger changes.






I suppose this would fall into a category of non understood natural factors. As such it is not on Crick' s IPCC chart of anthropogenic forcing, although it seems to be making large contributions to global warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Very Interesting... No equatorial ocean warming in over 40 years....
> ...


Duck, dodge and weave....  Your doing it well..

Why wont you answer the question? Ignorant of molecular theory?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You want me to answer a question about your magnetic photons? DERP!

Keep dodging. LOL!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No...the RADIO ANTENNA received a resonant frequency which could not be explained...it led to the discovery of CMB which is BB radiation....the resonant radio frequency the RADIO ANTENNA received was not BB radiation.
> ...



You have already been fooled...that is why you believe that CMB itself was received by that radio antenna rather than a resonant radio frequency.

It is funny that you are accusing me of interpreting when you interpret everything that you see...typical of liberals to accuse their opponents of the very thing they are doing...did the hairball teach you that?  She is a champ at it,...a regular projector.

If I thought CMB BB radiation hit the antenna, I would say it..it didn't...that antenna picked up a resonant radio frequency...being a radio telescope and all..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You have already been fooled...that is why you believe that CMB itself was received by that radio antenna rather than a resonant radio frequency.
> 
> It is funny that you are accusing me of interpreting when you interpret everything that you see...typical of liberals to accuse their opponents of the very thing they are doing...did the hairball teach you that? She is a champ at it,...a regular projector.
> 
> If I thought CMB BB radiation hit the antenna, I would say it..it didn't...that antenna picked up a resonant radio frequency...being a radio telescope and all..



Nope you are still dodging. For sure you think the CMB does not change to resonant radio frequencies while traversing the atmosphere and hitting the antenna. 

*"If I thought CMB BB radiation hit the antenna, I would say it..it didn't."*​
Nope. If you thought that, you definitely would not admit to it. 

If you trace the path of CMB from space to the top down to the bottom of the atmosphere, and then to the antenna, and finally to the input of the detector, and then tell us at what point the CMB became resonant frequencies, you wouldn't be dodging. But as it is, you are definitely dodging.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Very Interesting... No equatorial ocean warming in over 40 years....
> ...


Your the one lying.... Let me help you..

"Thus, El Niño and La Niña events act together as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, with El Niño events acting as the discharge phase and La Niña events acting as the recharge phase."

With the cause clearly defined and no continuing up slope after the step increase CO2 is not causing a gradual warm up. There is no signal noted that would even suggest it is.

Had you read further you would have found this;
"The explanation for the upward steps for the most part has been overlooked…or the explanation might have been purposely ignored by the climate-science industry, because the financial foundation of their livelihoods is human-induced global warming not naturally occurring global warming. When you see how simple the explanation is for those naturally caused upward steps, you might conclude that the climate-science industry has, in fact, purposely ignored Mother Nature’s handiwork and willfully misled the public about the cause of global warming."

Now where are your CO2 superpowers?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Nope you are still dodging. For sure you think the CMB does not change to resonant radio frequencies while traversing the atmosphere and hitting the antenna.



If you are going to fantasize about what you think I believe...and fabricate arguments from me to argue against, then I really don't need to talk to you at all, do I?  That's good because you are becoming as boring, if not more boring than toddster.  

I would say it has been nice talking to you...but it really hasn't....and unlike you, I am not a liar so I feel obligated to say what I really think.

​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope you are still dodging. For sure you think the CMB does not change to resonant radio frequencies while traversing the atmosphere and hitting the antenna.
> ...



So you'll be running away again?
Running away without explaining the magic behind your "detectable at a distance, no need to actually touch the antenna" microwaves?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope you are still dodging. For sure you think the CMB does not change to resonant radio frequencies while traversing the atmosphere and hitting the antenna.
> ...


Define what you mean by boring. Does that mean running off and hiding because you were caught with your pants down after painting yourself into a corner?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



Boring is watching a hamster run around on a wheel as if he were getting somewhere.  You are the hamster...trying all the tricks you can think of (boring as they are) in an attempt to get around the second law of thermodynamics...and the SB law and anything else that challenges your belief...

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.

Till this law changes, it states my position...precisely as it is written...when the law changes, my position will change with it...watching you run round on the wheel endlessly trying to get around that statement is...quite frankly....boring...and when you start recycling the same old shit that failed the first time...it is very very boring...and the very idea that you believe you chased me anywhere is both funny and terribly boring...

The truth of the matter is that the word tedious describes what it is like talking to you better than the word boring.

Boring -to weary by dullness

Tedious - marked by monotony or tedium; long and tiresome


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Naw. I think you are using boredom as an excuse to run off because you can't justify why you think the CMB miraculously changes into a "resonance frequency" before it hits the earth. I understand. You can go in shame if you want. 


.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



I don't make excuses...I find you tedious...whatever we are talking about at any given post...if you go back though the forum...that same conversation can be found over and over and over...the very definition of tedium...look in the Oxford English dictionary...next to tedious is a picture of you.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I don't make excuses...I find you tedious...whatever we are talking about at any given post...if you go back though the forum...that same conversation can be found over and over and over...the very definition of tedium...look in the Oxford English dictionary...next to tedious is a picture of you.



Nope. Your tedium permeates this forum. Many here have shown you many references, excerpts from texts, original papers, and references. We have shown you mechanisms and counter examples to your bizarre physics such as,

_Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.
Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface._

What have you shown us? Tedium. The same recitation of the second law and the SB equation without any observed, measured experiments on why radiation from a cold must not hit a hotter object. You *have not* showed us a mechanism how (smart) photons can can avoid hitting a hotter object. You *have not* showed where you think the BB CMB is turned into resonance frequencies in their path to the earth. You *have not* shown how sunlight can get past the hotter corona.

You have not shown us anything but your tedious mantra of the second law and SB equation, which you don't understand at all.

That is tedium.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> _Chemical light stick._


_

Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..



Wuwei said:



			Slow decay phosphorescence
		
Click to expand...


Refer to the second law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay....apparenlty some nutty argument that radioactivity is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics.  Attempt to equate radioactivity with infrared radiation



Wuwei said:



			Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
		
Click to expand...


Refer to the second law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay....apparenlty some nutty argument that radioactivity is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics.  Attempt to equate radioactivity with infrared radiation



Wuwei said:



			Luminescence from plants and animals
		
Click to expand...

Living creature...body is doing work to produce luminescence...luminescence stops shortly after death...not spontaneous.



Wuwei said:



			Cosmic microwave background
		
Click to expand...


Initially discovered via resonant radio frequency....later actual BB CMB was studied using properly cooled instruments



Wuwei said:



			Sunlight passing through hotter corona.
		
Click to expand...


Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.



Wuwei said:



			Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface.
		
Click to expand...

_
_Molecules are neither energy, nor radiation..any actual evidence that the molecule is imparting energy to the warmer surface?  Didn't think so?  Plenty of observational evidence that the gas warms as a result of conduction from the wall..

Same Shit Different Day.

In the future, before you bring up the same shit....refer to the first time the topic was covered..or the second...or the third...or the fourth...I won't be going over it again...nor will I be looking up the original arguments for you.  I will prepare a stock cut and paste referral back to any of the multiple times the topic has been discussed for when you get the idea in your nutty brain that somehow you have won the discussion via sheer tedium.

When you get something new, let me know....or when they change the second law of thermodynamics to state that energy can spontaneously move from a less organized state to a more organized state...do let me know._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > _Chemical light stick._
> ...



*Initially discovered via resonant radio frequency....later actual BB CMB was studied using properly cooled instruments*

If you cool the receiver, you can "trick" CMB photons to move through the much warmer atmosphere?
Is there anything your magic photons can't do?

You never did explain how an antenna detects something that never actually touches it...BTW.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..


No work is happening when the light stick is glowing. If you think work prior to the event is a criteria for spontaneity, then there is no possible experiment or event by man on earth that is spontaneous.



SSDD said:


> Refer to the second law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay....apparenlty some nutty argument that radioactivity is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics. Attempt to equate radioactivity with infrared radiation


Phosphorescence is not radio active decay! It is spontaneous release of atomic energy *after *work was done to raise the energy levels. No work is done by glowing mineral phosphors.



SSDD said:


> Living creature...body is doing work to produce luminescence...luminescence stops shortly after death...not spontaneous.


It is spontaneous shortly after death then, while the chemicals are still reacting on their own.



SSDD said:


> Initially discovered via resonant radio frequency....later actual BB CMB was studied using properly cooled instruments


The cosmic microwave background hit the warmer earth, and you are lying about it again.



SSDD said:


> Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.


Really? Tell us about it then. Don't just run away.



SSDD said:


> Molecules are neither energy, nor radiation..any actual evidence that the molecule is imparting energy to the warmer surface? Didn't think so? Plenty of observational evidence that the gas warms as a result of conduction from the wall..


Molecules of any gas adjacent to a warmer surface must strike the surface with kinetic energy. The observed evidence is easy. If the molecules are in a warmer box, there would be no pressure from the gas and the box would collapse under atmospheric pressure. Read about the kinetic theory of gases for god sake. How do you think conduction from the walls of a warm surface could even happen if the gas molecules never come into contact. 



SSDD said:


> When you get something new, let me know....or when they change the second law of thermodynamics to state that energy can spontaneously move from a less organized state to a more organized state...do let me know.


Hold on! Nobody here has ever stated or believed that energy can move from a less organized state to a more organized state. That is a straw-man. Is that the best you can come up with? You are failing fast. Any more comments on why you think photons from a cold surface cannot hit a warm surface? No? We are all waiting for your stock cut and paste.


.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.



So you think the sun's energy is not spontaneous but comes from work. Then no energy transfers on earth that are due to sun energy are likewise spontaneous. That means CO2 can backscatter because work was involved in heating it.



SSDD said:


> Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..



So if anything man-made involves work, then by your own reasoning, energy form a lower temperature light can strike a higher temperature light because work was done by man in creating the energy to power the lights.

You really don't need to cool detectors since they are man-made. By your own reasoning warm man-made detectors aiming up from the surface of the earth can actually receive energy from the colder CO2 since the CO2 was heated by a sun doing work.

Your self contradictory fizzics is fascinating, albeit stupid.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> No work is happening when the light stick is glowing. If you think work prior to the event is a criteria for spontaneity, then there is no possible experiment or event by man on earth that is spontaneous.



So let me guess...you believe that no work was done to make it happen...that wuwei is exactly how stupid you are.



SSDD said:


> Phosphorescence is not radio active decay! It is spontaneous release of atomic energy *after *work was done to raise the energy levels. No work is done by glowing mineral phosphors.



No...phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous...no absorption of energy...no later emission of energy...We have covered this all before.  

What?  Do you simply erase all your losses and actually believe you are starting with a clean slate and that you have a winning argument this time?  Do you know the definition of insanity?



SSDD said:


> It is spontaneous shortly after death then, while the chemicals are still reacting on their own.



Nope...the effect after death is the result of work having been done...it is residual and soon stops when the energy stored by the work done runs out...not spontanoeus..  You really don't remember losing these points before?  What makes you think these ridiculous examples are valid this time...

It is terribly tedious reminding you over and over and over again.





SSDD said:


> Really? Tell us about it then. Don't just run away.



Refer to any of the dozens of times it has been explained to both you and toddster...shouldn't be hard to find.  Here is a hint..the latest theory begins with the letter A.



SSDD said:


> Molecules of any gas adjacent to a warmer surface must strike the surface with kinetic energy. The observed evidence is easy.



Yeah...the observed evidence is that the wall cools down because it is losing energy to the cooler gas...no evidence whatsoever that the wall gains any energy at all.  Again..covered over and over...your ridiculous arguments lay shredded across the landscape of this board...look them up.




SSDD said:


> Hold on! Nobody here has ever stated or believed that energy can move from a less organized state to a more organized state.



Warm is more organized than cool...Low frequency is less organized than high frequency...the potential energy of a rock at the bottom of a hill is less organized than a rock at the top of a hill...the energy represented by pressurized air in a tire is more organized than the energy represented by the air in the atmosphere...energy never moves from a less organized state to a more organized state and yet every argument you make is trying to claim exactly that...that energy is moving spontaneously from a less organized state to a more organized state.

Therein lies the fundamental tedium of talking to you...the same stupid, poorly thought out, shitty examples of your lack of critical thinking skills over and over and over and over.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No work is happening when the light stick is glowing. If you think work prior to the event is a criteria for spontaneity, then there is no possible experiment or event by man on earth that is spontaneous.
> ...



*No...phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous..*

No...downward LWIR is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous..

And that's why back radiation happens, despite your confusion.

IanC Wuwei Crick


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No work is happening when the light stick is glowing. If you think work prior to the event is a criteria for spontaneity, then there is no possible experiment or event by man on earth that is spontaneous.
> ...





SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > _Chemical light stick._
> ...



I'm truly sorry you find physics so tedious. But let's analyze your idea of spontaneity in physics.

So you say that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended. That almost sounds like a new law in thermodynamics. That certainly gives new meaning to your oft quoted Clausius statement of the second law:

_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._
(Note that the bold faced phrase is past tense.)​
Also you had said man-made devices cannot create a spontaneous process because of the manufacturing work. So you have given us some new concepts of applications.

As Tod indicated, you said light from the sun involves work (and is thereby not spontaneous.) So all earthly processes that rely on the sun are never spontaneous. CO2 can thereby emit back-radiation.

A warm man-made spectrometer can receive colder radiation.

Two objects heated by scientists in a lab can always exchange radiation no matter their temperature difference.

A cold person can radiate heat to a heater since the heater is man-made and doing work, and the person (who is woman-made) is doing work via his metabolism.

So, to me that sounds like no process in physics is ever spontaneous, unless you can name a spontaneous process that involves no prior work.

Don't let Billy or JC or polarbear or Skook or Frank or Westwall et. al. know your new concept of energy flow or they will be very disappointed in you.

You can go off in that direction if you want, but I will stick with the entropy statement of the second law.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I'm truly sorry you find physics so tedious. But let's analyze your idea of spontaneity in physics.



I find physics endlessly interesting..you, on the other hand, are quite tedious.



Wuwei said:


> So you say that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended. That almost sounds like a new law in thermodynamics. That certainly gives new meaning to your oft quoted Clausius statement of the second law:



I don't say it...physics says it.  Here...one last attempt to provide you with a definition easy enough for you to understand.

What Is a Spontaneous Process?

A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own. For example, a ball will roll down an incline, water will flow downhill, ice will melt into water, radioisotopes will decay, and iron will rust. No intervention is required because these processes are thermodynamically favorable. In other words, the initial energy is higher than the final energy.

_


Wuwei said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

_


Wuwei said:


> (Note that the bold faced phrase is past tense.)​





Wuwei said:


> Also you had said man-made devices cannot create a spontaneous process because of the manufacturing work. So you have given us some new concepts of applications.



New to you perhaps...but not to science....or people who actually understand what the term spontaneous means...by the way...work being done..or work having been done is irrelevant...the speed at which a process occurs has nothing to do with whether or not it is spontaneous...  Here...from the same link:

Note how _quickly_ a process occurs has no bearing on whether or not it is spontaneous. It may take a long time for rust to become obvious, yet when iron is exposed to air the process will occur. A radioactive isotope may decay instantly or after thousands or millions or even billions of years.



Wuwei said:


> As Tod indicated, you said light from the sun involves work (and is thereby not spontaneous.) So all earthly processes that rely on the sun are never spontaneous. CO2 can thereby emit back-radiation.[;/quote]
> 
> You know who is stupid?  People who try to find a way around the second law of thermodynamics...
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

Yet, when it is convenient to you, you care about the ball having been carried up the hill and the iron having been smelted from iron oxide.

You seem to have reversed your expressed viewpoint.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> Yet, when it is convenient to you, you care about the ball having been carried up the hill and the iron having been smelted from iron oxide.
> 
> You seem to have reversed your expressed viewpoint.



Sorry skidmark...my position hasn't changed whatsoever...when did I ever suggest that rust was not a spontaneous process?  And if you carry a rock up a hill, then you provided work to put it there...


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

The example you just provided gave a rock rolling down a hill as an example of spontaneous release of energy.

and this



SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > _Chemical light stick._
> ...


_

You pick and choose what you find convenient._


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> The example you just provided gave a rock rolling down a hill as an example of spontaneous release of energy.
> 
> and this
> 
> ...



Let me guess...you think all rocks must be carried up a hill in order for them to find themselves there.  You really are that stupid...aren't you?

As to the light stick...again, refer to the definition of spontaneous process...
"A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings."

Do you really think that a light stick requires no energy input from its surroundings in order to light up?  In order to exist?  Light sticks, like light bulbs etc are the product of work and nothing about them is spontaneous..

I do get a laugh out of you making such stupid statements after you have claimed to be an engineer....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The example you just provided gave a rock rolling down a hill as an example of spontaneous release of energy.
> ...



*"A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings."*

And that's why the atmosphere can emit toward the warmer ground...…...not spontaneous.
And that's why the Sun's surface can emit toward the warmer corona...…...not spontaneous.
And that's why the Earth can emit toward the warmer thermosphere...…...not spontaneous.
And that's why my walls can emit toward my warmer body...…...not spontaneous.

That's a relief.
We can dispense with the epicycles.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Do you work at being that stupid, or does it just come natural?


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

We might certainly ask you the same question - and with real reason


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I'm truly sorry you find physics so tedious. But let's analyze your idea of spontaneity in physics.
> ...




Your reply is way beyond your ability to think in physics terms. You lack intuitive understanding of physics. You totally missed the self-contradiction I was referring to and launched into a doubling down on you idiocy in understanding the* concept of spontaneous as it is defined and used in physics. *


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Let me guess...you think all rocks must be carried up a hill in order for them to find themselves there. You really are that stupid...aren't you?


Imagine two hills. Hill #1 has a rock on it. On hill #2 a person just carried a rock to the top of the hill, placed it there and then left. 

The ground being unstable both rocks rolled down the hill.... You are saying #1 was spontaneous, # 2 was not spontaneous. 
That is a pretty stupid way of thinking about gravitational potential energy turning into kinetic energy. Really stupid. 



SSDD said:


> As to the light stick...again, refer to the definition of spontaneous process...
> "A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings."
> 
> Do you really think that a light stick requires no energy input from its surroundings in order to light up? In order to exist? Light sticks, like light bulbs etc are the product of work and nothing about them is spontaneous.



That goes back to your definition that that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended. And anything man-made cannot result in a spontaneous action. 

Here are counterexamples and the self-contradictory conclusions of your hypotheses. 
A man-made toaster can receive energy from a man-made cold slice of bread. That would of course be two-way energy exchange which everyone believes but you. 

Similarly a person can radiate body warmth toward the sun because both are doing work. 

According to you any experiment assembled in a lab is never spontaneous because it would be man-made. This would include any experiment involving temperature differences where radiation must be exchanged because of the work having been done. 

Remember I am not promoting any science here. You don't need to argue the science again.  I am simply saying you have been continually contradicting yourself. That is a serious logical fallacy. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> We might certainly ask you the same question - and with real reason



Says the moron who can't read a simple graph...what a laugh.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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




So is that your dodgy way of saying that you can't provide any such measurements?  

Do you have any idea of how loud I am laughing in your face...you...who jumps on any crazy train that you think might take you on a scenic trip around the second law of thermodynamics...you..who argued for days that a f'ing flashlight represented a spontaneous release of energy?  You are an endless source of mirth....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The ground being unstable both rocks rolled down the hill.... You are saying #1 was spontaneous, # 2 was not spontaneous.
> That is a pretty stupid way of thinking about gravitational potential energy turning into kinetic energy. Really stupid.



The definition of spontaneous is that there is no energy input from the outside...what is stupid is not being able to figure out what that means.



Wuwei said:


> That goes back to your definition that that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended. And anything man-made cannot result in a spontaneous action.



It isn't my definition...it is science's definition... I just cut it and pasted it here...clearly it was a waste of time since anything that challenges your beliefs is immediately rejected.  Another endless tedious characteristic you possess in spades.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The ground being unstable both rocks rolled down the hill.... You are saying #1 was spontaneous, # 2 was not spontaneous.
> ...



*The definition of spontaneous is that there is no energy input from the outside...what is stupid is not being able to figure out what that means.*

GHGs in the atmosphere have any energy input from the outside?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So is that your dodgy way of saying that you can't provide any such measurements?
> 
> Do you have any idea of how loud I am laughing in your face...you...who jumps on any crazy train that you think might take you on a scenic trip around the second law of thermodynamics...you..who argued for days that a f'ing flashlight represented a spontaneous release of energy? You are an endless source of mirth....


Your maniacal mirth is a non-response to a physics issue that makes you look like a total fool. BTW you are only laughing at your monitor, not my face.



SSDD said:


> The definition of spontaneous is that there is no energy input from the outside...what is stupid is not being able to figure out what that means.



As I said by your own definition you cannot name any process that is not spontaneous. But these counterexamples and the self-contradictory conclusions of your hypotheses are what make you like a total idiot. You always said that energy can't flow from a colder to a warmer object without exception. However these are now your exceptions. 

A man-made toaster can receive energy from a man-made cold slice of bread. That would of course be two-way energy exchange which everyone believes but you.

Similarly a person can radiate body warmth toward the sun because both are doing work.

Also, of more relevance, CO2 can back-radiate to earth because of the work involved. 

According to you any experiment assembled in a lab is never spontaneous because it would be man-made. This would include any experiment involving temperature differences where radiation must be exchanged because of the work having been done.

You don't need to argue the science again. I am simply saying you have been continually seriously contradicting yourself. That is why I'm laughing at my monitor (but not in your face.)

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Your maniacal mirth is a non-response to a physics issue that makes you look like a total fool. BTW you are only laughing at your monitor, not my face.



refer to all the past instances in which you were asked to provide some actual evidence to support your beliefs...and the best you could do was come up with ridiculous examples that were just good enough to fool you.




Wuwei said:


> As I said by your own definition you cannot name any process that is not spontaneous.{/quote]
> 
> Simply not true...but then you are a bald faced liar...refer to all the past times you were shown to be a liar...


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

Same Shit, your self-refutations, contradictions and convolutions have done nothing but show you a complete and utter dunce.  It is YOUR completely arbitrary choices as to what does and does not constitute a spontaneous event that has everyone here simply shaking their head at your nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, your self-refutations, contradictions and convolutions have done nothing but show you a complete and utter dunce.  It is YOUR completely arbitrary choices as to what does and does not constitute a spontaneous event that has everyone here simply shaking their head at your nonsense.



Says a fake engineer who can't even read a simple graph...laughing in your face skidmark.  Bet you think a flashlight represents a spontaneous emission of energy as well...go ahead and admit it...you do...don't you?


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

I have not, so far, had any involvement in this discussion on spontaneous emissions.  And, given your habit of flip-flopping on a near-hourly basis what you claim to be and not be spontaneous, I will continue to steer clear.  I just wanted you to know that your flip flopping has been noticed by everyone paying any attention to all this and it makes you look the fool; an accurate impression as far as I can tell.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> refer to all the past instances in which you were asked to provide some actual evidence to support your beliefs...and the best you could do was come up with ridiculous examples that were just good enough to fool you



I see you are dancing around again. You continually shoot yourself in the foot. You have been making two points: 

1. Two-way heat flow *never happens*. 

2. Two way heat flow* always happens* to anything that was man-made or had prior work done.

That includes practically every instance involving heat. Those two points are self-contradictory. Do you know what that even means?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The ground being unstable both rocks rolled down the hill.... You are saying #1 was spontaneous, # 2 was not spontaneous.
> ...



*The definition of spontaneous is that there is no energy input from the outside...what is stupid is not being able to figure out what that means.*

GHGs in the atmosphere have any energy input from the outside?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 16, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The energy passes through the tube. Its was never captured by the atmosphere of the tube because it could not react to it. You don't even understand how or why the experiment was set up. We proved that >99% of the energy emitted by black bodies on earth is lost to space as the atmosphere is incapable of warming due to LWIR over >89% of the planet due to the lack of water vapor in the atmosphere.



When is your paper being published?
Still undergoing peer review?


----------

