The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[Old Rocks]

Global Climate Change

Contributors: Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate. Background The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate.

Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Geologists are the first to see the effects of global warming because they are the people that study the Earth's cryosphere. And both of the American societies state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

 

[ding]

No. I want to see the line that was drawn and I want to see it drawn on the glacial-interglacial plot. How's that?

I told you exactly how to draw the lines. I'm not going to wheel-spin if you can't understand how to handle a very simple exercise in finite difference calculus. You would believe the results more if you did it yourself.

Let me see the graph with the lines on it. Can do that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.

C'mon Ding. We went through that all before. Did you forget that what you circled is actually 20,000 years, not 1,500. Just look at the scale definition at the bottom of the time axis.

lol, why are you lying? The circle is showing the area to look at you idiot. The last 1500 years are on this graph. If your argument were stronger, you wouldn't need to squelch discussion of the data, dipshit.

Our current crop of alarmists have issues discerning spatial resolution and graph interpretation. They simply can not understand how you can fit 1500 years higher resolution into a very small blip on a graph of lesser resolution. That one action removes major swings in the record...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Global Climate Change

Contributors: Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate. Background The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate.

Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Geologists are the first to see the effects of global warming because they are the people that study the Earth's cryosphere. And both of the American societies state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Another political statement that the majority of their members disagree with.. Show a vote on this statement and its point by point validity..

IN other words the science does not support this crap...

 

[ding]

The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.

C'mon Ding. We went through that all before. Did you forget that what you circled is actually 20,000 years, not 1,500. Just look at the scale definition at the bottom of the time axis.

lol, why are you lying? The circle is showing the area to look at you idiot. The last 1500 years are on this graph. If your argument were stronger, you wouldn't need to squelch discussion of the data, dipshit.

Our current crop of alarmists have issues discerning spatial resolution and graph interpretation. They simply can not understand how you can fit 1500 years higher resolution into a very small blip on a graph of lesser resolution. That one action removes major swings in the record...

And puts it into the proper interglacial cycles context too. Their heads are exploding which is why they are trying to claim that the rate of change is unprecedented while the data clearly shows it is not. I am happy enough to give them some rope for now to let them hang themselves. That way when I actually show them the graphs with the slopes graphically displayed their heads can explode.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry that is meaningless. We are in an interglacial cycle and our present AGT is still below the temperature last 4 interglacial cycle peaks.

Really is like talking to an old rock..isn't it?....They won't see that they are wrong no matter how clearly you point it out...they are to spiritually, emotionally, and politically invested in this scam to ever admit that a scam is precisely what it is.

 

[peach174]

Sorry that is meaningless. We are in an interglacial cycle and our present AGT is still below the temperature last 4 interglacial cycle peaks.

Really is like talking to an old rock..isn't it?....They won't see that they are wrong no matter how clearly you point it out...they are to spiritually, emotionally, and politically invested in this scam to ever admit that a scam is precisely what it is.

It's worse than old rock.
I got underwear that's smarter.

 

[Crick]

Global Climate Change

Contributors: Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

Position Statement

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate. Background The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate.

Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

Geologists are the first to see the effects of global warming because they are the people that study the Earth's cryosphere. And both of the American societies state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Another political statement that the majority of their members disagree with.. Show a vote on this statement and its point by point validity..

IN other words the science does not support this crap...

The obvious response is to demand you show us the evidence on which you base your claim that "a majority of their members disagree with" (and didn't yo momma ever tell you not to end a sentence with a preposition?). I have an easier task. Show us the dissenters. If the majority of this organization disagree with this position statement, there must be just oodles of complaints and negative commentary from them. Where is it Billy?

And if the majority of this organization disagrees with this statement, the same is very likely true of all the national science organizations, ALL OF WHOM have put forth position statements in support of the IPCC conclusions. Where is all the dissent?

Let me guess, they all choose to remain silent because they're crooks and the hoax is making them rich.

Yeah... that's good science Billy Boy... really good science.

 

[SSDD]

The subject is entropy as it relates to exchange radiation between objects. Falling marbles, etc. are not examples of exchange radiation.[/quote[

And the failure continues...energy exchange is energy exchange and entropy is entropy regardless of where the energy is coming from...

That was already covered in a post about one year ago. All physicists and textbooks agree with this derivation:

First, all the textbooks do not describe any such thing...for example"

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung a book used in hard science physics curricula does not teach any such thing while An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation by Liou, a text used in curricula of the soft science of climate science does....Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest does not while Assessing Climate Change by Rapp does.....Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar, again, a text used in the hard science of physics, does not, while Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC, a soft science text does...see a trend developing here?....3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis..a text used in the curricula of the hard science of meteorology does not, while The Greenhouse Effect by Linden, a text used in the curricula of the soft science of climate change does...so "all" the textbooks do not describe the flawed "derivative"...only those with an agenda teach it.

second, it isn't the way S-B described it...third, do you really think applying the distributive property to an equation will physically change what is happening?...really???

This derivation defines equation 3 as a NET radiation exchange and is taught in physics classes. It demonstrates exchange radiation and definitely not one way radiation. Disagree if you want, but you are alone in your opinion.

The third equation did not come from S-B....and of course it "describes" a net energy exchange, but again, do you really think that altering the S-B equation by applying the distributive property actually changes anything physically?...When I was a kid, I desperately wanted this flashy gear shift for my bicycle...I thought that by simply bolting on that gear shift, that I would have a 3 speed bicycle....thinking that altering the S-B equation by applying the distributive property and "describing" a net energy exchange will actually result in a net energy change is the same sort of immature childish thinking.

It would be more productive if you could cite scientific sources that say the S-B equation refers to one way radiation. The insert that I gave above denies what you believe. All scientists will disagree with you.

It is difficult to find sources discussing the SB equation that bother to mention what is patently obvious to anyone with even the most basic algebraic skills...they assume that you already know how to read an equation....so don't bother to tell you what the = sign means, or that putting sigma and the S-B constant, and A together means to multiply them, or that by putting T-Tc in parentheses that you must first solve that small equation and then multiply it by the product of the three symbols outside of the parentheses....and they don't think that they have to tell you that it describes a one way gross exchange of energy...once more....

This equation states explicitly

that the emitting power of a radiator, not in a vacuum is equal to its emissivity times the S-B constant, times its area times the difference between its own temperature to the 4th power and the temperature of its environment to the 4th power... That is the ACTUAL S-B equation...you can look at their writings from beginning to end and you won't find that "derivative" of yours...it is a false version of the S-B law. The equation at the top of this paragraph is the actual S=B equation...so now, show me a description of a two way net energy flow within THAT equation which happens to be take from the ACTUAL SB LAW.

For people who believe themselves to be smart, you are dumb as a box of rocks...if you don't have the basics you don't have shit.

 

[SSDD]

Can you please post your bona fides?

I don't need bona fides to be a skeptic...and one doesn't need bona fides to be right while experts are wrong....to believe otherwise is a logical fallacy.

I mean, you seem willing to slam climate scientists. What is your evidence that they are wrong other than you basically saying "I don't believe you". There is so much evidence out there it is unbelievable.

I don't need evidence proving that they are wrong...they need observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence proving that they are right...or at least strongly suggesting that they are right...and none exists...not one shred....

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
Evidence for global warming
Global Warming Science

OK...I looked at your links...and actually read most of them....what exactly in any, or all of those links do you think represents observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate...feel free to cut and paste or point me towards a particular paragraph...I saw nothing there that rises to the level of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence and we are after all talking about the climate and the atmosphere...an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity.

 

[mamooth]

Look at the AGT's of both curves and then get back to me with your bullshit rejection of data.

You're evading again. That ice core chart does not contain the last 1500 years of data, period. Whining and running away won't change that.

Let's summarize all of the ways in that your stupid comparison fails.

You compare charts of two totally different things. One is global average temperature, one is a ice core from a single spot. Apples and oranges fallacy, right off the bat.

Your ice core chart does not contain the last 50 years of data, no matter how much you try to evade that unpleasant fact. Hence, the graphs have different endpoints on the right, again making any meaningful comparison impossible.

Your charts has two wildly different time scales. For some reason, you're demanding a rate of change be calculated based on the last two pixels, which doesn't even represent the last 50 years. That kind of stupidity brings shame upon your alma mater.

Your "natural cycles" theory in general is a total logic failure, as it assumes the present must act like the past, even though current conditions are wildly different from the past.

And your "natural cycles" theory fails outright because it's flatly contradicted by the directly observed data. As just one example, the directly measured stratospheric cooling is the exact opposite of what would happen with natural cycles heating, therefore the natural cycles theory is conclusively disproved.

You're not the first cultist to show up here, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking he'll show those dirty liberals because he read some propaganda on a kook political blog. We've seen your cultist song and dance over and over. You're now in the stage where, after having your crap science ripped to shreds over and over, you simply pretend not to have seen any of it, and just keep reposting the same debunked nonsense as if it were a mantra that can shield you from reality. That's usually followed by the "declare victory and retreat" thing.

 

[mamooth]

[Almost ALL of which refer to the idiocy of CO2 being classified a pollutant.

So you're back to your "death wishes aren't really death wishes when my side does it" defense. Convenient, how you give your own side permission to make unlimited death wishes, because it's all in such good fun. But only your own side, of course. It's part of your "The ends always justify the means, but only for my own side" morality.

You're so fucking stupid (or intellectually dishonest, you choose) you can't understand the difference between a off color joke and a call to incarcerate and murder people.

Nice projection, considering you just posted an off-color joke video, and then declared it was a call for murder. Just more of that staggering hypocrisy that you're known so well for.

In contrast to your abstract claims about some vague people elsewhere, every denier right here on this board, without exception, is a Stalinist. Without exception, every denier here enthusiastically supports the Republicans attempts to jail climate scientists for the thoughtcrime of doing science which is inconvenient to TheParty. Every. Single. One. No exceptions. I know that because I've asked, over and over, and not a single a denier has ever been willing to say that tactic is wrong. Every one of them toes the party line, and doesn't dare dissent from party dogma.

The two sides are totally different. Not a single rational person here has called for opponents to be jailed. Every denier here calls for it. You are all Stalinists, while we all go with democracy. Just making it clear where we both stand. You're proud Stalinists, and we're decent people.

Now, if you'd like to claim you're not a Stalinist, simply make it very clear how strongly you condemn the Republican attempts to jail scientists and censor science. We'll wait.

 

[ding]

Look at the AGT's of both curves and then get back to me with your bullshit rejection of data.

You're evading again. That ice core chart does not contain the last 1500 years of data, period. Whining and running away won't change that.

Let's summarize all of the ways in that your stupid comparison fails.

You compare charts of two totally different things. One is global average temperature, one is a ice core from a single spot. Apples and oranges fallacy, right off the bat.

Your ice core chart does not contain the last 50 years of data, no matter how much you try to evade that unpleasant fact. Hence, the graphs have different endpoints on the right, again making any meaningful comparison impossible.

Your charts has two wildly different time scales. For some reason, you're demanding a rate of change be calculated based on the last two pixels, which doesn't even represent the last 50 years. That kind of stupidity brings shame upon your alma mater.

Your "natural cycles" theory in general is a total logic failure, as it assumes the present must act like the past, even though current conditions are wildly different from the past.

And your "natural cycles" theory fails outright because it's flatly contradicted by the directly observed data. As just one example, the directly measured stratospheric cooling is the exact opposite of what would happen with natural cycles heating, therefore the natural cycles theory is conclusively disproved.

You're not the first cultist to show up here, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking he'll show those dirty liberals because he read some propaganda on a kook political blog. We've seen your cultist song and dance over and over. You're now in the stage where, after having your crap science ripped to shreds over and over, you simply pretend not to have seen any of it, and just keep reposting the same debunked nonsense as if it were a mantra that can shield you from reality. That's usually followed by the "declare victory and retreat" thing.

I am not evading. Why are you limiting NASA to only use data from ice cores? Are telling me that 50 years ago the AGT was 1C? We both know that is bullshit. The present AGT is 1C and that is exactly what the plot that NASA prepared shows for time 0 which is present day.

 

[ding]

 

[Wuwei]

The subject is entropy as it relates to exchange radiation between objects. Falling marbles, etc. are not examples of exchange radiation.[/quote[

And the failure continues...energy exchange is energy exchange and entropy is entropy regardless of where the energy is coming from...

That was already covered in a post about one year ago. All physicists and textbooks agree with this derivation:

First, all the textbooks do not describe any such thing...for example"

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung a book used in hard science physics curricula does not teach any such thing while An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation by Liou, a text used in curricula of the soft science of climate science does....Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest does not while Assessing Climate Change by Rapp does.....Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar, again, a text used in the hard science of physics, does not, while Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC, a soft science text does...see a trend developing here?....3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis..a text used in the curricula of the hard science of meteorology does not, while The Greenhouse Effect by Linden, a text used in the curricula of the soft science of climate change does...so "all" the textbooks do not describe the flawed "derivative"...only those with an agenda teach it.

second, it isn't the way S-B described it...third, do you really think applying the distributive property to an equation will physically change what is happening?...really???

This derivation defines equation 3 as a NET radiation exchange and is taught in physics classes. It demonstrates exchange radiation and definitely not one way radiation. Disagree if you want, but you are alone in your opinion.

The third equation did not come from S-B....and of course it "describes" a net energy exchange, but again, do you really think that altering the S-B equation by applying the distributive property actually changes anything physically?...When I was a kid, I desperately wanted this flashy gear shift for my bicycle...I thought that by simply bolting on that gear shift, that I would have a 3 speed bicycle....thinking that altering the S-B equation by applying the distributive property and "describing" a net energy exchange will actually result in a net energy change is the same sort of immature childish thinking.

It would be more productive if you could cite scientific sources that say the S-B equation refers to one way radiation. The insert that I gave above denies what you believe. All scientists will disagree with you.

It is difficult to find sources discussing the SB equation that bother to mention what is patently obvious to anyone with even the most basic algebraic skills...they assume that you already know how to read an equation....so don't bother to tell you what the = sign means, or that putting sigma and the S-B constant, and A together means to multiply them, or that by putting T-Tc in parentheses that you must first solve that small equation and then multiply it by the product of the three symbols outside of the parentheses....and they don't think that they have to tell you that it describes a one way gross exchange of energy...once more....

This equation states explicitly

that the emitting power of a radiator, not in a vacuum is equal to its emissivity times the S-B constant, times its area times the difference between its own temperature to the 4th power and the temperature of its environment to the 4th power... That is the ACTUAL S-B equation...you can look at their writings from beginning to end and you won't find that "derivative" of yours...it is a false version of the S-B law. The equation at the top of this paragraph is the actual S=B equation...so now, show me a description of a two way net energy flow within THAT equation which happens to be take from the ACTUAL SB LAW.

For people who believe themselves to be smart, you are dumb as a box of rocks...if you don't have the basics you don't have shit.

All the following references define the Stefan Boltzman law specifically as

Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Stefan-Boltzmann law | physics
Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
The Stefan-Boltzmann law
How to Calculate Heat Emission from a Blackbody Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant - dummies
Stefan-Boltzmann law - Hmolpedia
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/mathis/mathis64.pdf


The following references clearly show how the subtracted form can be simply derived from the above formula using the distributive law.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf
Radiation Heat Transfer
Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/heat_transfer/radiation/blackbody.cfm
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/classes/matl0501/coursepack/radiation/text.htm

I already gave many references that explicitly say that radiation is exchanged between objects. The word exchange means that it is not one way radiation.

Finally, the second law as defined by entropy, and has no mention of restriction on thermal radiation flowing anywhere with no constraints from the surrounding temperature.

In short the many references of

the definition of the SB equation;
the derivation of the subtracted form;
the science of radiation exchange between any objects;
the law of entropy;​

all show that you are totally wrong about your understanding of thermodynamic systems.

You do all this in a vain attempt to show that there is no such thing as back radiation. Your views on the nature of thermodynamics is only a misguided opinion. The entire historic body of science disagrees with your opinion.

 

[SSDD]

You do all this in a vain attempt to show that there is no such thing as back radiation. Your views on the nature of thermodynamics is only a misguided opinion. The entire historic body of science disagrees with your opinion.

Yanking your own chain like that is called mental masturbation....you let me know when you get an observed, measured instance of back radiation gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature...and also let me know when applying the distributive property to an equation alters reality....

 

[Wuwei]

Yanking your own chain like that is called mental masturbation....you let me know when you get an observed, measured instance of back radiation gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature...and also let me know when applying the distributive property to an equation alters reality....

You are essentially saying the entire historic body of science is doing mental masturbation. Is that the best you can do as a retort? The SB equation as defined by science is a mathematical model of reality. It didn't alter reality. You are altering reality in your own mind.

 

[SSDD]

You are essentially saying the entire historic body of science is doing mental masturbation. Is that the best you can do as a retort? The SB equation as defined by science is a mathematical model of reality. It didn't alter reality. You are altering reality in your own mind.

A great deal of it is today...which is why better than 50% of the scientific papers b being published are false...as to the S-B equation...S-B stated it as I posted the equation....you bastardized version is the result of an attempt to make back radiation believable to those not bright enough to bother to look at what S-B wrote and read what the very explicit equation says....

And of course it didn't alter reality...energy transfer is still a one way gross proposition and no amount of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models will ever make it otherwise.

 

[Wuwei]

...as to the S-B equation...S-B stated it as I posted the equation....you bastardized version is the result of an attempt to make back radiation believable to those not bright enough to bother to look at what S-B wrote and read what the very explicit equation says....

You are not correct. Stefan stated it as incoming heat and outgoing heat and then combined the two using the distributive law. This is from his original paper:
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

Stefan published this in 1879 long before there was any controversy in back-radiation. Note that the bottom of page 413 gives the heat as H into and out of the object. Then he combines them on top of the next page. This image was in my files and I told you about it some time ago.

 

[Dr Grump]

Can you please post your bona fides?

I don't need bona fides to be a skeptic...and one doesn't need bona fides to be right while experts are wrong....to believe otherwise is a logical fallacy.

I mean, you seem willing to slam climate scientists. What is your evidence that they are wrong other than you basically saying "I don't believe you". There is so much evidence out there it is unbelievable.

I don't need evidence proving that they are wrong...they need observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence proving that they are right...or at least strongly suggesting that they are right...and none exists...not one shred....

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
Evidence for global warming
Global Warming Science

OK...I looked at your links...and actually read most of them....what exactly in any, or all of those links do you think represents observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate...feel free to cut and paste or point me towards a particular paragraph...I saw nothing there that rises to the level of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence and we are after all talking about the climate and the atmosphere...an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity.

Of course you need to post your bona fides because you're a skeptic. You are the flat earth society of the 21st century. You're the guy that wanted to put Copernicus in jail because he dared suggest the earth went around the sun not the other way around. It is incumbent on you to prove them wrong. They have more than proved their POV. And I call the ice caps mounting and the glaciers retreating as more than enough observed, measured, quantified and empirical evidence. And is just the tip of the iceberg. I can't help it that you don't believe.

But let's put your skepticism aside for a second. Let's say the climate scientists (you know they guys who have spent literally years and thousands of hours studying this shit unlike you) are wrong (they're not). Don't you think it a good idea to stop pumping all this shit into the atmosphere? Don't you think it a good idea to stop fossil fuels fucking up the atmosphere? You think it ok? If so, go live in Beijing for a year. Watch episode 4 of The Crown. Although based on the reign of Queen Elizabeth that episode is dedicated to a week in 1952 where more than an estimated 12,000 people died in London due to what they called the Great Smog. It was when fog and pollution mixed together and created a perfect situation where people with breathing problems died. It lead to the British Parliament passing the Clean Air Act.

Don't do it because you're a anti GW skeptic. Do it because it makes sense.