The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Allen Eltor]

OH! THE ATMOSPHERE, is NOT COLDER, than the PLANET.

WHO the F*** on this (planet) TOLD YOU THAT STUPID SH**??

TELL me THEIR NAME or YOU'RE the lying m****rf******r who MADE that FAKE sh** UP.

Depends on where you go in the atmosphere. Higher means cooler, to a point. Then it gets hotter again

Don't you sit here and tell me two stories in 20 minutes hillbilly. Is the average TEMPERATURE of THE ATMOSPHERE at large,
LOWER than the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET it's WASHING HEAT off of, or NOT?

We can take three days while you face up to the fact the atmosphere is a COLD NITROGEN FLUID BATH, therm-0-billy.

It's up to you how painful it is for your stupid #$%.

I think the average temperature in the atmosphere is lower than the average surface temp. Do you think that negates AGW somehow? Please tell us how that works. The atmosphere does not represent a cold nitrogen bath.

OBVIOUSLY you're suffering from some kind of nearly permanent learning disability like Mr My Flashlight Won't Come On in the Daytime.

You've got major problems if you're unable to verify for yourself the atmosphere is on average many degrees colder than the planet, and is made almost entirely of Nitrogen and Oxygen.

When scientists count up the temperature of the Earth what is the first thing they check?

They check to see how much light is striking the surface, don't they.

When they start off with one value at the top of the atmosphere,
and wind up with another value about 22% lower at the SURFACE,

WHAT in YOUR estimation, HAPPENED to NEARLY a QUARTER of the sun's
otherwise available warming firelight spectra?

In other words we know it didn't reach the surface but what happened to it?

We most CERTAINLY don't COUNT that part - the difference between the TOP of atmosphere

and the bottom.

We start with ONE wattage at the TOP,
then at the SURFACE, we have a LOWER wattage don't we.

WHAT MADE that LIGHT not REACH the SURFACE?

This is your story about how a cold nitrogen oxygen bath is a heater so - you can at LEAST help
with WHAT you THINK MADE that LIGHT not WARM the PLANET.

Find out how many watts difference there are,
and WHAT makes those energy spectra NEVER WARM the PLANET.

The lower energy received at the surface is the result of absorption in the atmosphere - dust, water vapor, ozone. And that does warm the planet - the molecules that absorb the incoming solar energy warm the surrounding gases.

NO, no No NO NO, don't you even START. EVERY WATT of that ENERGY not REACHING the SURFACE
is
DIRECTLY
and PERMANENTLY REMOVED from CALCULATION of EARTH'S SURFACE TEMP.

The actual STEP: is ITSELF: to FIND out how much gets BLOCKED by the ATMOSPHERE
and IMMEDIATELY REMOVE
the ENTIRE VALUE of EVERY single WATT
from EARTH'S SURFACE TEMPERATURE.

Now: WHAT is the REASON the VAST and I do mean vast majority of it
NEVER ARRIVES? Go GET a CHART of Sunlight TOP of ATMOSPHERE
vs @ Mean Sea Level

and TELL us all WHY that LIGHT never WARMS Earth.

 

[SSDD]

Congrats dipstick...you managed to chase off everyone who has tried to talk to you with your crazy. On this board, even when we don't agree with each other, we speak in coherent sentences and if someone doesn't understand what we are trying to say...we make an attempt to explain it....and I don't think many here pretend to be something that we aren't... If you were ever an engineer, it was before your catastrophic brain injury.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Congrats dipstick...you managed to chase off everyone who has tried to talk to you with your crazy. On this board, even when we don't agree with each other, we speak in coherent sentences and if someone doesn't understand what we are trying to say...we make an attempt to explain it....and I don't think many here pretend to be something that we aren't... If you were ever an engineer, it was before your catastrophic brain injury.

Is your FLASHLIGHT COMING ON AGAIN now the SUN went DOWN stupid?

 

[Allen Eltor]

I bet you thought you were gonna save LOADS on batteries just using that flashlight to look for something

when you thought you lost it in the direction the sun was in, huh...

Illiterate,
Innumerate,
therm-0-billy HiCK.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Whenever your balls drop and you think you can come in here and describe the mechanism
by which you think the sidewalk doesn't give off infrared light when the sun's overhead shining on it,
you let us know.

We'll all be thrilled to hear about that sh**.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Hey Todd are you one of the Backerdism KooKS who thinks if you point your laser pointer at the sun no light will come out?

I think you are.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Any one of the rest of you illiterate hicks wanna jump up on a sand bag and bair poWuRFuL TESTiMONY
of the
magicalness
of the
gaissiness

what dun
yew no,

TuRN'T uh COALD NITCHURGIN BATH in TWO uh HEEDUR?

TELL US ALL ABOUT IT, THERM-0-BILLIES,
how EVUR TIME we
PUT some more GREAN HOWSE GAiSSiS,

up in thim ATMuSFEARS,
makin
another one uh thim percints light
not git two Earth,

all the MATH, an EVURTHANG, points RIGHT two it,
that MOAR and MOAR LIGHT comes OUT uv it.

Yaw.

"I doan't thank yew undurstand MiSTuR, JIST CAWS thuh ATMUSFEARiC BATH,
is MADE OWT uv COALD NITCHURGIN,
DOAN'T MEEN,
IT'S a
COALD NITCHuRGiN BATH!! yEW jist SAYIN THAT, so I CAiN'T BE THiNKiN CLYMIDeE!!

Yew makin mea thank STRANJE THAWTS abowt a COLD NITCHURGIN BATH,
NOT
BEiN' uh HEEDuR!!!

Yew MAKIN mea CRAZIE, I dun GOT CLIMIT FEARS,
yew PERSAKEWT'N ME,
I'm uh CLIMIT REFYEWGEA!! Up in here!

STOP TELLIN ME a COLD NITROGEN BATH'S not a HEATER!!
"mmmMMMMMMMmmmmmMMMMMM i cain't HERE YEW,
TELLIN ME A COLD NITCHURGIN BATH AINT uh HEEDuRRrr!!!!"
"MMMmmmmMMMmmmMMMMmmmmm!!!!"

That's what you insipid BackurdsBerries sound like.

"I cain't HERE YEW, TELLIN ME a COLD NITCHURGIN BATH, AIN'T uh HEEDUR,"

"It AIN'T PURGRESSIVE two THiNK THADDaWaY!!"

Yeah.

Just get up on the stump and start barkin about magic gas, THuRM-0-BiLLY.
Break's over.

 

[Wuwei]

yes, your laser will emit towards the sun. It emits at a very discrete frequency/wavelength so a great deal depends on what that is. And if the photons from your laser make it out of the atmosphere, they could very well make it all the way to the sun.

Actually he should not have chosen an LED or laser as an example because neither are black body radiators. The example of a flashlight with a dim bulb would be a better example because a tungsten filament does radiate BB and is colder than the sun. So it would illustrate that the colder EM energy from a flashlight would not be impeded by the hotter sun like SSDD thinks.

Try considering the inverse square law before you jump to erroneous conclusions. You are dealing with 1300wm2 at the top of the atmosphere....what does a filament at 5000 degrees radiate?

Try considering the inverse square law before you jump to erroneous conclusions. You are dealing with 1300wm2 at the top of the atmosphere....what does a filament at 5000 degrees radiate?

Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?

Actually Allen Elton had a good counterexample. A refrigerated LED pointer can be seen emitting a beam toward a hot screen. That is an example of energy flowing spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object. So, the only reasonable interpretation of the word “energy” is that it refers to heat energy, not EM radiation.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

I think the average temperature in the atmosphere is lower than the average surface temp. Do you think that negates AGW somehow? Please tell us how that works. The atmosphere does not represent a cold nitrogen bath.

OBVIOUSLY you're suffering from some kind of nearly permanent learning disability like Mr My Flashlight Won't Come On in the Daytime.

You've got major problems if you're unable to verify for yourself the atmosphere is on average many degrees colder than the planet, and is made almost entirely of Nitrogen and Oxygen.

When scientists count up the temperature of the Earth what is the first thing they check?

They check to see how much light is striking the surface, don't they.

When they start off with one value at the top of the atmosphere,
and wind up with another value about 22% lower at the SURFACE,

WHAT in YOUR estimation, HAPPENED to NEARLY a QUARTER of the sun's
otherwise available warming firelight spectra?

In other words we know it didn't reach the surface but what happened to it?

We most CERTAINLY don't COUNT that part - the difference between the TOP of atmosphere

and the bottom.

We start with ONE wattage at the TOP,
then at the SURFACE, we have a LOWER wattage don't we.

WHAT MADE that LIGHT not REACH the SURFACE?

This is your story about how a cold nitrogen oxygen bath is a heater so - you can at LEAST help
with WHAT you THINK MADE that LIGHT not WARM the PLANET.

Find out how many watts difference there are,
and WHAT makes those energy spectra NEVER WARM the PLANET.

The lower energy received at the surface is the result of absorption in the atmosphere - dust, water vapor, ozone. And that does warm the planet - the molecules that absorb the incoming solar energy warm the surrounding gases.

Wrong answer again, stupid, when the LIGHT BLOCKED BY THE ATMOSPHERE is COUNTED
it's E.N.T.I.R.E. V.A.L.U.E. is C.O.M.P.L.E.T.E.L.Y. REMOVED from EARTH'S TEMPERATURE ACCOUNTING.

That's why you TAKE IT ALL
OUT OF THE COMPUTATION
OF PLANET SURFACE TEMP.

Here is a really good discussion of the earth's heat budget.

Read and learn, dingbat. Put that majestic education of yours to work. Learn something.

And I'm outta here

YOU'RE OUTTA HERE because YOU got CAUGHT being SO STUPID

YOU DIDN'T KNOW the ATMOSPHERE is a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH,

CONDUCTION CHILLING the SUN-WARMED PLANET.

HICK.

I went to cut the grass. Funny, I must have missed that nice cool nitrogen bath and I got hot and sweaty. And the thermometer at the front of my house, in the shade, said 80F. How can that be?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

You need to hurry and wash your Taco suit and find your paper hat so you can get to your shift.

BLOME

And You need to provide some links that support your silly theory.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Do some studying, Elton. The atmosphere is very complex. You seem to be missing some key factors. And tighten the loose screws a bit, EH?

 

[SSDD]

Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?

Are you operating under the impression that the energy reaching the earth is equal in watts per square meter to the energy leaving the surface of the sun?

Actually Allen Elton had a good counterexample. A refrigerated LED pointer can be seen emitting a beam toward a hot screen. That is an example of energy flowing spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object. So, the only reasonable interpretation of the word “energy” is that it refers to heat energy, not EM radiation.

You get more ridiculous every time you speak.....what exactly do you think is spontaneous about a light bulb?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?

Are you operating under the impression that the energy reaching the earth is equal in watts per square meter to the energy leaving the surface of the sun?

Actually Allen Elton had a good counterexample. A refrigerated LED pointer can be seen emitting a beam toward a hot screen. That is an example of energy flowing spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object. So, the only reasonable interpretation of the word “energy” is that it refers to heat energy, not EM radiation.

You get more ridiculous every time you speak.....what exactly do you think is spontaneous about a light bulb?

what exactly do you think is spontaneous about a light bulb?

Or the walls of my home in winter.

 

[MPS777]

Actually, I'm not frustrated at all. You're the one who claims yew dun "look't in thuh big buk, and thairs powurf'l thangs cain't be undurstood by hardly nobodie but thim clymmidy'unz

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? ROCKS LAYING ON THE GROUND EMITTING INFRARED TOWARD THE SUN isn't EVIDENCE to YOU?

Good example. And I think you deserve a PhD in linguistics.

 

[Wuwei]

Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?

Are you operating under the impression that the energy reaching the earth is equal in watts per square meter to the energy leaving the surface of the sun?

Actually Allen Elton had a good counterexample. A refrigerated LED pointer can be seen emitting a beam toward a hot screen. That is an example of energy flowing spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object. So, the only reasonable interpretation of the word “energy” is that it refers to heat energy, not EM radiation.

You get more ridiculous every time you speak.....what exactly do you think is spontaneous about a light bulb?

The italics indicate thermodynamic definitions copied from the web:

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state. ​

An LED flashlight releases free energy in a battery.

The thermodynamic free energy is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes ​

The battery is a spontaneous chemical process.

Energy is a generalization of free energy​

One wording of the second law:

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. ​

A beam from a cooled LED flash light is a spontaneous release of energy. If the beam is aimed at a hot screen it is energy flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

As you say, that could seem ridiculous. Does it make a mockery of the second law?
No. In this flashlight counterexample the second law is obeyed because the free energy of the battery is dissipating which increases entropy, and the hot screen cools because the feeble energy from the flashlight can't keep it warm, and heat of the nearby hotter screen warms the flashlight.

There is no interpretation of any of the words of the second law here because standard thermodynamic definitions are used.

It is only apparently ridiculous because "energy" must not refer to photons. It must refer to heat in that context of the second law. By the same token two way radiation exchange between objects is allowed.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Why don't one of you Backerdism Barking Bat Brained Bumblers tell me how you insipid hicks can't even calculate the temperature of our global atmosphere right?

HOW DO YOU MANAGE TO CALCULATE the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET and COME UP 33 DEGREES SHORT?
oH
THAT's RIGHT, YOU F***G HICKS DON'T USE GAS LAW TO SOLVE FOR ATMOSPHERIC COMPRESSION,

AND COME UP WITH THE * * * * * * * MANDATORY 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL* * * * * * *
that
HAPPENS when you F***UP and CLAIM you can SOLVE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE using ONLY STEFAN-BOLTZMANN PROCESSING, that HAS no COMPRESSION PROCESSING PROVISIONS, since GAS LAW SOLVES that STEP BEFORE STEFAN-BOLTZMANN PROCESSING CAN BE APPLIED TO COMPRESSIBLE-PHASE MATTER .

aWWWW F***k.

YEAH that's RIGHT HiLLBiLLiES there's a MANDATORY SHORTFALL of EXACTLY 33 DEGREES for NOT USING GAS LAW to CALCULATE the 33 DEGREES' COMPRESSION WARMING our ATMOSPHERE's COMPRESSIBLE FLUID NATURE creates.

YEW MEAN THAIR AIN'T NO MAGICAL GAISSINESS, WHAT DUN TURH'NT Uh.. COALD GAiS BATH inTWO uh HEEDUR?

WtF??? HOW KIN THAT BEA?

Yew have GOT yew uh ROCK
it is IN A VACK-KEWM
being WARM'T by the LIGHT uv uh FIAR.

WHiN YEW PUT ON COLD ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH,
TiMPuRCHuR GoES UP JIST LAIK YEW'D SPECKT IT WOODE. YaW.

And THIN WHiN YEW ADD YEW sum iNSALAYSHiN
AND TAKE AWAY PUR SINT AFTER PUR SINT WARMING FIRELIGHT,
SINTSURS SHOW,
JIST LAIK THAY SHUD,

MOARE LIGHT WARMING the ROCK
EVUR TIME MOAR INSALAYSHIN makes
LESS LIGHT WARM the ROCK!! YaW!!

it's AWL so SIMPLE, Y CAIN'T YEW SEE HOW CLIMIDDIE it IS?? yAW ain't EVUN SiGNTSiE.

SIGN,
DE
JECKTID
OVUR
CLIMIT AiNGST.

Yaw.

You are a babbling buffoon. Your cold nitrogen theory is a steaming pile of horses**t.

SHOW US THE PHYSICS!!!

 

[SSDD]

Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?

Are you operating under the impression that the energy reaching the earth is equal in watts per square meter to the energy leaving the surface of the sun?

Actually Allen Elton had a good counterexample. A refrigerated LED pointer can be seen emitting a beam toward a hot screen. That is an example of energy flowing spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object. So, the only reasonable interpretation of the word “energy” is that it refers to heat energy, not EM radiation.

You get more ridiculous every time you speak.....what exactly do you think is spontaneous about a light bulb?

The italics indicate thermodynamic definitions copied from the web:

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state. ​

An LED flashlight releases free energy in a battery.

The thermodynamic free energy is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes ​

The battery is a spontaneous chemical process.

Energy is a generalization of free energy​

One wording of the second law:

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. ​

A beam from a cooled LED flash light is a spontaneous release of energy. If the beam is aimed at a hot screen it is energy flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

As you say, that could seem ridiculous. Does it make a mockery of the second law?
No. In this flashlight counterexample the second law is obeyed because the free energy of the battery is dissipating which increases entropy, and the hot screen cools because the feeble energy from the flashlight can't keep it warm, and heat of the nearby hotter screen warms the flashlight.

There is no interpretation of any of the words of the second law here because standard thermodynamic definitions are used.

It is only apparently ridiculous because "energy" must not refer to photons. It must refer to heat in that context of the second law. By the same token two way radiation exchange between objects is allowed.

There are a lot of words which apply to people who think they have found a way around the second law of thermodynamics, a loophole in the second law of thermodynamics, or a form of energy that is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics. Chump, lunkhead, dope, nitwit, ignoramus, nitwit, and simpleton to name a few. Probably the most accurate word is wrong. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe you have either gotten around the second law, found a loop hole in it, or discovered that it doesn't apply to every form of energy we know of or can imagine. And you doing a happy dance, giving high fives with the likes of Allen Eltor exemplifies that special sort of stupid. The very fact that you want to be right so badly that you would hop on up on the crazy train with Allen because you though he might be on to something is, in empirical evidence of how stupid, and blind, your wish to be right has made you.

Let me reiterate, when someone seems to have found a way around the second law, or a loophole in it, or some form of energy that appears to be exempt, the first, and only thought you need have on the topic is that they are wrong. You may not see on the surface how they are wrong, the reasons they are wrong may be beyond your education, beyond your scope of knowledge, counterintuitive, or even beyond your ability to understand even if you had all the information...but wrong none the less. No one beats the second law of thermodynamics.

Lets look at all the ways you were wrong. The most glaring is that you jumped on the crazy train with Allen...but we will chalk that one up to an irrational desire to be right even if it means you have to believe the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

An LED flashlight releases free energy in a battery.

What, exactly do you think is spontaneous about a battery. While it contains free energy..that is energy that can be used to do work, how did the energy get there? Was work done to put that energy in the battery?

The battery is a spontaneous chemical process.

Is it your desire to be right that makes you stupid, or is it that you really know so little about science. A spontaneous process is one that will occur WITHOUT any energy input from its surroundings...ie a process that will occur on its own. A bowling ball will roll down a hill, ice will melt and the water will flow downhill...a piece of iron will rust. All spontaneous processes.

A non spontaneous process, on the other hand, must have energy added from some source in order for the process to occur. Tell me wuwei, where do you think the energy in the battery came from? How did it get there?

ENERGY is a generalization of free energy

Do you really think that physical laws are written in general terms? Do you think that perhaps the first law of thermodynamics is also only talking about free energy...doesn't the statement that energy can be transformed from one from to another kind of clue you in that insofar as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned, energy is energy no matter what form it may take? Again...irrational desire to be right, or near total ignorance on the basics of thermodynamics? Could it be that you just go out and read stuff about thermodynamics regarding the topic at hand and never bothered to look at the basics?....never had any interest in learning the topic...just trying to satisfy your irrational need to be right?

A beam from a cooled LED flash light is a spontaneous release of energy. If the beam is aimed at a hot screen it is energy flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

First, was some work done to release that energy? Maybe you could apply force times distance to the finger that pushed the switch. Second the energy moving to the bulb was not there due to a spontaneous process since it required work to put the energy in there in the first place. Just because the work required to put the energy in the battery was finished, does not mean that it can be ignored. Then there is the fact that you really don't know much about LED's. Honestly, neither do I. They aren't very intuitive, but information is there to be found if you bother to look. The fact that you specifically named a cooled LED must mean that you at least found out that an uncooled LED would't work in your argument...but the fact that it is a cooled LED should have clued you into the fact that since it is cooled, you are adding in yet another thing that disqualifies this energy movement as spontaneous.

This is the part that is terribly interesting but counterintuitive and you really wouldn't know about unless this sort of thing was how you made your living , or bothered to look up just to make sure your argument was valid before you stated it in public.

As LEDs are cooled, they begin to steal energy from their environment. Who would have thought? I suppose steal isn't really the accurate word because as they are cooled to a temperature lower than that of their surroundings, energy from their environment would naturally move toward the cooler LED and this energy is converted into more photons. The process is not intuitive and pretty difficult to understand what with energy from not only the battery, but the environment itself being converted into photons..and the thermodynamic accounting that goes on involves a level of math that is beyond my ability...but the engineers working on the project assure us that at the end of the balance sheet, the neither Cooled LEDs or uncooled LEDs are flipping their proverbial noses at the second law of thermodynamics.

And of course, work is being done in order to convert all this energy from whatever source into photons which puts the brakes on any part of this is a spontaneous movement of energy.

So no...you have not provided an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object. The word energy certainly does apply to photons since photons are by definition, the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation possible and in order to claim that the second law of thermodynamics does not cover photons, you would have to say that it does not cover radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays since whenever we observe any of these forms of energy we are observing them in the form of photons...if you believe in photons...Personally, I think they move in waves with properties we are as of yet unaware, but I digress. Photons are certainly governed by the second law of thermodynamics as is every other form of energy or potential energy we know of.

Two things:

1. Anyone who thinks he has found a way around the second law....a loophole in the second law...or a form of energy that is exempt from the second law is WRONG, whether you can immediately see where they are wrong or not.

2. Don't jump on the crazy train with someone who is clearly a nut...they speak all sorts of crazy with absolute conviction. Use your brain...they are clearly either to lazy or not able to use theirs.

Thanks for the laugh though...the visual of you and allen doing the inzone happy dance doing high fives over finding a loophole in the second law and discovering that radio, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays and gamma rays were all exempt from the second law because the second law wasn't talking about photons is priceless.

And you should question your buds...ask them why they didn't get you to delete that ridiculous post before it became engraved on the public record. Never mind...toddster has an irrational desire to be right as well..and he never checks anything.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Why don't one of you Backerdism Barking Bat Brained Bumblers tell me how you insipid hicks can't even calculate the temperature of our global atmosphere right?

HOW DO YOU MANAGE TO CALCULATE the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET and COME UP 33 DEGREES SHORT?
oH
THAT's RIGHT, YOU F***G HICKS DON'T USE GAS LAW TO SOLVE FOR ATMOSPHERIC COMPRESSION,

AND COME UP WITH THE * * * * * * * MANDATORY 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL* * * * * * *
that
HAPPENS when you F***UP and CLAIM you can SOLVE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE using ONLY STEFAN-BOLTZMANN PROCESSING, that HAS no COMPRESSION PROCESSING PROVISIONS, since GAS LAW SOLVES that STEP BEFORE STEFAN-BOLTZMANN PROCESSING CAN BE APPLIED TO COMPRESSIBLE-PHASE MATTER .

aWWWW F***k.

YEAH that's RIGHT HiLLBiLLiES there's a MANDATORY SHORTFALL of EXACTLY 33 DEGREES for NOT USING GAS LAW to CALCULATE the 33 DEGREES' COMPRESSION WARMING our ATMOSPHERE's COMPRESSIBLE FLUID NATURE creates.

YEW MEAN THAIR AIN'T NO MAGICAL GAISSINESS, WHAT DUN TURH'NT Uh.. COALD GAiS BATH inTWO uh HEEDUR?

WtF??? HOW KIN THAT BEA?

Yew have GOT yew uh ROCK
it is IN A VACK-KEWM
being WARM'T by the LIGHT uv uh FIAR.

WHiN YEW PUT ON COLD ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH,
TiMPuRCHuR GoES UP JIST LAIK YEW'D SPECKT IT WOODE. YaW.

And THIN WHiN YEW ADD YEW sum iNSALAYSHiN
AND TAKE AWAY PUR SINT AFTER PUR SINT WARMING FIRELIGHT,
SINTSURS SHOW,
JIST LAIK THAY SHUD,

MOARE LIGHT WARMING the ROCK
EVUR TIME MOAR INSALAYSHIN makes
LESS LIGHT WARM the ROCK!! YaW!!

it's AWL so SIMPLE, Y CAIN'T YEW SEE HOW CLIMIDDIE it IS?? yAW ain't EVUN SiGNTSiE.

SIGN,
DE
JECKTID
OVUR
CLIMIT AiNGST.

Yaw.

You are a babbling buffoon. Your cold nitrogen theory is a steaming pile of horses**t.

SHOW US THE PHYSICS!!!

HAY IGNERNT HICK: THE ATMOSPHERE'S MANY DEGREES COLDER THAN THE PLANET.

IT'S MADE OUT OF COLD NITROGEN and OXYGEN.

THE COLD GREEN HOUSE GASES ARE THE REFRIGERANTS TAKING 22% of the sun's TOTAL ENERGY

from THE TEMPERATURE of our PLANET.

HicK.

IT'S MADE of NITROGEN and OXYGEN.
THE COMPRESSIBLE F.L.U.I.D.S.
CONDUCTION CHILL
LIGHT WARMED
ROCKS
THEY
cool.

You dumba&*^d HICK.

TEACH YOURSELF - this isn't SCHOOL, it's where we who went, MOCK you who DIDN'T.

THAT'S how THAT works.

Sorry, fool. You are very confused. Enjoy your ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

YOU TOLD the MEMBERS of THIS INTERNATIONAL FORUM LIGHT FROM COLDER OBJECTS CAN'T GO TOWARD WARMER OBJECTS REPEATEDLY.

Actually, I have said that energy from cool objects can't move to a warmer object spontaneously. Not that I would expect for you to see the distinction. Get some basic help with language and maybe some day we can all figure out what the hell a cold nitrogen bath has to do with the atmosphere. I understand you not wanting to come right out and say it...it must be profoundly ridiculous.

 

[Allen Eltor]

YOU TOLD the MEMBERS of THIS INTERNATIONAL FORUM LIGHT FROM COLDER OBJECTS CAN'T GO TOWARD WARMER OBJECTS REPEATEDLY.

Actually, I have said that energy from cool objects can't move to a warmer object spontaneously. Not that I would expect for you to see the distinction. Get some basic help with language and maybe some day we can all figure out what the hell a cold nitrogen bath has to do with the atmosphere. I understand you not wanting to come right out and say it...it must be profoundly ridiculous.

REPEATEDLY you have TRIED to PRESENT the CLAIM that ENERGY from THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE CAN NOT GO TOWARD the WARMER PLANET, - NO?

YOU NEED to PRESENT your MECHANICS for "LIGHT from COLD THINGS can't GO TOWARD LIGHT from WARM THINGS and CONTRIBUTE to THEIR TEMPERATURE.

YES, it CAN.

TELL these PEOPLE where YOU got the IDEA that POSTING the SECOND LAW REPEATEDLY helps you put forth some CONCRETE and REAL CONCEPT you would like to EXPLAIN regarding the SUN/EARTH/ATMOSPHERE COMPLEX.