seven stats on climate change

[SSDD]

No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.

And yet...it does.. The fact is inescapable... you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.

No I don't believe that quackery. Comparing the atmospheric effects of Venus and Earth like that is not valid physics. It's just juggling numbers naively.

Of course you do..and you have a whole litany of other quackery that you believe as well..

And Occam says that the simplest answer is probably the right answer...the simplest answer gives you a pretty accurate prediction...the other answer doesn't even get close unless you toss in an ad hoc fudge factor.....

Yes, I remember. One of your references had four fudge factors with no science explanation here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
Another reference you gave said the surface temperature was "baked in".

If those two references aren't quackery I don't know what is. The problem is that you deny the basic laws of physics and substitute your own, which are self contradictory.

.

And yet, they provided accurate temperature predictions, while your quackery doesn't even get close unless the fudge factor is constantly updated...and of course you don't know what quackery is..if you did, you wouldn't talk at all since that seems to be all you are capable of expressing.

Here is a reference to the fudge factor quackery.....

Science Errors: How Incompetents Took Over Science and Left Wreckage and Ruin

Careful that you don't read to far...the rationality contained there would probably make your head explode. Especially when he starts taking apart the whole back radiation nonsense.

 

[SSDD]

If those two references aren't quackery I don't know what is. The problem is that you deny the basic laws of physics and substitute your own, which are self contradictory.

Bullshit ... he's never substituted any basic law, not once has he even even tried to pronounce his own theory ... he speaks from a position of no basic laws ... it's all willy-nilly with his claims ... it just has to be opposite what he's being told ... watch:

"The sky is yellow and the sun is blue"

Making statements based on very limited reading...the fact is that you have little to no idea of how many pages have been spent discussing the topic and specific discussion of the only workable theory to explain the temperature here...personally, I have no theory...unlike you warmers who seem to have any number of personal hypotheses because you don't like the actual greenhouse hypothesis so you toss out the parts you don't like and substitute them for something that you believe sounds plausible...

The theory I subscribe to is a theory because it has actual experimental evidence in support...unlike the greenhouse hypothesis which is still seeking the first piece of empirical evidence in its support....

 

[ReinyDays]

come as a surprise to you, but the US standard atmosphere, which comes pretty close to predicting the temperature here relies entirely on the ideal gas laws...you think they might have calculated the volume of the earth in order to do the math?

All you really need do is visit the NASA planetary fact sheet..

Planetary Fact Sheet

This one is right up there with the idea that back radiation, if there were such a thing, couldn't happen in a vacuum...

So ... what is the volume of Earth's atmosphere?

 

[SSDD]

come as a surprise to you, but the US standard atmosphere, which comes pretty close to predicting the temperature here relies entirely on the ideal gas laws...you think they might have calculated the volume of the earth in order to do the math?

All you really need do is visit the NASA planetary fact sheet..

Planetary Fact Sheet

This one is right up there with the idea that back radiation, if there were such a thing, couldn't happen in a vacuum...

So ... what is the volume of Earth's atmosphere?

I provided you with a link to the planetary fact sheet...are you too lazy to visit? Or perhaps google the topic? You try to come across as having a clue then ask to be spoon fed basic information? It isn't my fault that you can't defend the corny science you believe in...take your anger out on those who tricked you into believing...not me.

 

[ReinyDays]

I provided you with a link to the planetary fact sheet...are you too lazy to visit? Or perhaps google the topic? You try to come across as having a clue then ask to be spoon fed basic information? It isn't my fault that you can't defend the corny science you believe in...take your anger out on those who tricked you into believing...not me.

I don't think you how to find this data ... nor do I think you know what it means ... I'm curious about your 8th grade multiplication skills ... they seem absent in light of your recent comments ...

You're just going to have to put some thought into this ... from your link ... what is the volume of the Earth's atmosphere? ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.

And yet...it does.. The fact is inescapable... you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.

No I don't believe that quackery. Comparing the atmospheric effects of Venus and Earth like that is not valid physics. It's just juggling numbers naively.

Of course you do..and you have a whole litany of other quackery that you believe as well..

And Occam says that the simplest answer is probably the right answer...the simplest answer gives you a pretty accurate prediction...the other answer doesn't even get close unless you toss in an ad hoc fudge factor.....

Yes, I remember. One of your references had four fudge factors with no science explanation here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
Another reference you gave said the surface temperature was "baked in".

If those two references aren't quackery I don't know what is. The problem is that you deny the basic laws of physics and substitute your own, which are self contradictory.

.

And yet, they provided accurate temperature predictions, while your quackery doesn't even get close unless the fudge factor is constantly updated...and of course you don't know what quackery is..if you did, you wouldn't talk at all since that seems to be all you are capable of expressing.

Here is a reference to the fudge factor quackery.....

Science Errors: How Incompetents Took Over Science and Left Wreckage and Ruin

Careful that you don't read to far...the rationality contained there would probably make your head explode. Especially when he starts taking apart the whole back radiation nonsense.

From your link;

The point of CO2 saturation is so low in our atmosphere that it sheds almost 100% of the energy received, in the total atmosphere, each revolution of earths rotation, at the equator. this is why we have glacial poles as they radiate far more energy than they receive.

This is just one more area that GCM's fail in predicting anything accurately beyond 12 hours. They are incapable of predicting energy losses of even one rotation of the earth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From SSDD's link;

And this is the result of using a "Fudge Factor".. It erases OBSERVED and VERIFIED (by repetition) that CO2 was saturated beyond its ability to stop all radiation, even at levels of 5,000ppm.

The AGW models fail on every level. The lack of an atmospheric hot spot show the total failure..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...

Right, because the amount of GHGs doesn't change a thing...…..LOL!

Exactly...GHG's other than water vapor don't change a thing other than the total mass of the atmosphere.

GHG's other than water vapor don't change a thing

Thanks for admitting your previous claim was incorrect.

one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...

What kind of adjustment do you think you need to make now to account for water vapor?

 

[Wuwei]

And yet, they provided accurate temperature predictions, while your quackery doesn't even get close unless the fudge factor is constantly updated...and of course you don't know what quackery is..if you did, you wouldn't talk at all since that seems to be all you are capable of expressing.

Here is a reference to the fudge factor quackery.....

Science Errors: How Incompetents Took Over Science and Left Wreckage and Ruin

Careful that you don't read to far...the rationality contained there would probably make your head explode. Especially when he starts taking apart the whole back radiation nonsense.

The sources you previously quoted did not predict anything. This source only did curve fitting with four fudge factors,
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
Nikolov and Zellar gave no explanation. All they did was curve fitting of temperature and atmosphere to a formula with these four fudge factors in their equation 12(b):
0.174222, 0.150275, 5.25043 10⁻¹⁵, 3.32375.
That looks pretty fudgey..Parameterized curve fitting is not science.

Another of your sources said the temperature was "baked in" with no explanation of what that meant.

Your reference to Science Errors has this as the second sentence in the beginning of text:

All of physics beyond Newton's laws is in error....​

What a way to start a physics discussion!!! His denial of physics is no different than yours. Wow. Talk about quackery.
.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is another amusing gem by Gary Novak that you science deniers embrace. He redefines energy to be momentum!!!
Science Errors, Gary Novak.

Simple and unquestionable mathematical proof shows energy has been misdefined in physics.

The representation of kinetic energy being used is mass times velocity squared (½mv²), when it should be mass times velocity unsquared (mv), momentum.

The consequence is that everything in physics which involves energy is in error, which includes at least 90% of physics.​

Do you guys actually believe that "new" science, that 90% of physics is in error?
.

 

[ReinyDays]

I though energy was mass times speed squared ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I though energy was mass times speed squared ...

So.....

Is energy a wave without mass or a particle which has mass? Or is it a combination of the two?

If we take this equation to its root, it is a particle with mass. Or was Einstein incorrect?

 

[Billy_Bob]

All of physics beyond Newton's laws is in error....

Science is the questioning of everything.... Why do you hate people doing real science?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I though energy was mass times speed squared ...

So.....

Is energy a wave without mass or a particle which has mass? Or is it a combination of the two?

If we take this equation to its root, it is a particle with mass. Or was Einstein incorrect?

You still need to post the mass of a photon...…...and the charge.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

The great thing about the Climate Change Apocalypse is that it on affects people with a 75IQ or lower.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

you will obey your master

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Greta should not be allowed to use electricity and the internet for just one day.
It would destroy her crazy brainwashed left wing crackpot world.

 

[DGS49]

Here't the problem in a nutshell.

You tell me a catastrophe is coming.

What has to come next is, "If you do X, Y, and Z, the catastrophe can be averted." You are giving me A thru Z, much of which is painful and expensive... and telling us we must do this.

But unless everybody else on the planet does the same thing, it won't work, and we KNOW that the biggest emitters on the planet are not on board (India and China), except on paper, and even the most enthusiastic countries (Japan & Germany) are moving in the wrong direction due to their idiotic decisions to abandon NUCLEAR POWER. So the fact is that, even if we do A thru Z, the effect will be negligible. If the U.S. does everything conceivable while everyone else does what they are obviously doing, the effect of our efforts on global temperatures as of 2100 will be about a quarter of one degree C. B.F.D.

And you refuse to acknowledge the BENEFITS of warming, which I am enjoying at this very moment. My gas bills are down, I played golf last week, I've ridden my motorcycle 8-10 times since the time when I would normally have covered it for WInter. I haven't run my snow blower since February (except to confirm that it's running properly). I am personally fine with global warming, no matter what you call it.

The human race will develop engineering solutions to the problems that warming brings that cannot be resolved by simpler means. I hope we can profit by bringing those engineering solutions to the rest of the world.

Take your global warming hysteria and the teenaged twit who delivers it, and shove it where the sun don't shine.

 

[ReinyDays]

Is energy a wave without mass or a particle which has mass? Or is it a combination of the two?

If we take this equation to its root, it is a particle with mass. Or was Einstein incorrect?

You still need to post the mass of a photon...…...and the charge.

Wait ... what? ...

Photon ≠ kinetic energy ... what the hell are you two talking about? ... in Newtonian physics, matter ≠ energy ... you're confusing E=mc^2, that's strictly Einstienian physics ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is energy a wave without mass or a particle which has mass? Or is it a combination of the two?

If we take this equation to its root, it is a particle with mass. Or was Einstein incorrect?

You still need to post the mass of a photon...…...and the charge.

Wait ... what? ...

Photon ≠ kinetic energy ... what the hell are you two talking about? ... in Newtonian physics, matter ≠ energy ... you're confusing E=mc^2, that's strictly Einstienian physics ...

Billy has previously claimed that photons have charges and mass.
And that they can be repelled by covailent [sic] bonds.