Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Wuwei]

What is the temperature of a molecule going 713.6 meters / second?

How many smart photons did it absorb?

5.42 ± 0.61 photons.

As long as the photons came from a hotter source, otherwise 0.0 ± 0.0 photons.

.

 

[Wuwei]

This post was transfered from the “Proof of AGW fraud” because it belongs to this special thread created by flacaltenn and is focused on science deniers such as SSDD

Sorry doofus...the second law doesn't distinguish between kinds of energy...and of course you claimed that cold air striking a warm wall was evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...you spout so much bullshit that you just can't keep up with it all.

Here is the post where you first made that stupid claim...
Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....
"
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.

the rest of your idiot examples were shown to be idiot examples as well...

The only response that is possible to your total misunderstanding is that you disagree with science. You have not ever proved any of your fake science of radiation exchange, spontaneous processes, or the second law of thermodynamics etc.

In short you disagree with countless experiments, observations, and measurements of the accepted science versions of:

quantum mechanics
spontaneous processes
radiation exchange between any two objects
black body radiation
the Stefan Boltzmann equation
and most of all the second law of thermodynamics.
​

I'm not interested in your denial tedium again, but your caustic bluster simply is not science. Not science at all. You are insulting scientists as idiotic, doofuses, spouting bullshit. That is a reflection on your “flat earth” type of unsupportable devotion to fake science, not real science.

.

 

[Wuwei]

This post was transfered from the “Proof of AGW fraud” because it belongs to this special thread created by flacaltenn and is focused on science deniers such as

SSDD

You stand by your heavily manipulated, translated, altered version of science..anyone who must interpret the f'ing second law of thermodynamics in order to have "science" jibe with what he believes is OD...."out dere"

The science I use is taught at universities and is at many web sites. I gave you countless references. It is easily searched.

If you think it is manipulated or altered no need to argue the same tedium over again simply give me science references that jibe with your version of science. Otherwise you are being a troll, a liar, or both.

The various categories are listed in the prior post #282. Have at it.

.

 

[SSDD]

Oh the tedium...refer to any of your previous losses in the multiple incarnations of this same discussion..

covering the same ground ad nauseum will never make a non spontaneous process into a spontaneous one...

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.

Unfortunate that your views on science are so twisted that you find that you must interpret even the f'ing second law of thermodynamics in an effort to rationalize your beliefs....the f'ing second law of thermodynamics for pete's sake...

 

[Wuwei]

Oh the tedium...refer to any of your previous losses in the multiple incarnations of this same discussion..

covering the same ground ad nauseum will never make a non spontaneous process into a spontaneous one...

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.

Unfortunate that your views on science are so twisted that you find that you must interpret even the f'ing second law of thermodynamics in an effort to rationalize your beliefs....the f'ing second law of thermodynamics for pete's sake...

Yes, we went over this ad nausium and you disagreed with science every time. I didn't lose anything. I simply reported what the science actually is. You have to answer to the science. You have not given any references at all to "prove" your misinterpretation that:

spontaneous processes occur only without prior work
radiation exchange between any two objects is one way
black body radiation stops near a warmer object
the Stefan Boltzmann equation allows a + or - net
the CMB does not strikes the earth.

If you think I manipulated or misrepresented the above list no need to argue the same tedium over again simply give me science references that jibe with your version of science. Otherwise you are being a troll, a liar, or both.

More specifically give a reference that says there is no IR radiation between objects at the same temperature, or that a colder object won't radiate IR to warmer objects

Also give a reference that says prior illumination on a phosphorescent material means it is not spontaneous even though the object is moved to the dark.

Also we need a reference that says that man-made objects preclude spontaneous processes.

Remember, forget any repetition of tedium. This is a new area:
You need scientific references to the above list that agree with you, otherwise it is fake physics.

.

 

[sealybobo]

Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.. And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..

That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... DON'T hijack other specific topics.. Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...

Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...

You can’t talk rationally with conservatives on this subject. They’ve been brainwashed by politicians to disagree with scientific consensus.

I found a website yesterday that shows every bad argument the gop makes and to the right it had the scientific reply.

They think the scientists lie because global warming is how they make their money. They think every country in the world is lying because there are corporations who will get rich on global warming. Basically republicans are conspiracy theorists. But they can’t admit that it’s the corporations who pollute the most and republicans who are the liars even though it’s obvious. They don’t want to pay to go green

 

[SSDD]

Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.. And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..

That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... DON'T hijack other specific topics.. Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...

Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...

You can’t talk rationally with conservatives on this subject. They’ve been brainwashed by politicians to disagree with scientific consensus.

I found a website yesterday that shows every bad argument the gop makes and to the right it had the scientific reply.

They think the scientists lie because global warming is how they make their money. They think every country in the world is lying because there are corporations who will get rich on global warming. Basically republicans are conspiracy theorists. But they can’t admit that it’s the corporations who pollute the most and republicans who are the liars even though it’s obvious. They don’t want to pay to go green

Actually, we know enough about science to know that consensus is not a part of science...can you name another branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as if that were evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Probably not, as there are none. If you challenge the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of science, you get bombarded with more actual evidence than you probably ever want to try to digest....challenge the AGW hypothesis and you won't see even a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports AGW over natural variability but you will hear all about consensus as if that had anything whatsoever to do with whether the AGW hypothesis is correct or not.

 

[sealybobo]

Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.. And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..

That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... DON'T hijack other specific topics.. Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...

Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...

You can’t talk rationally with conservatives on this subject. They’ve been brainwashed by politicians to disagree with scientific consensus.

I found a website yesterday that shows every bad argument the gop makes and to the right it had the scientific reply.

They think the scientists lie because global warming is how they make their money. They think every country in the world is lying because there are corporations who will get rich on global warming. Basically republicans are conspiracy theorists. But they can’t admit that it’s the corporations who pollute the most and republicans who are the liars even though it’s obvious. They don’t want to pay to go green

Actually, we know enough about science to know that consensus is not a part of science...can you name another branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as if that were evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Probably not, as there are none. If you challenge the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of science, you get bombarded with more actual evidence than you probably ever want to try to digest....challenge the AGW hypothesis and you won't see even a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports AGW over natural variability but you will hear all about consensus as if that had anything whatsoever to do with whether the AGW hypothesis is correct or not.

Bla bla bla. My buddy at lunch proved there is no talking to you deniers with clear motives and your flawed right wing knowledge and spin.

What is settled is the fact that your arguments are flawed and we know your sinisterly reasons

 

[SSDD]

Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.. And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..

That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... DON'T hijack other specific topics.. Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...

Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...

You can’t talk rationally with conservatives on this subject. They’ve been brainwashed by politicians to disagree with scientific consensus.

I found a website yesterday that shows every bad argument the gop makes and to the right it had the scientific reply.

They think the scientists lie because global warming is how they make their money. They think every country in the world is lying because there are corporations who will get rich on global warming. Basically republicans are conspiracy theorists. But they can’t admit that it’s the corporations who pollute the most and republicans who are the liars even though it’s obvious. They don’t want to pay to go green

Actually, we know enough about science to know that consensus is not a part of science...can you name another branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as if that were evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Probably not, as there are none. If you challenge the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of science, you get bombarded with more actual evidence than you probably ever want to try to digest....challenge the AGW hypothesis and you won't see even a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports AGW over natural variability but you will hear all about consensus as if that had anything whatsoever to do with whether the AGW hypothesis is correct or not.

Bla bla bla. My buddy at lunch proved there is no talking to you deniers with clear motives and your flawed right wing knowledge and spin.

What is settled is the fact that your arguments are flawed and we know your sinisterly reasons

Sorry guy....the only thing flawed is the pseudoscience that is AGW....There isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and even more telling is the fact that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...the fact is that you have all been duped by talk of consensus when in reality, there is no evidence that supports your beliefs...

Prove me wrong...post up one single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or don't and prove me right...

While you are at it, make some mewling, pewling, piss poor excuse for not being able to provide any such evidence..show us all just how weak your position is.

 

[flacaltenn]

You can’t talk rationally with conservatives on this subject. They’ve been brainwashed by politicians to disagree with scientific consensus.

Then you haven't talked with me about it.. I'm not a conservative, I'm a Libertarian, but I've followed this science for two decades and it's more complex that MOST USMB members appreciate.... And it's NOT "settled" and there IS no consensus because GWarming/ClimateChange/NOW -- Climate Chaos is NOT a SINGLE QUESTION with a yes or no answer.. In science, each question and assertion needs a consensus and there are MANY questions with regard to GW assertions and projections..

You do NOT have a consensus on MANY important parts of GW science. Like if the world is gonna end in 12 years or what the temperature will BE in 2100... Or if there exists a "trigger temperature" beyond which the planet is a goner...

If you don't invest the time YOURSELF -- you'll never know what to believe on this.. And listening to POLITICIANS of ANY STRIPE -- is the WORST possible way to believe you know it all...

 

[Crick]

There IS a clear consensus on several key points:

1) The planet is getting warmer
2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions
3} That warming is a threat to humanity in several regards: food, water, disease, flooding, coastal infrastructure etc.

Your nitpicking does nothing to throw those problem into any better light.

 

[SSDD]

There IS a clear consensus on several key points:

1) The planet is getting warmer

So it goes when the planet is exiting from an ice age...even a little ice age.

2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions

And the physical evidence to support that contention is where exactly? Beyond that, where is the evidence that the human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is anything more than trivial? I can provide a slew of published papers which find that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...got any published work stating that we are not only the drivers of the climate, but are the drivers of atmospheric CO2 content as well?.....or are you just making it up as you go?

3} That warming is a threat to humanity in several regards: food, water, disease, flooding, coastal infrastructure etc.

Since the earth hasn't even warmed to the point it was prior to the onset of the little ice age, and the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years, exactly what "danger" are you hyperventilating over?

Your nitpicking does nothing to throw those problem into any better light.

You call it nitpicking for obvious reasons...I call it pointing out glaring flaws in a political narrative masquerading as science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions

You have yet to provide any proof of this contention. There is clear evidence of natural process and we have yet to see any proof of mans contribution of CO2 causing anything nor have we seen empirical evidence and the causal linkages.

 

[SSDD]

2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions

You have yet to provide any proof of this contention. There is clear evidence of natural process and we have yet to see any proof of mans contribution of CO2 causing anything nor have we seen empirical evidence and the causal linkages.

Forget proof...I would be happy with some plain old observed measured evidence to support the claim...that would at least be something other than the drivel about the consensus. Did you see that the CEI is challenging NASA on their use of that lie? Looks like they have a pretty good case. If the wackos don't have the consensus to claim what will they have left?

 

[Billy_Bob]

2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions

You have yet to provide any proof of this contention. There is clear evidence of natural process and we have yet to see any proof of mans contribution of CO2 causing anything nor have we seen empirical evidence and the causal linkages.

Forget proof...I would be happy with some plain old observed measured evidence to support the claim...that would at least be something other than the drivel about the consensus. Did you see that the CEI is challenging NASA on their use of that lie? Looks like they have a pretty good case. If the wackos don't have the consensus to claim what will they have left?

CEI is making them play their cards in the open. About damn time! Their consensus claim is about to die a sorted death.

 

[Crick]

I think you meant "sordid" and no they will not.

2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions

You have yet to provide any proof of this contention. There is clear evidence of natural process and we have yet to see any proof of mans contribution of CO2 causing anything nor have we seen empirical evidence and the causal linkages.

There is no requirement to provide "proof", only evidence. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and convinces almost every scientist in every field on the planet.

There is no evidence of any individual or collection of natural (ie, non-synthetic) processes with anywhere near the forcing required to cause the observed warming. There is indisputable observation that almost every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the pre-industrial 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion. The calculated warming closely matches the required forcing to produce the observed warming.

Of course, you reject the greenhouse effect because it is the only way you can continue to pretend you actually have a viable argument - NOT because any valid science throws the least bit of doubt on it.

 

[SSDD]

There is no requirement to provide "proof", only evidence. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and convinces almost every scientist in every field on the planet.

And yet, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured, physical evidence to support the claim that our CO2 is to blame for warming...hell, you can't even provide any actual evidence that our CO2 is more than a trivial part of the total CO2 din the atmosphere.

There is no evidence of any individual or collection of natural (ie, non-synthetic) processes with anywhere near the forcing required to cause the observed warming. There is indisputable observation that almost every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the pre-industrial 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion. The calculated warming closely matches the required forcing to produce the observed warming.

Except perhaps for the fact that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years....Increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause. And lets see this 'evidence" that almost every CO2 molecule in our current atmosphere above 280ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion...you talk a lot of shit skid mark, but are always..Always....ALWAYS damned short on evidence.

I can provide plenty of published papers saying and demonstrating that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is trivial at best..lets see what sort of published material you can provide...or are you once again, just making it up as you go?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think you meant "sordid" and no they will not.

2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions

You have yet to provide any proof of this contention. There is clear evidence of natural process and we have yet to see any proof of mans contribution of CO2 causing anything nor have we seen empirical evidence and the causal linkages.

There is no requirement to provide "proof", only evidence. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and convinces almost every scientist in every field on the planet.

There is no evidence of any individual or collection of natural (ie, non-synthetic) processes with anywhere near the forcing required to cause the observed warming. There is indisputable observation that almost every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the pre-industrial 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion. The calculated warming closely matches the required forcing to produce the observed warming.

Of course, you reject the greenhouse effect because it is the only way you can continue to pretend you actually have a viable argument - NOT because any valid science throws the least bit of doubt on it.

Sorting fact from fiction will cause its death... Once it is fleshed out and on the table, it will die a sordid death... not surprised you missed the pun... It was intended.

 

[SSDD]

I think you meant "sordid" and no they will not.

2) The primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions

You have yet to provide any proof of this contention. There is clear evidence of natural process and we have yet to see any proof of mans contribution of CO2 causing anything nor have we seen empirical evidence and the causal linkages.

There is no requirement to provide "proof", only evidence. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and convinces almost every scientist in every field on the planet.

There is no evidence of any individual or collection of natural (ie, non-synthetic) processes with anywhere near the forcing required to cause the observed warming. There is indisputable observation that almost every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the pre-industrial 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion. The calculated warming closely matches the required forcing to produce the observed warming.

Of course, you reject the greenhouse effect because it is the only way you can continue to pretend you actually have a viable argument - NOT because any valid science throws the least bit of doubt on it.

Sorting fact from fiction will cause its death... Once it is fleshed out and on the table, it will die a sordid death... not surprised you missed the pun... It was intended.

Humorless bitter lot aren't they??

 

[Wuwei]

This post is in response to a post in "Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW...." It is moved here as per flacaltenn's edict about SSDD's interminable repetitions.

Those references are very unreliable. They are known for publishing fake science.

Says the king of fake science...got any specific complaints about the work....or just a string of logical fallacies?

Time and time again you have brought up articles from dubious sources which I analyzed to find they were crap. One article even said the temperature of planets was "baked in". LOL. If you can come up with an article that is from a legitimate journal, I will look at it.

You have said many times that you disagree with physics view of black body radiation, the Stefan Boltzmann equation, spontaneous processes, and many other physics phenomena. It is not fake science. I have posted science from text books, courses or journals. Your science is fake.

Verily, you are the king of fake science.