More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[jc456]

Da, da, da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da,da, da,da,da,da,da

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By the way, nice avoidance

Yes, giving an example where back radiation slows heat loss and comparing it to an example where there is no back radiation and very rapid heat loss is avoiding your idiocy.

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth. That's it bubba. And one month later still zip from you.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from you

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth.

It slows the fkn loss of heat from the Earth's surface.

 

[jc456]

By the way, nice avoidance

Yes, giving an example where back radiation slows heat loss and comparing it to an example where there is no back radiation and very rapid heat loss is avoiding your idiocy.

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth. That's it bubba. And one month later still zip from you.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from you

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth.

It slows the fkn loss of heat from the Earth's surface.

So is it heat or loss of heat? What is loss of heat mean? Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving. If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat. GW!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By the way, nice avoidance

Yes, giving an example where back radiation slows heat loss and comparing it to an example where there is no back radiation and very rapid heat loss is avoiding your idiocy.

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth. That's it bubba. And one month later still zip from you.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from you

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth.

It slows the fkn loss of heat from the Earth's surface.

So is it heat or loss of heat? What is loss of heat mean? Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving. If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat. GW!

So is it heat or loss of heat?

Slowing the loss of heat slows the loss of heat.

What is loss of heat mean?

Heat lost to space. Photons leaving the atmosphere.

Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving.

Yes, and atmospheric heat going to the surface slows that loss, since it isn't, for the moment, leaving.

If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat.

Yes, when radiation, whether forward, sideways or back, hits the surface, it adds heat.

 

[jc456]

By the way, nice avoidance

Yes, giving an example where back radiation slows heat loss and comparing it to an example where there is no back radiation and very rapid heat loss is avoiding your idiocy.

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth. That's it bubba. And one month later still zip from you.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from you

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth.

It slows the fkn loss of heat from the Earth's surface.

So is it heat or loss of heat? What is loss of heat mean? Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving. If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat. GW!

So is it heat or loss of heat?

Slowing the loss of heat slows the loss of heat.

What is loss of heat mean?

Heat lost to space. Photons leaving the atmosphere.

Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving.

Yes, and atmospheric heat going to the surface slows that loss, since it isn't, for the moment, leaving.

If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat.

Yes, when radiation, whether forward, sideways or back, hits the surface, it adds heat.

So you are a warmer. I see,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, giving an example where back radiation slows heat loss and comparing it to an example where there is no back radiation and very rapid heat loss is avoiding your idiocy.

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth. That's it bubba. And one month later still zip from you.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from you

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth.

It slows the fkn loss of heat from the Earth's surface.

So is it heat or loss of heat? What is loss of heat mean? Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving. If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat. GW!

So is it heat or loss of heat?

Slowing the loss of heat slows the loss of heat.

What is loss of heat mean?

Heat lost to space. Photons leaving the atmosphere.

Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving.

Yes, and atmospheric heat going to the surface slows that loss, since it isn't, for the moment, leaving.

If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat.

Yes, when radiation, whether forward, sideways or back, hits the surface, it adds heat.

So you are a warmer. I see,

What's that?

 

[skookerasbil]

w0w.........coal about to leapfrog oil in a couple of years.............

World Coal Consumption To Surpass Oil By 2020 Due To Rising Demand In China And India


Renewable energy?


Barely on the radar.........

 

[jc456]

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth. That's it bubba. And one month later still zip from you.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from you

No, I asked you what did your magic back radiation do on fkn earth.

It slows the fkn loss of heat from the Earth's surface.

So is it heat or loss of heat? What is loss of heat mean? Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving. If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat. GW!

So is it heat or loss of heat?

Slowing the loss of heat slows the loss of heat.

What is loss of heat mean?

Heat lost to space. Photons leaving the atmosphere.

Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving.

Yes, and atmospheric heat going to the surface slows that loss, since it isn't, for the moment, leaving.

If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat.

Yes, when radiation, whether forward, sideways or back, hits the surface, it adds heat.

So you are a warmer. I see,

What's that?

Hahahaha Hahahaha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It slows the fkn loss of heat from the Earth's surface.

So is it heat or loss of heat? What is loss of heat mean? Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving. If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat. GW!

So is it heat or loss of heat?

Slowing the loss of heat slows the loss of heat.

What is loss of heat mean?

Heat lost to space. Photons leaving the atmosphere.

Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving.

Yes, and atmospheric heat going to the surface slows that loss, since it isn't, for the moment, leaving.

If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat.

Yes, when radiation, whether forward, sideways or back, hits the surface, it adds heat.

So you are a warmer. I see,

What's that?

Hahahaha Hahahaha

Derp.

 

[jc456]

So is it heat or loss of heat? What is loss of heat mean? Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving. If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat. GW!

So is it heat or loss of heat?

Slowing the loss of heat slows the loss of heat.

What is loss of heat mean?

Heat lost to space. Photons leaving the atmosphere.

Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving.

Yes, and atmospheric heat going to the surface slows that loss, since it isn't, for the moment, leaving.

If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat.

Yes, when radiation, whether forward, sideways or back, hits the surface, it adds heat.

So you are a warmer. I see,

What's that?

Hahahaha Hahahaha

Derp.

Excuse you, hopefully you covered your mouth

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So is it heat or loss of heat?

Slowing the loss of heat slows the loss of heat.

What is loss of heat mean?

Heat lost to space. Photons leaving the atmosphere.

Se surface heat going to the atmosphere is loss of heat since it is leaving.

Yes, and atmospheric heat going to the surface slows that loss, since it isn't, for the moment, leaving.

If magic back radiation heat was hitting the surface that would be re-added heat.

Yes, when radiation, whether forward, sideways or back, hits the surface, it adds heat.

So you are a warmer. I see,

What's that?

Hahahaha Hahahaha

Derp.

Excuse you, hopefully you covered your mouth

Your idiocy doesn't involve me covering, sorry.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yep........been saying for decades that the religion are nothing more than a bunch of fucking k00ks.............

New study concurs..................

“My Worries Are Rational, Climate Change Is Not”: Habitual Ecological Worrying Is an Adaptive Response

 

[jc456]

So you are a warmer. I see,

What's that?

Hahahaha Hahahaha

Derp.

Excuse you, hopefully you covered your mouth

Your idiocy doesn't involve me covering, sorry.

It's what one does with a Derp like that!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's that?

Hahahaha Hahahaha

Derp.

Excuse you, hopefully you covered your mouth

Your idiocy doesn't involve me covering, sorry.

It's what one does with a Derp like that!

Derp signifies the utter stupidity of your post.

I know 12 year olds with a firmer grasp of physics than you.
You're harming our cause. You should be ashamed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Gents........c'mon........gotta move past this sniping stuff and get back to illustrating the losing on the losers side!!! Its all good s0ns...........

LIKE THIS>> When Will Solar Overtake Oil? | OilPrice.com

When will solar overtake oil?

Not for a long...............long............long time!!!

 

[jc456]

Hahahaha Hahahaha

Derp.

Excuse you, hopefully you covered your mouth

Your idiocy doesn't involve me covering, sorry.

It's what one does with a Derp like that!

Derp signifies the utter stupidity of your post.

I know 12 year olds with a firmer grasp of physics than you.
You're harming our cause. You should be ashamed.

good for you, now just post up your back radiation evidence and let's call it a day. You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

BTW, I have no idea your cause. Mine is AGW doesn't exist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Derp.

Excuse you, hopefully you covered your mouth

Your idiocy doesn't involve me covering, sorry.

It's what one does with a Derp like that!

Derp signifies the utter stupidity of your post.

I know 12 year olds with a firmer grasp of physics than you.
You're harming our cause. You should be ashamed.

good for you, now just post up your back radiation evidence and let's call it a day. You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

BTW, I have no idea your cause. Mine is AGW doesn't exist.

You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

It's true, photons traveling from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface heat up the surface.

 

[jc456]

Excuse you, hopefully you covered your mouth

Your idiocy doesn't involve me covering, sorry.

It's what one does with a Derp like that!

Derp signifies the utter stupidity of your post.

I know 12 year olds with a firmer grasp of physics than you.
You're harming our cause. You should be ashamed.

good for you, now just post up your back radiation evidence and let's call it a day. You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

BTW, I have no idea your cause. Mine is AGW doesn't exist.

View attachment 76700

You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

It's true, photons traveling from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface heat up the surface.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000? What's the difference between the two, 800. LMFAO. wow. BTW, that doesn't make your point at all. And Science of Doom is a warmist site. So I trust nothing from there. Especially when they can't subtract 1900 from 1000 and get 900. Funny funny and I'm laughing quite hard. Bet you missed that one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your idiocy doesn't involve me covering, sorry.

It's what one does with a Derp like that!

Derp signifies the utter stupidity of your post.

I know 12 year olds with a firmer grasp of physics than you.
You're harming our cause. You should be ashamed.

good for you, now just post up your back radiation evidence and let's call it a day. You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

BTW, I have no idea your cause. Mine is AGW doesn't exist.

View attachment 76700

You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

It's true, photons traveling from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface heat up the surface.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000? What's the difference between the two, 800. LMFAO. wow. BTW, that doesn't make your point at all. And Science of Doom is a warmist site. So I trust nothing from there. Especially when they can't subtract 1900 from 1000 and get 900. Funny funny and I'm laughing quite hard. Bet you missed that one.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000?

1900 incoming. Weird, because you claim it's zero.

And Science of Doom is a warmist site.

Radiation and Climate

 

[jc456]

It's what one does with a Derp like that!

Derp signifies the utter stupidity of your post.

I know 12 year olds with a firmer grasp of physics than you.
You're harming our cause. You should be ashamed.

good for you, now just post up your back radiation evidence and let's call it a day. You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

BTW, I have no idea your cause. Mine is AGW doesn't exist.

View attachment 76700

You know that extra warming on the planet that you say is there and isn't there at the same time.

It's true, photons traveling from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface heat up the surface.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000? What's the difference between the two, 800. LMFAO. wow. BTW, that doesn't make your point at all. And Science of Doom is a warmist site. So I trust nothing from there. Especially when they can't subtract 1900 from 1000 and get 900. Funny funny and I'm laughing quite hard. Bet you missed that one.

I'm supposed to believe a chart that can't even subtract 1900 from 1000?

1900 incoming. Weird, because you claim it's zero.

And Science of Doom is a warmist site.

Radiation and Climate

View attachment 76703

it was your post, i don't trust any of it because the dude can't do simple math.

Science of Doom, hmm read in this link the conversation between him and another in this link:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The AGW Myth of Back Radiation

AGW Myth of Reradiation:

and you can go here:

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."