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

[polarbear]

But here we got an entire group of idiots that figure that there must be more photons per m^2 if they can read a label better and if they can`t then there are less photons.

That would be because it's true. Non-retards understand that having more light makes it easier to read. It's funny watching you go into these idiot contortions, trying to deny something that everyone else learned way before kindergarten. You could just say "oops, I was wrong", but you're emotionally incapable of that, so ever deeper into the stupid hole you now dig.

According to them photons disappear when you shine a red light on a red text and have trouble reading it...or if you place a blue object in front of a blue wall and have to look twice before you can make it out.

Lose the red herrings. Spectrum has zilch to do with anything we're discussing here. It doesn't matter what wavelength you use. If the walls reflect whatever wavelength you're using, then the light level of that wavelength in the room will increase.

(Notice how even your loyal lickspittles don't want to jump up on this stupid wagon with you? That should give you a clue about how stupid you look.)

And by the way, sniveling about how mean I am won't get me to stop tearing you to pieces. That just encourages me.

Unfortunately, the Crusty Crab caught ME and you being inexact.. And of course, used that opportunity to pummel us instead of engaging in anything truely useful..

The problem is our sloppy accounting for photons. In your example, if 20% of photons are absorbed by a white wall, we neglect to account for the wavelength conversion that occurs when the energy is RE-Emitted by white wall as IR longwave photons.

The deal is -- a black wall reduces EM emissions to HEAT faster than a white wall. And as such removes VISIBLE photons (and indeed the sum total of all photon energy) faster from the area. And for all practical purposes, changes the distribution of VISIBLE photons in the area.

So Mr. Krabbe -- we all know this. There is no advantage to trying to trip us on not being entirely rigorous. I agree - i was somewhat sloppy, but not incapable of doing it completely correct.

Mammoth is happy to simply have more visible light, which is true, but what that has to do with back-radiated IR is beyond me..

Now can we get to why you want to deny that the atmosphere is exchanging photon energy with the surface even IF it's usually cooler? If the BLACK WALL is emitting long wave energy to ALL objects in the room --- are some of them IMMUNE from being heated because they are warmer than the wall?

Now look, I`m not in the habit of splitting hairs like a lawyer but in an exact science like physics there is no room for ambiguity.
Especially when we are talking about temperature increases of just a fraction of 1 degree over several decades and discuss the last 15 years where there was no T-increase at all, despite ppm CO2 going up,...in fact the trend was reversed more often than it was at a steady state or has increased.
I highlighted in red where you are either dead wrong or phrased it so that it came out dead wrong for anyone who made their (professional) living using physics.

(and indeed {removes}the sum total of all photon energy) faster from the area.

That is fundamentally wrong!...unless you want to switch the subject from the radiative transfer inside that room to heat conduction from the walls to the outside. Then I`ll counter like Roy Spencer etc would with a "heat insulation", essentially denying you your heat conduction to the outside argument and confine your thoughts to the inside of that room.
Have you forgotten that the sum of the total energy quanta that the photons carried in the visual range is still the same (total energy ) quanta-sum when the shorter wavelenght ( λ-1 ) that a black body (or wall) converted to "heat energy" as is carried by the now more numerous λ-2 longer wavelength IR photons that are now emitted after the black body (or wall) λ-2 > λ-1 to photon wavelength swap ?

There is no such process that can make energy disappear...or "magnify" it (like IanC would have it). You can only convert it to another form of energy. There is no question concerning that most fundamental principle in physics.
But there are many questions how much more incoming sunlight can be emitted from a less than perfect black body earth, using a crudely estimated albedo and "calculating" how much 15 µm IR is emitted and redirected down by CO2 instead of up.
Heinz Hug from the Max Planck Institute measured and calculated that to be :

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]

IanC has a lot of trouble understanding the difference between "heat" as in tempertaure and "heat energy" and goes ballistic every time I quote Heinz or anybody else from the Max Planck Institute (that racked up the most Nobel Prizes in physics) so I thought I humor him and re-did Heinz`s calculations using "effective temperature" instead of watts or watt seconds/m^2 heat energy:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...the-atmosphere-is-what-we-28.html#post7305734

I guess it all boils down to the simple fact that the CO2 15 µm absorption band absorbs more incoming 15µm solar IR than the earth can produce at a comfortable temperature....which the CO2 is supposed to absorb and "back radiate".At the distance we are from the sun the CO2 in the atmosphere shields us from about 20 times more IR watts per m^2 @ 15 µm than what a 20 to 30 C warm earth could possibly produce as IR energy at that wave band with the rest of the solar radiation that went through down to the surface .

The peak IR at +20 C is nowhere near the 15 µm CO2 absorption band but is at 9.88 µm and gets shorter the warmer...in other words even farther away from the absorption band. If you integrate from 14 to 16 µm, straddling the 15 µm peak all you get is a total band radiance: 12.3786 W/m2/sr....of which only 6.2 W/m2/sr is in the center of CO2 absorption spectral line.

But let`s be generous and give them the whole band.
We can also drop the "sr" the solid angle because the IPCC says it does not matter, all of it is absorbed because the surface is surrounded by CO2.
But they also say that 50% of that goes up and out and the other 50 % radiate back.
That leaves us with 3.1 watts/m^2 "back radiation" from CO2 compared to ~250 watts/m^2 that were shielded by the CO2 in the upper part of our atmosphere.
Next lets put the amount of energy which is absorbed in the first 10 meters above ground with over 300 ppm CO2 into a Temperature perspective. Energy is not necessarily heat as in "hot" but can be expressed as an equivalent black body temperature.Anyway, if you do that conversion, that`s called the "effective temperature"...it is how we estimate how hot distant stars are by comparing it with a black body temperature that has the same radiation energy profile and a matching peak wavelength.

A black body that has it`s peak emission at 15 µm like the evil "man made CO2" and "re-emits" at 15 µm happens to have an "effective temperature" of - 80 C.

The ice cubes in my freezer are "effectively" 8 times warmer than CO2 that just absorbed all the IR it could and "back radiates" it.

After that IanC went even more ballistic and there was a barrage of cat shit crap posts from the Siamese cat in a white walled kitty litter box where you got more visible photons.
IanC then made the claim that he never denied back radiation and he challenged me to dig up his crap where he did say that there was no such thing, then changed his song and dance around this subject and claimed he always said there was, but had no idea how much.
I obliged him anyway and it was a hoot to stick his crap..back radiation exists, then no there is no such thing, then there it was and existed again but then he called it "radiation impedance" .
I did that because it was funny, but I`m a little bit too busy with something else right now, that my 4 year old has been waiting for long enough:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3te8XH1QNo&feature=youtu.be"]DIY E Trike made from old junk - YouTube[/ame]

Like I already said. This forum is full of idiots that make my 4 year old Great-grandson look like a genius. He already knows how to set my multimeter and dial it into the right Voltage, Current or Ohm Ranges when I tried to cheat him with 12 Volts instead of giving him 24 VDc for his test drive.




.

 

[flacaltenn]

Unfreakingbelievable....

But guess what Polarbear? I disagree. Do i want to do this or write a GUI for motor control tonight?

What I said that you objected to...

The deal is -- a black wall reduces EM emissions to HEAT faster than a white wall. And as such removes VISIBLE photons (and indeed the sum total of all photon energy) faster from the area. And for all practical purposes, changes the distribution of VISIBLE photons in the area.

The key phrase is "sum total of all photon energy".. Photons are not heat energy. They are indicative of heat energy, but are EM energy. Therefore if the room walls are better EM absorbers, then total amount of photon energy will be exchanged for increased heat in the walls. Although the number of photons may increase to longer waves, the amount of EM energy will be reduced quicker (to heat) in a dark colored room.

Therefore, WHATEVER the thermal conduction properties of the wall might be --- it will have MORE HEAT ENERGY to conduct to the exterior, thus less total photon energy.. And a faster dissipation of the total photon energy in the room.

Or do you want to argue for a Standard White Body definition? Or do you accept that black walls WILL indeed be better at converting photons to heat flux.

Uncle --- you can win if you want.. I'm not intent on beating this beyond the grave.. Or we could argue the definition of a Wall or a Room and what lies beyond.. Not interested in your perfectly insulated theoretical walls that you are selling here..

 

[flacaltenn]

Got an idea.. Go out into your igloo and smear fire soot on one wall.. Get back to me when you can see reindeer thru one of the walls. Tell us which wall it was and what direction the reindeer was facing..

LOL LOL LOL

 

[gslack]

A photon is the quanta of EM radiation. No matter what wavelength of EM radiation we still cannot divide it further than that which we can understand. Also, simply calling EM radiation photons denies the inherent wave-like properties inherent in all light (EM energy). It's a wave and a particle to the best of our understanding and encompasses the properties of both.

P.S. Radiated heat is the point here. You cannot heat something up and have no radiant heat coming from it. Entropy cannot be stopped. The conversation here in terms of heat would mean radiated heat and not necessarily the temperature of an object radiating that heat. Saying photons are not heat energy isn't accurate, because radiant heat is EM radiation, and a photon is the quanta of EM radiation.

 

[IanC]

And here we see you change your position on it again...

So Ian which is it? Do you think the MIT experiment is a valid one or nonsense? You seem to be floundering on it. Can't even show a backbone when it comes to your own opinion. Pathetic...

Thanks Ian, it's been a real hoot watching you dance..ROFL

why do you think I have changed my opinion? I was hoping that you would have an opinion on an interesting topic that you brought up. apparently I was wrong.

do you want to know why I think you are a dweller on the wrong side of the bell curve? you never have any of your own opinions, you never synthesize a new idea from other ideas, you never hop to related subjects. in other words you are just a bore.

feel free to jump back into your usual spew of ad homs, but really, I would rather hear why you think walkers are realistically linked to QM. perhaps you have more info that you could link to that shows more experiments. I didnt see any actual data on the their 'double slit' walker experiment. got any? can you deflect the walker with a gentle puff of air? what were the initial angles for the two walkers to capture each other in a 'quantum ring'? have you seen any of those other videos of amazing patterns using harmonics in a liquid? hahaha, who am I kidding. you only found the French experiment by a random google search, and you didnt even know what it was about until I posted the videos.

Ian you just accused the guy who you claim makes most of what he says up, of being unimaginative, lacking creativity, and unoriginal.. LOL, I ask again Ian, which is it this time? Am I too stupid to be creative or am I offering interesting things to talk about?

The article I cited explains the significance of the respective experiments. You want to know why I think they are relevant? Well I think they are relevant because MIT thinks they are relevant, and you obviously do not understand the concept of duality. Your weak attempt to treat photons as particles and ignore their wave-like properties, shows how little you understand this beyond an equation.

So Ian your latest bit of nonsense is that they aren't completely accurate to Quantum Mechanics. Really? And you come to this conclusion by ignoring my article from MIT and posting a video from a tv show? Why not argue what I posted rather than what you decide you can defend? It's your video Ian, not mine..

Yeah, Ian you are that transparent. The article from MIT I posted busted you, so you go and grab a video whose validity you feel you can challenge, and then argue it's merits.. What about my article you are trying to argue against? Well you can't argue against that because it explains itself right away.

Thats why I think so little of you Ian. You have enough small bits of knowledge to see your mistake, but rather than admit it, you try and dismiss it and keep on talking.

to my knowledge, I never claimed that you made up what you say. I said you were a toady or a lapdog of various other posters like wirebender, SSDD or polarbear. a sychophant who starts spouting nonsense if he goes off the script that others provide. I really wish you guys would simply quote any of my comments that you are responding to rather than relying on your faulty memory and poor comprehension skills to replicate what you thought I said.

again, I would rather discuss this interesting topic. I have an hour+ video of Couder describing the various set-ups and experiments if anyone wants to ask for it. as well there are papers on soft bodies that show quantum weirdness without the need for constant energy input like the walkers.

btw, Bush in his short statements sounds like a huckster, his longer treatises are better.

 

[gslack]

why do you think I have changed my opinion? I was hoping that you would have an opinion on an interesting topic that you brought up. apparently I was wrong.

do you want to know why I think you are a dweller on the wrong side of the bell curve? you never have any of your own opinions, you never synthesize a new idea from other ideas, you never hop to related subjects. in other words you are just a bore.

feel free to jump back into your usual spew of ad homs, but really, I would rather hear why you think walkers are realistically linked to QM. perhaps you have more info that you could link to that shows more experiments. I didnt see any actual data on the their 'double slit' walker experiment. got any? can you deflect the walker with a gentle puff of air? what were the initial angles for the two walkers to capture each other in a 'quantum ring'? have you seen any of those other videos of amazing patterns using harmonics in a liquid? hahaha, who am I kidding. you only found the French experiment by a random google search, and you didnt even know what it was about until I posted the videos.

Ian you just accused the guy who you claim makes most of what he says up, of being unimaginative, lacking creativity, and unoriginal.. LOL, I ask again Ian, which is it this time? Am I too stupid to be creative or am I offering interesting things to talk about?

The article I cited explains the significance of the respective experiments. You want to know why I think they are relevant? Well I think they are relevant because MIT thinks they are relevant, and you obviously do not understand the concept of duality. Your weak attempt to treat photons as particles and ignore their wave-like properties, shows how little you understand this beyond an equation.

So Ian your latest bit of nonsense is that they aren't completely accurate to Quantum Mechanics. Really? And you come to this conclusion by ignoring my article from MIT and posting a video from a tv show? Why not argue what I posted rather than what you decide you can defend? It's your video Ian, not mine..

Yeah, Ian you are that transparent. The article from MIT I posted busted you, so you go and grab a video whose validity you feel you can challenge, and then argue it's merits.. What about my article you are trying to argue against? Well you can't argue against that because it explains itself right away.

Thats why I think so little of you Ian. You have enough small bits of knowledge to see your mistake, but rather than admit it, you try and dismiss it and keep on talking.

to my knowledge, I never claimed that you made up what you say. I said you were a toady or a lapdog of various other posters like wirebender, SSDD or polarbear. a sychophant who starts spouting nonsense if he goes off the script that others provide. I really wish you guys would simply quote any of my comments that you are responding to rather than relying on your faulty memory and poor comprehension skills to replicate what you thought I said.

again, I would rather discuss this interesting topic. I have an hour+ video of Couder describing the various set-ups and experiments if anyone wants to ask for it. as well there are papers on soft bodies that show quantum weirdness without the need for constant energy input like the walkers.

btw, Bush in his short statements sounds like a huckster, his longer treatises are better.

Ian you spent post after post trying to insult me and anything I have brought to the discussion. You know wish to pretend that didn't happen? Nonsense, you did so even in the last few posts.

We have quoted you, I even did so in the post your responded to. It's right there see it? Your words... Your dishonesty here is typical of what we have seen from you to date.

Lastly, I have no interest in discourse on a video with you. You cannot even debate my posts honestly, or address me with anything but disdain. You have insulted me, insulted every experiment I have brought into the discussion, even attacking my intelligence and understanding of those things, and have made it very clear on numerous occasions how little you think of my abilities in any scientific discussion. So spare me the BS now..

One minute you're an expert, the next your deny the implication you made. You're incapable of honest discourse on this, and your attempted feign decency now that you are shown false and lacking again is transparent..

 

[IanC]

Ian you just accused the guy who you claim makes most of what he says up, of being unimaginative, lacking creativity, and unoriginal.. LOL, I ask again Ian, which is it this time? Am I too stupid to be creative or am I offering interesting things to talk about?

The article I cited explains the significance of the respective experiments. You want to know why I think they are relevant? Well I think they are relevant because MIT thinks they are relevant, and you obviously do not understand the concept of duality. Your weak attempt to treat photons as particles and ignore their wave-like properties, shows how little you understand this beyond an equation.

So Ian your latest bit of nonsense is that they aren't completely accurate to Quantum Mechanics. Really? And you come to this conclusion by ignoring my article from MIT and posting a video from a tv show? Why not argue what I posted rather than what you decide you can defend? It's your video Ian, not mine..

Yeah, Ian you are that transparent. The article from MIT I posted busted you, so you go and grab a video whose validity you feel you can challenge, and then argue it's merits.. What about my article you are trying to argue against? Well you can't argue against that because it explains itself right away.

Thats why I think so little of you Ian. You have enough small bits of knowledge to see your mistake, but rather than admit it, you try and dismiss it and keep on talking.

to my knowledge, I never claimed that you made up what you say. I said you were a toady or a lapdog of various other posters like wirebender, SSDD or polarbear. a sychophant who starts spouting nonsense if he goes off the script that others provide. I really wish you guys would simply quote any of my comments that you are responding to rather than relying on your faulty memory and poor comprehension skills to replicate what you thought I said.

again, I would rather discuss this interesting topic. I have an hour+ video of Couder describing the various set-ups and experiments if anyone wants to ask for it. as well there are papers on soft bodies that show quantum weirdness without the need for constant energy input like the walkers.

btw, Bush in his short statements sounds like a huckster, his longer treatises are better.

Ian you spent post after post trying to insult me and anything I have brought to the discussion. You know wish to pretend that didn't happen? Nonsense, you did so even in the last few posts.

We have quoted you, I even did so in the post your responded to. It's right there see it? Your words... Your dishonesty here is typical of what we have seen from you to date.

Lastly, I have no interest in discourse on a video with you. You cannot even debate my posts honestly, or address me with anything but disdain. You have insulted me, insulted every experiment I have brought into the discussion, even attacking my intelligence and understanding of those things, and have made it very clear on numerous occasions how little you think of my abilities in any scientific discussion. So spare me the BS now..

One minute you're an expert, the next your deny the implication you made. You're incapable of honest discourse on this, and your attempted feign decency now that you are shown false and lacking again is transparent..

of course I am insulting you, you are worthy of scorn. ordinarily I avoid making fun of retards but you have been so obnoxious to me over the years that I feel no compuction to act civilly towards you.

while I must admit I would like to discuss the walkers and other associated oddities, I cannot deny that I would enjoy whatever inane comment that you could come up with. your thought processes are a train wreck when it comes to making logical connections.

 

[IanC]

I wish you would go back and read those threads over again, and actually read my comments rather than work from your faulty memory of what you think I said. BTW, I totally pwned you on that subject. please.....dredge it up again.

You "totally pawned" me? And now I`m supposed to spend all day and "dredge up" all the b.s. you wrote? .."rather than work from my faulty memory"...??
You are shit out of luck there, because
a.) my memory is not faulty and
b.) Your bullshit is all over the place, in fact there is so much of it that it`s hard to ignore it.
Let me refresh your faulty memory with some samples of what you said:

hahahahahahahahaha, here we go again. do you want me to respond to each and every point again? not only is your memory faulty but you cannot even get it right when you are trying to quote me. at least two of the quotes are not mine, so I expect you to go back and edit your post to indicate that they were a mistake on your part. an apology for misquoting me would be nice but I wont hold my breath because I dont think your conduct is determined by a code of honour.



definitely not mine.

Does simplified mean entirely different to you? The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and thereby warming the surface of the earth more than the sun alone could manage.

also definitely not mine.

this one is an odd duck-

you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions.

it is likely that I did say it, but it is taken out of context. I was not the one who was saying that there is "this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions", I was complaining that the person who did state it was unwilling to explain or defend their statement.


I hope everyone can see why I dislike engaging with polarbear. he distorts, misremembers, or just makes up what he thinks I said. then puts up these strawmen in his posts, his longggggg and ramblinggggggg posts. I will address a few this time but I reserve the right to ignore polarbear anytime I choose.

not even an acknowledgement? I didnt expect an apology for carelessly misquoting me but i didnt think you would just ignore it.

from polarbear's bio-

About polarbear
Biography
retired engineer/ex war criminal
Location
Canada

what kind of a sick fuck would be proud to claim being an ex war criminal? of course maybe he actually is.

 

[IanC]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-92.html#post7155354
Every post that you made so far shows that you are a total physics dimwit
So how the fck. do you "magnify sunlight" ?
That tells me that you still don`t have clue what the difference between power and energy is.
If I focus the number of watts that 1 m^2 receives from the sun on 1 cm^2 it is still the same amount of watts as it was before when it was spread out over 1 m^2
No I can`t "magnify" diffused light it unless I use a photon multiplier like we do in state of the art spectrophotometers, but "mamooth" apparently can, just by painting the walls of a room white.
And you used the same idiotic mechanism to defend Spencer and Hansen over and over again.
But you have no idea how to explain it.
As soon as you get cornered by somebody who does know physics, then you got "back radiation" from a cooler object and if you boxed yourself into another corner then you start denying your "back radiation" and call it something else, like a "radiation imbalance"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-80.html#post7127507
When you blabbered about photons from a distant red star heating up a white star it was even more ridiculous than that.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7127960
Then all over sudden back radiation is happening again:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-93.html#post7159225
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7128506
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7120214

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7120532

here we have another interesting idea that polarbear wishes to distort. he has a problem with the word 'magnify' rather than, perhaps, 'focus'. the sun sends us highly ordered (all going in the same direction) shortwave radiation that is capable of doing work. ***important point***. capable of doing work. once heated by solar radiation, the surface gives off disordered (most directions) longwave radiation that is much less capable of doing work. once heated by the surface, the atmosphere gives off totally disordered even longer longwave radiation that is even less capable of doing work.

it is my contention that a small change in solar input is more capable of causing change in the earth's climate than the same amount of change in the atmosphere or surface because the ability to do work is much less. all sources of energy are not equal. a battery can do a lot of things including heating a container of water. the heated container of water? not so much even though it now has the energy. I even personally invited polarbear to join the post I started to discuss the very same idea.

if you are driving through fog at night the water droplets disperse the ordered light from your headlights and the area close to you is more illuminated but the desired effect of being able to see farther away is compromised. CO2 in the air disperses 15 band IR and warms the near atmosphere but compromises the desired effect of shedding IR directly out into space.

WRT the one star heating the other star scenario- surface temps are dependent on two factors. 1.the energy source 2.the ability of the surface to shed energy. changing either one will affect the equilibrium temp. the ability to shed energy is calculated by k(Th^4- Tc^4). the area of intersection between the two stars will disperse much less energy because Tstar is much hotter than Tspace. if you impair the ability to shed enegy that will increase the temp just as surely as increasing the source of the energy. it really is just a simple physics concept that anyone with even a high school education should be able to understand.

I also dont remember your answer to my comment about IR radiation going from the earth to the sun. I said the only possibilities were that it was reflected, absorbed or just passed through. in any of those three cases it would appear to an independent observer as increased radiation or temperature from the sun. unless in your personal universe conservation of energy is not manditory. the same situation occurs with star-to-star radiation. where does the radiation go if it does not affect the two stars?

 

[PMZ]

It seems to me what is missing here is the realization that the only thing that matters is energy in and energy out from the perspective of the TOA. Top of the atmosphere. Is there anybody who still questions that increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere has the result of less energy out?

 

[numan]

from polarbear's bio-

About polarbear
Biography
retired engineer/ex war criminal
Location
Canada

what kind of a sick fuck would be proud to claim being an ex war criminal? of course maybe he actually is.

Maybe he was a Canadian Running Dog of American Nazoid military adventures overseas.

Or, perhaps, it is just an example of what many Canadians consider to be humour. This passive-aggressive streak in Canadian humour cannot be understood by those not to the manner born -- unless, perhaps, they have listened to thousands and thousands of excruciating hours of the Vinyl Café.

(By the way, you can certainly see the essential differences between Americans and Canadians by comparing The Prairie Home Companion with The Vinyl Café!!)
.

 

[flacaltenn]

It seems to me what is missing here is the realization that the only thing that matters is energy in and energy out from the perspective of the TOA. Top of the atmosphere. Is there anybody who still questions that increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere has the result of less energy out?

You've seen me defend the basic physics of GreenHouse here, so literally I don't oppose your generalization. HOWEVER, when you look at the numbers and complexity of the problem, I highly doubt the MAGNITUDE of the effect of additional CO2 to the atmosphere --- which is what this scuffle is all about..

In addition all the BAD THINGS that are prophesized by the Catastrophic Warmers don't happen because of just additional GHGases from cow farts (charged against man's contribution of course). It depends on some very sketchy assumptions about feedback mechanisms that are poorly measured and understood and modeled even worse...

 

[flacaltenn]

from polarbear's bio-

About polarbear
Biography
retired engineer/ex war criminal
Location
Canada

what kind of a sick fuck would be proud to claim being an ex war criminal? of course maybe he actually is.

Maybe he was a Canadian Running Dog of American Nazoid military adventures overseas.

Or, perhaps, it is just an example of what many Canadians consider to be humour. This passive-aggressive streak in Canadian humour cannot be understood by those not to the manner born -- unless, perhaps, they have listened to thousands and thousands of excruciating hours of the Vinyl Café.

(By the way, you can certainly see the essential differences between Americans and Canadians by comparing The Prairie Home Companion with The Vinyl Café!!)
.

Before you idiots yuck this up even worse.. You might consider that it's lyrical license and MAYBE the Canadian holds a grudge about serving in a conflict such as Vietnam. Or may be extremely PROUD of serving in Vietnam and mocking the folks that welcomed him home CALLING him a "war criminal".. We don't know --- do we?

 

[SSDD]

Before you idiots yuck this up even worse.. You might consider that it's lyrical license and MAYBE the Canadian holds a grudge about serving in a conflict such as Vietnam. Or may be extremely PROUD of serving in Vietnam and mocking the folks that welcomed him home CALLING him a "war criminal".. We don't know --- do we?

That's what I was thinking. A certain sort, and they know who they are, called me all sorts of things including baby killer and war criminal when I got home.

 

[PMZ]

It seems to me what is missing here is the realization that the only thing that matters is energy in and energy out from the perspective of the TOA. Top of the atmosphere. Is there anybody who still questions that increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere has the result of less energy out?

You've seen me defend the basic physics of GreenHouse here, so literally I don't oppose your generalization. HOWEVER, when you look at the numbers and complexity of the problem, I highly doubt the MAGNITUDE of the effect of additional CO2 to the atmosphere --- which is what this scuffle is all about..

In addition all the BAD THINGS that are prophesized by the Catastrophic Warmers don't happen because of just additional GHGases from cow farts (charged against man's contribution of course). It depends on some very sketchy assumptions about feedback mechanisms that are poorly measured and understood and modeled even worse...

Consider: Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels

My view is that, ultimately, all that matters, is how are going to continue to obtain the energy that we need, and what will it cost us, given what we know now.

To me it's unarguable that, as we consume the remaining fossil fuels given us, co2 concentration will continue to rise, and energy out the TOA will continue to fall. There is the possibility that something that we don't know about will rescue us from ourselves, but that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely that it will be even worse than we predict as the co2 sequestered in the arctic tundra adds to ours, things will be worse that just AGW predictions.

As AGW proceeds, two civilization facts will be problamatic and expensive. The location of our cities as sea level rises, and the location of our food sources as rain patterns change.

Over the next 100 years or so we will run out of the current mix of fossil fuels anyway and have no real alternative to sustainable sources.

So the question is, how do we allocate resources over that time?

Some will go into saving our cities and maintaining our food supplies.

Some will go into trying to stretch our fossil fuel supplies as long as possible. For one thing to maintain production of all of the material that we only know how to make from fossil feedstocks now.

Some will go into re-energizing the world sustainably.

Huge numbers.

There is nothing but good that can come from a very aggressive start on that extremely difficult time period. Today most of the energy that we produce is wasted. Let's start there at the very least.

 

[numan]

what kind of a sick fuck would be proud to claim being an ex war criminal? of course maybe he actually is.

Maybe he was a Canadian Running Dog of American Nazoid military adventures overseas.

Or, perhaps, it is just an example of what many Canadians consider to be humour. This passive-aggressive streak in Canadian humour cannot be understood by those not to the manner born -- unless, perhaps, they have listened to thousands and thousands of excruciating hours of the Vinyl Café.

(By the way, you can certainly see the essential differences between Americans and Canadians by comparing The Prairie Home Companion with The Vinyl Café!!)

Before you idiots yuck this up even worse.. You might consider that it's lyrical license and MAYBE the Canadian holds a grudge about serving in a conflict such as Vietnam. Or may be extremely PROUD of serving in Vietnam and mocking the folks that welcomed him home CALLING him a "war criminal"....

Except that Canada did not participate in the invasion of Vietnam and in the attendant war crimes committed by Americans there. Canadians of that generation, unlike so many Americans like these

were too intelligent to be bamboozled by the propaganda of war profiteers intent upon squeezing obscene profits from looting the American treasury, and from the deaths of 60,000 Americans and 3,000,000 Vietnamese.

There were, of course, a few individual yahoos, too stupid to know anything, who individually joined the American military.

In my opinion, anyone who is "proud" of being forced by the draft to fight in Vietnam must be insane.
.

 

[SSDD]

In my opinion, anyone who is "proud" of being forced by the draft to fight in Vietnam must be insane.
.

Lucky for us all that your opinion is worth exactly squat.

 

[numan]

'

I am glad that you feel lucky.

It must be some compensation, considering the rest of your situation in life.

.

 

[gslack]

to my knowledge, I never claimed that you made up what you say. I said you were a toady or a lapdog of various other posters like wirebender, SSDD or polarbear. a sychophant who starts spouting nonsense if he goes off the script that others provide. I really wish you guys would simply quote any of my comments that you are responding to rather than relying on your faulty memory and poor comprehension skills to replicate what you thought I said.

again, I would rather discuss this interesting topic. I have an hour+ video of Couder describing the various set-ups and experiments if anyone wants to ask for it. as well there are papers on soft bodies that show quantum weirdness without the need for constant energy input like the walkers.

btw, Bush in his short statements sounds like a huckster, his longer treatises are better.

Ian you spent post after post trying to insult me and anything I have brought to the discussion. You know wish to pretend that didn't happen? Nonsense, you did so even in the last few posts.

We have quoted you, I even did so in the post your responded to. It's right there see it? Your words... Your dishonesty here is typical of what we have seen from you to date.

Lastly, I have no interest in discourse on a video with you. You cannot even debate my posts honestly, or address me with anything but disdain. You have insulted me, insulted every experiment I have brought into the discussion, even attacking my intelligence and understanding of those things, and have made it very clear on numerous occasions how little you think of my abilities in any scientific discussion. So spare me the BS now..

One minute you're an expert, the next your deny the implication you made. You're incapable of honest discourse on this, and your attempted feign decency now that you are shown false and lacking again is transparent..

of course I am insulting you, you are worthy of scorn. ordinarily I avoid making fun of retards but you have been so obnoxious to me over the years that I feel no compuction to act civilly towards you.

while I must admit I would like to discuss the walkers and other associated oddities, I cannot deny that I would enjoy whatever inane comment that you could come up with. your thought processes are a train wreck when it comes to making logical connections.

And here we see you flip-flop again... A minute ago you wanted to discuss your video and I got you thinking now you are back to your previous demeanor..

ROFL, Ian you must be late taking your meds again.. Bipolar much?

 

[gslack]

Maybe he was a Canadian Running Dog of American Nazoid military adventures overseas.

Or, perhaps, it is just an example of what many Canadians consider to be humour. This passive-aggressive streak in Canadian humour cannot be understood by those not to the manner born -- unless, perhaps, they have listened to thousands and thousands of excruciating hours of the Vinyl Café.

(By the way, you can certainly see the essential differences between Americans and Canadians by comparing The Prairie Home Companion with The Vinyl Café!!)

Before you idiots yuck this up even worse.. You might consider that it's lyrical license and MAYBE the Canadian holds a grudge about serving in a conflict such as Vietnam. Or may be extremely PROUD of serving in Vietnam and mocking the folks that welcomed him home CALLING him a "war criminal"....

Except that Canada did not participate in the invasion of Vietnam and in the attendant war crimes committed by Americans there. Canadians of that generation, unlike so many Americans like these

were too intelligent to be bamboozled by the propaganda of war profiteers intent upon squeezing obscene profits from looting the American treasury, and from the deaths of 60,000 Americans and 3,000,000 Vietnamese.

There were, of course, a few individual yahoos, too stupid to know anything, who individually joined the American military.

In my opinion, anyone who is "proud" of being forced by the draft to fight in Vietnam must be insane.
.

What a worthless POS you are numan...

My father was in Africa, landed at Normandy, was in Germany, Italy and France During WWII.I have 3 older brothers and 3 cousins who served in various roles in vietnam, as well as 2 nephews who served in the gulf and afghanistan.

They followed orders and did what was asked of them. One of my cousins ended up dying slowly from Agent Orange not 5 years after coming home from Vietnam.

You sir do not have the honor to dare speak against any veteran of any war or service. If you were any kind of man, you would apologize..