AGW: atmospheric physics

[gslack]

Sorry admiral

Nice attempted evasion, you walking lump of chickenshit, but I'm still steering the topic back towards your idiot science. I await to see what new meltdown it elicits from you. If you just want to cry "uncle!", you can do that as well.

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?

AAAAHHHHHH WRONG!!!!!!

Again admiral you can't post honestly and with integrity or substance, you don't get legitimate discussion from me.. You had your chance, you chose to be a lying tool and general douchebag.. Even now you can't state my claims honestly, so why bother?

You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity.

So.. Here ya go...

 

[mamooth]

You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity

If any person on this board had ever discovered me lying, you wouldn't look like such a butthurt crybaby, snivelling because I keep humiliating you over the science. Like this:

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?

(Fail to answer this time, and we'll just all assume you answered "Yes" to everything.)

 

[gslack]

You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity

If any person on this board had ever discovered me lying, you wouldn't look like such a butthurt crybaby, snivelling because I keep humiliating you over the science. Like this:

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?

(Fail to answer this time, and we'll just all assume you answered "Yes" to everything.)

LOL... I know you are but what am I?

I'm rubber, you're glue...

See I can play the juvenile game too... Watch...

Do you still pick your nose?

Do you still believe you are the wrong gender?

Do you still have strange fantasies about me?

Do you like to pretend you are an admiral?

Do you fear rejection?

(Fail to answer this time, and we'll just all assume you answered "Yes" to everything.)

 

[mamooth]

You understand this is a science thread, and not your stalky insults thread?

If you don't want to discuss science, then why are you on this thread? After all, forum rules say content has to go along with the insults. I may slip occasionally, as do we all, but you're the only who entirely avoids content and sticks purely to insults.

Or look at it this way. Any thread you appear on turns to shit. Do you think that's everyone else's fault?

 

[gslack]

You understand this is a science thread, and not your stalky insults thread?

If you don't want to discuss science, then why are you on this thread? After all, forum rules say content has to go along with the insults. I may slip occasionally, as do we all, but you're the only who entirely avoids content and sticks purely to insults.

Or look at it this way. Any thread you appear on turns to shit. Do you think that's everyone else's fault?

A yes to everything then got it...

Just giving back what you gave out admiral. If you don't like it don't do it...

Look what I found for you!

 

[Saigon]

I wonder if there is anyone on these environment threads who hasn't just put Gslack on Ignore Mode?

 

[gslack]

I wonder if there is anyone on these environment threads who hasn't just put Gslack on Ignore Mode?

Not you or the 3 other you... Not PB, not west, not anybody really... Why not be the first? Start a trend and ignore me... Go on socko, think of how much easier your lives would be. No one embarrassing you, catching you at your socketry, outing your false identities as fakes, your life would be wonderful!

So man up socko ignore me... Stop talkin shit, stop weaseling, ignore me... Can't because you couldn't pull your fake army of 3 or 4 attacks...

ROFL, ignore me? Do it...

I saw your mom earlier. She told me to give you this when I saw you....



This ones from me...

 

[westwall]

You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity

If any person on this board had ever discovered me lying, you wouldn't look like such a butthurt crybaby, snivelling because I keep humiliating you over the science. Like this:

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?

(Fail to answer this time, and we'll just all assume you answered "Yes" to everything.)

Ummmm, you've been caught lying on several occasions there............. admiral.

 

[westwall]

I wonder if there is anyone on these environment threads who hasn't just put Gslack on Ignore Mode?

Gslack is amusing unlike you. I get amused watching you have your hat handed to you, but you, you are simply boring. Most uneducated propagandists are I have found. They lack imagination due to lack of intellect.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

If you have actually conceded defeat on science and will now stick to just posting witless taunts at the people who defeated you, perhaps just anounce that so everyone can put you on ignore as well.

Or are you one day going to go back to explain how the New Zealand glaciers are growing, despite the fact that every source known to man says they are not?

 

[gslack]

Westwall -

If you have actually conceded defeat on science and will now stick to just posting witless taunts at the people who defeated you, perhaps just anounce that so everyone can put you on ignore as well.

Or are you one day going to go back to explain how the New Zealand glaciers are growing, despite the fact that every source known to man says they are not?

And the obligatory sock comment to give a false impression of support... Nice..

That's the kicker socko.. you can't control yourself. You will keep the proxy game going and manufacture as much fake support you think it will take, and then when you finally feel safe, you're gonna get caught socking... It will happen socko...

But in the meantime...

 

[polarbear]

You're incapable of honesty,and you have no integrity

If any person on this board had ever discovered me lying, you wouldn't look like such a butthurt crybaby, snivelling because I keep humiliating you over the science. Like this:

Are you still claiming that if you shine two heat lamps on an object, it won't get any hotter than if you shine one heat lamp on it?

Still claiming that photons magically vanish into a mystery dimension if they see a hot molecule in front of them?

Still claiming that the mystical powers of "equilibrium" can even cause a significant part of a star's energy output to simply vanish?

Still getting the 2nd Law completely wrong in every aspect?

Still creating an entirely new branch of whackaloon physics that the planet has never seen before?

(Fail to answer this time, and we'll just all assume you answered "Yes" to everything.)

Ummmm, you've been caught lying on several occasions there............. admiral.

Yep, just like I thought nothing but Gilligan Island's Admiral garbage.
No response from IanC about photons traversing glass or 2 polarizing filters at 90 deg,...or the thermistor inside a black tube in a warm room that cooled off instead of getting warmer.
Now it`s about 2 heat lamps aimed at a spot which gets hotter, while the contention was that the cooler heat lamp is supposed to be able to heat the hotter heat lamp to even hotter temperatures...which also means that the heat sink fins of a power transistor should fry a power transistor in a vacuum chamber...which according to the "Admiral" has less to do with "back-radiation" than more heat lamps focused on on single spot.
No matter how often you tell them how easy it is to show that the "blacker" a body has the higher the rate of energy loss at the same temperature than the not so black body,...like the CO2 above the "blacker" body, the earth`s surface. You don`t need an acetylene torch to soot a glass. I can be done with a candle. And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it....which according to Spencer should warm the water in the dark glass.
These morons keep coming back for a "rematch" no matter how many times they`ve been defeated being hopelessly outgunned

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9zpD7mWOw0&feature=youtu.be"]Outgunned - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

If you have actually conceded defeat on science and will now stick to just posting witless taunts at the people who defeated you, perhaps just anounce that so everyone can put you on ignore as well.

Or are you one day going to go back to explain how the New Zealand glaciers are growing, despite the fact that every source known to man says they are not?

I have to say, I find your level of delusion interesting. Your OWN SIDE is telling you that we sceptics were correct, but you fanatics plug your ears and go "lalalalala".

When the realisation finally hits you...as it most certainly will, I hope you have access to some mental health facility near your moms basement.

I really do.

 

[bripat9643]

I wonder if there is anyone on these environment threads who hasn't just put Gslack on Ignore Mode?

I love watching glsack smack you around.

You can't buy better entertainment!

 

[SSDD]

I am IanC. I am not a physicist, but I play one on USMB everyday...

I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express one evening...should have registered for a Nobel. These days, the award has been so degraded that it doesn't take much more than that.

 

[IanC]

numan had it wrong.

it's not so much you have to worry getting fleas from lying down with dogs as it is that when you get down in the mud to wrestle pigs, the pigs enjoy it.

 

[IanC]

we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.

I don't recall having any discussion about that. I brought it up to siagon who promptly ignored the observable evidence that backradiation isn't happening. I don't think anyone else even mentioned it till polar bear's reference.

the message board didnt start when you arrived. Im sure you could find it if you look hard enough

 

[IanC]

The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.

we had a rather prolonged discussion of the solar oven/fridge.

you used your telescope and complained that magnifying cool radiation from the outside (or at least the cool windowpane) did not heat the focal point. in fact it cooled it as I had predicted. you refused to point it at an object warmer than ambient temperature which would have warmed the focal point (and cooled the object).

Come on IanC, don`t twist that story around. If I find the time I`ll dig up your replies when I posted this video.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZLePMMegOg&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=21"]Roy Spencer debunked - YouTube[/ame]
1.) I did not complain
2.)you were the one that complained [2]
3.) you did not predict anything
4.) I did not refuse to point the telescope at something warm.[3]
[2] You claimed that the thermistor cooled down because my "solar fridge" was only inches away from a cold window...and said that`s why it got cold.
To which I replied that I got R30 thermal windows and you could see that they are because they don`t fog up at sub zero outside temperatures. So if anything that telescope was pointed smack dab point blank at an object which was > 30 C warmer than the outside.[3]
+ I allowed that thermistor to stabilize at room temperature, which was +25 C. Then I slid it through the eye piece opening into the focal point.
The telescope is a [4] black Aluminum tube 34 inches long and 6" diameter.
The tube + the air inside the tube was at +25 C, just like my window.

As soon as the thermistor was in the focal point it cooled off rapidly....despite the fact that it was fully enclosed in a warm metal tube which was full of warm air inside my warm kitchen.
That 34 by 6 inch tube had every opportunity to "back radiate" to the thermistor to keep it at the same temperature or as Roy Spencer would have it warm up even more than when it was out in the open and the nearest warm objects were the 4 walls it was in.
[4] That black Aluminum tube is not exactly an ideal black body, but a much better one than what "climate scientists" assigned as average albedo to planet earth...it`s at least as good as a blacktop road.
And by the way IanC, I`m pretty sure that there were ~ 380 ppm CO2 in my house at that time too.
So now go look on your favorite diagram up how much IR is bouncing around inside a +25 C room and read again what Roy Spencer says should happen to a warm piece of metal being "bombarded by back-radiation photons" coming from a warm window.
You keep pointing out (correctly) that photons inside a warm room go in all possible directions. They had every opportunity to be absorbed by that pitch black metal tube....which certainly does not forbid photons to radiate off the inside surface of the telescope tube...and warm the air + the thermistor inside.
Don`t forget there was an equally warm 6 inch mirror in the telescope zapping that thermistor with a +25 C photon spectrum...while it cooled off



And before the lying Siamese cat who promised to f-off from this forum chimes in again...the jury is in and pronounced you a fraud.
However, I`ll give you 1 more chance. That phony "cell phone picture" which you say had it`s digital fingerprint altered by photobucket...which is a lie, because yours is the only one they did that to...
Snap that picture again and this time put 4 pennies on that document. Alternate them heads and tails...then upload that picture and link to it.

do you really believe that the strawmen you conjure up were actually spoken by the people you attribute them to?

the solar oven works because sunlight is reflected in such a way as all the surfaces receive incident shortwave while only longwave IR goes in the other direction.

at night only longwave IR from a cold atmosphere comes in but the longwave IR from the object at the focal point is free to leave of course.

the light from the sun is more energetic than the IR from the object in the solar oven, which in turn is more energetic than the radiation coming down from a cold atmosphere.

therefore the object heats up when the solar oven is pointed at the sun, and the object cools down when pointed at the night time sky. all due to the imbalance of radiation. in the first case the sun cools down and the object heats up, in the second case the object cools down and the atmosphere warms up. what could be more simple? how could you misunderstand that?

I am unsure how you think the effect of CO2 can be determined by such a set up.

 

[IanC]

Every direction all the time. If you want to play word games like Johnson and call it harmonic reflection or whatever, I don't care. The end conclusion is exactly the same simply with an added (superfluous) layer of complexity.

Prove it. Simple as that. Prove it by providing an observed measured example of backradiation at ambient temperature. Otherwise...you are just talking.

we have been over this, time and again. does all radiation stop in an area that is all at the same temperature? if it does, how and why. if it doesnt, same question.