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

[SSDD]

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.

Same old non argument...same old non answer...same old not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global temerpature with his CO2 emissions...

And of course I don't need bona fides to state that there is no such evidence in support of the claims of global temperatures rising due to CO2 emissions...I am stating that none exist....and they don't...one needs no special qualifications to make that statement and one needs no special qualifications to deliver them if in fact they existed.

And I certainly am not anti science....i am anti pseudoscience....which is what climate science is today. Copernicus actually had observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support his claims so he would have been in no danger from me....only from the religious consensus...which describes you....as you would with me if you and yours had your way...you represent the wrong consensus that Copernicus (the skeptic) was fighting against.

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.

If their point of view was that the climate is changing, then of course they would have enough observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support their claims...and they would have no argument from me...clearly the climate is changing...but then, the climate has always, and is always changing... That, however is not what the discussion is about...sure the climate is changing...but your side says that mankind is altering the climate with his CO2 emissions....There is the rub...and there is where your side of the argument breaks down....there is not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the argument that MAN IS ALTERING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE WITH HIS CO2 EMISSIONS. Hell, if you want evidence that the climate is changing, I can provide all that you want. Here, for example, is evidence of that from the Greenland ice cores covering the past 10,000 years:

No doubt the climate is changing and has always changed...take a look at the graph above.....and relate it to the climate in the northern hemisphere....(ice cores from the antarctic show the same warming spikes by the way)....Look at the Minoan warm period about 3000 years ago...look a the temperature then compared to now...think perhaps glaciers were retreating and arctic ice was melting then?... How about during the Roman warm period?...how about during the Medieval warm period?...think the ice retreated even further during those periods?

Sure, the global climate is changing...it has always and will always change...is man causing it?..of course not...and again, there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that he is....if you think there is, then by all means lets see it...but evidence that the climate is changing is not evidence that man is causing the change...if you believe that, then it isn't surprising that you have fallen for the scam.

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 find it odd that a bunch of guys who spent years and thousands of hours studying an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity such as the atmosphere and the climate don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support their claims that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions?

Don't you think it a good idea to stop pumping all this shit into the atmosphere?

I probably have more draconian ideas regarding pollution than you.....I favor fines of a magnitude that would bankrupt polluters..I favor long prison sentences for polluters. I am a conservationist as opposed to being an environmentalist....if you don't know the difference, then that is a topic for another discussion....suffice it to say that I prefer a clean environment and have no problem with regulations regarding actual pollution...CO2, however is not a pollutant, and there is not the first shred of evidence supporting the claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change...again, if you believe it exits, by all means, lets see it.

Don't you think it a good idea to stop fossil fuels fucking up the atmosphere?

I have no problem at all with regulating emissions that are actually pollution...AGAIN, CO2 is not a pollutant.

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.

I agree there, but when you talk about that sort of thing, you are not talking about CO2..which is an entirely different topic...You don't seem to realize that there are any number of actual environmental problems that we can and should be addressing, and that most, if not all of them have solutions that are readily available...they aren't being addressed though because climate science has co opted every one of them and dragged them under the umbrella of anthropogenic global warming...there is no anthropogenic global warming...and because this has happened, actual environmental problems are not, and will not be addressed so long as the anthropogenic global warming scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers.

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

Tell me Dr. Grump...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? What has the average mean temperature been throughout most of earth's history?...What has the average atmospheric CO2 concentration been throughout most of earth's history? What was the average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time that the climate fell into the ice age that the earth is in the process of exiting at this time? Can you answer any of those questions?

 

[SSDD]

...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.

It is little wonder that you think like you do..those equations say nothing of the sort... I don't guess you bothered to translate the German. Roughly translated...I don't speak German, the sentence at the bottom of page 413 says "for tests, one selects the radiation formula of the 4th powers of the absolute temperatures such as" and then he writes the absolute temperature of the radiator and the surroundings to the 4th power.

Then at the top of page 414 he writes "to be taken were A means the temperature of the black body is dependent in large by the cooling rate of the surroundings"

and he essentially writes as I have been saying all along that the radiation emitted by the radiator is determined by the difference in the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....look in the parentheses...and how many sets of parentheses there are.

Here is essentially what he is saying

NOT

which describes a two way energy exchange and is the "derivative" formula that is used in the soft science climatology texts that have an agenda to push rather than simply teaching physics.

 

[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...

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.

You just cant get a grasp on the reality of it... Silly You.. Pathetic really..

 

[Wuwei]

It is little wonder that you think like you do..those equations say nothing of the sort... I don't guess you bothered to translate the German. Roughly translated...I don't speak German, the sentence at the bottom of page 413 says "for tests, one selects the radiation formula of the 4th powers of the absolute temperatures such as" and then he writes the absolute temperature of the radiator and the surroundings to the 4th power.

Then at the top of page 414 he writes "to be taken were A means the temperature of the black body is dependent in large by the cooling rate of the surroundings"

and he essentially writes as I have been saying all along that the radiation emitted by the radiator is determined by the difference in the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....look in the parentheses...and how many sets of parentheses there are.

You keep guessing as though you know what you are talking about. You keep guessing thermodynamic science from your gut and you are always wrong. I have had 3 semesters of German and yes I did translate the German. You insult yourself when you attempt to insult me.

You butchered the translation. German has syntax inversions that you are not aware of. This is what Stefan wrote:

We choose the law of radiation as the formula of the fourth powers of the absolute temperature thus

H1 = A T1^4 . . . H2 = A T2^4​

in which A is largely dependent on the surface of the body. [Later called emissivity.]

The cooling rate for the bare thermometer bulb is determined by

[formula with differences of temperatures]​

Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "II. Uber die Bestimmung ......."
The translation of the first two sentences is

The absolute amount of heat radiated by a body can not be determined by such trials. Attempts can only be made on the excess of the amount of heat emitted by the body over the heat absorbed by it at the same time.​

Now don't try to tell me that means one way radiation. It simply does not. He uses "heat", "emitted", "absorbed" and "same time" in the same sentence.

Kirchkoff recognized that heat was radiated and coined the term black body radiation in 1860. Kirchoff recognized that the value "A" in the first two equations were the same for emission and absorption 19 years before Stefan's law. But he didn't know why. Einstein explained it around 50 years later . At that time nobody knew anything about electromagnetic radiation, but they were smart enough to know that heat radiates both ways between bodies.

You keep guessing as though you know what you are talking about and then insult me and the entire body of scientists over the last 140 years. You don't know the science. I just can't understand why you do that to yourself. If you don't want to believe AGW do it some other way.

 

[ding]

 

[SSDD]

You keep guessing as though you know what you are talking about and then insult me and the entire body of scientists over the last 140 years. You don't know the science. I just can't understand why you do that to yourself. If you don't want to believe AGW do it some other way.

Sorry guy...I am not guessing, and this would not even be a topic of discussion if you could read a simple equation and understand what it is describing...

Anyway, after all that, the bottom line of your whole argument is that any challenge to the second law of thermodynamics which states that 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 is the result of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model and that there is no observation of either heat or energy ever having moved spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area.....thanks...that is what I have been saying all along.

 

[ding]

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.

Just look at the scale definition at the bottom of the time axis in the lower graph. The data in the circle has a span of 20,000 years according to that scale. Insults won't change that.

Ok, are you ready to have this discussion now?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...I am not guessing, and this would not even be a topic of discussion if you could read a simple equation and understand what it is describing...

This isn't about me. Let me remind you again that it is about current science:

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.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf see pp 413-414
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf
Radiation Heat Transfer
Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle
Blackbody Radiation Theory in Heat Transfer
Heat Transfer: Radiation

These references explicitly state that thermal radiation is exchanged between objects. The word exchange means that it is not one way radiation.

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
Thermal equilibrium • Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation explained
http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf

Finally, the second law as defined by entropy, has no mention of any constraints on the flow of thermal radiation from cold to warm objects.

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 are only a misguided opinion.

Again, let me remind you that this isn't about me or my ideas. It is about you and your denial of the entire historic body of science from 140 years ago to present, which totally disagrees with your opinion.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...I am not guessing, and this would not even be a topic of discussion if you could read a simple equation and understand what it is describing...

This isn't about me. Let me remind you again that it is about current science:

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.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf see pp 413-414
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf
Radiation Heat Transfer
Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle
Blackbody Radiation Theory in Heat Transfer
Heat Transfer: Radiation

These references explicitly state that thermal radiation is exchanged between objects. The word exchange means that it is not one way radiation.

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
Thermal equilibrium • Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation explained
http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf

Finally, the second law as defined by entropy, has no mention of any constraints on the flow of thermal radiation from cold to warm objects.

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 are only a misguided opinion.

Again, let me remind you that this isn't about me or my ideas. It is about you and your denial of the entire historic body of science from 140 years ago to present, which totally disagrees with your opinion.

And on and on and still you can't read an equation....this equation...

is not a derivative of the first equation using the distributive property...it isn't a law by the way...you seem to have a very frail grasp of even basic math....and that equation says that the amount of energy radiating from a black body is equal to the emissivity of the body times the S-B constant times its area times the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power...nothing there suggests two way energy flow...if you want to apply the distributive property and describe a false two way energy flow, then the equation would look like this...

...as you can see, the derivative is clearly false as it requires a double use of the S-B constant and nowhere in anywhere do you find that as an acceptable formula....that equation falsely says that the amount of energy radiating from a black body is equal to its area times the product of its emissivity, the S-B constant and its own temperature minus the area of the surroundings times the product of the emissivity of its surroundings, the S-B constant and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power. You clearly don't grasp even basic algebra so it is pointless to talk to you on the topic...come back when you can write a formula and actually describe what it is saying...

 

[ding]

Sorry guy...I am not guessing, and this would not even be a topic of discussion if you could read a simple equation and understand what it is describing...

This isn't about me. Let me remind you again that it is about current science:

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.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf see pp 413-414
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf
Radiation Heat Transfer
Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle
Blackbody Radiation Theory in Heat Transfer
Heat Transfer: Radiation

These references explicitly state that thermal radiation is exchanged between objects. The word exchange means that it is not one way radiation.

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
Thermal equilibrium • Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation explained
http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf

Finally, the second law as defined by entropy, has no mention of any constraints on the flow of thermal radiation from cold to warm objects.

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 are only a misguided opinion.

Again, let me remind you that this isn't about me or my ideas. It is about you and your denial of the entire historic body of science from 140 years ago to present, which totally disagrees with your opinion.

I guess not.

 

[Wuwei]

Ok, are you ready to have this discussion now?

The only discussion I can think of is that your data below the graph doesn't pass my sanity check. Let me know where I am missing something.

How are you able to get starting and ending years to 6 significant figures on a graph whose resolution is no more than 3 significant figures?

The line you label purple looks orange to me.

The data from years 1988 to 0 looks like it spans 10C, not 1.6C. That would make the most recent slope more like 0.005 rather than 0.0008 deg/yr

 

[Wuwei]

And on and on and still you can't read an equation..

You clearly don't grasp even basic algebra so it is pointless to talk to you on the topic...come back when you can write a formula and actually describe what it is saying...

Read my post 248 again. It isn't about me. It's about the entire body of physicists and science over the last 140 years.

Your ideas are muddled. The areas are quite obviously the same and Kirchoff and Einstein showed that the SB constant sigma is indeed the same for absorption and emission. You are still arguing against things you don't understand.

 

[ding]

Ok, are you ready to have this discussion now?

The only discussion I can think of is that your data below the graph doesn't pass my sanity check. Let me know where I am missing something.

How are you able to get starting and ending years to 6 significant figures on a graph whose resolution is no more than 3 significant figures?

The line you label purple looks orange to me.

The data from years 1988 to 0 looks like it spans 10C, not 1.6C. That would make the most recent slope more like 0.005 rather than 0.0008 deg/yr

It is called math. You do know how to calculate slope, right? You take the change in temperature divided by the change in time to arrive at dC/dT. Over the last 1988 years there was a 1.6C rise in temperature.

Are you being obtuse? Because this is pretty basic stuff here. Why aren't you able to grasp this?

 

[Wuwei]

It is called math. You do know how to calculate slope, right? You take the change in temperature divided by the change in time to arrive at dC/dT. Over the last 1988 years there was a 1.6C rise in temperature.

Are you being obtuse? Because this is pretty basic stuff here. Why aren't you able to grasp this?

You didn't address the points I raised. If you want to turn this into an ego trip game, I'm simply not interested.

 

[ding]

It is called math. You do know how to calculate slope, right? You take the change in temperature divided by the change in time to arrive at dC/dT. Over the last 1988 years there was a 1.6C rise in temperature.

Are you being obtuse? Because this is pretty basic stuff here. Why aren't you able to grasp this?

You didn't address the points I raised. If you want to turn this into an ego trip game, I'm simply not interested.

Yes. I did. What point did I not address? Is your point that the slope cannot be calculated?

 

[polarbear]

And on and on and still you can't read an equation..

You clearly don't grasp even basic algebra so it is pointless to talk to you on the topic...come back when you can write a formula and actually describe what it is saying...

Read my post 248 again. It isn't about me. It's about the entire body of physicists and science over the last 140 years.

Your ideas are muddled. The areas are quite obviously the same and Kirchoff and Einstein showed that the SB constant sigma is indeed the same for absorption and emission. You are still arguing against things you don't understand.

Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
Neither one said what you are saying here. Where did you get that from? The "Skeptical Science" cartoonist`s blog or from some other pseudo science group-think consensus?
Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann`s constant σ has nothing to do with absorption.
In addition to that it can only be applied to IDEAL black bodies and the earth isn`t one.
It DOES NOT absorb all emr regardless of frequency nor does it have an ε of 1.0.
If it were then you could write a program to predict global temperature with a vintage commodore 64.

 

[ding]

And on and on and still you can't read an equation..

You clearly don't grasp even basic algebra so it is pointless to talk to you on the topic...come back when you can write a formula and actually describe what it is saying...

Read my post 248 again. It isn't about me. It's about the entire body of physicists and science over the last 140 years.

Your ideas are muddled. The areas are quite obviously the same and Kirchoff and Einstein showed that the SB constant sigma is indeed the same for absorption and emission. You are still arguing against things you don't understand.

Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
Neither one said what you are saying here. Where did you get that from? The "Skeptical Science" cartoonist`s blog or from some other pseudo science group-think consensus?
Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann`s constant σ has nothing to do with absorption.
In addition to that it can only be applied to IDEAL black bodies and the earth isn`t one.
It DOES NOT absorb all emr regardless of frequency nor does it have an ε of 1.0.
If it were then you could write a program to predict global temperature with a vintage commodore 64.

Boom.. Let me add....

 

[mamooth]

t is called math. You do know how to calculate slope, right?

Actually, it's called "Look at ding try to lie with statistics again."

Why are you using an ice core graph that lacks any recent data to make conclusions about recent temperature rise? You can't take a derivative of data that isn't there, but that's exactly what you're trying to do.

And Wuwei has repeatedly ripped you apart concerning scale issues, so no need to add to that.

Your stupid errors have been pointed out over and over, so you can't use the excuse you didn't know about them. Posting the same debunked crap over and over means you're either a deliberate fraud, or you're monumentally stupid. There aren't any other options. So which is it, dishonesty or stupidity?

Oh, this will be where you refuse to address the points, and instead post the same debunked logical fallacies again. It's all a gutless cultist like you is capable of, mindless propaganda bleating.

 

[ding]

t is called math. You do know how to calculate slope, right?

Actually, it's called "Look at ding try to lie with statistics again."

Why are you using an ice core graph that lacks any recent data to make conclusions about recent temperature rise? You can't take a derivative of data that isn't there, but that's exactly what you're trying to do.

And Wuwei has repeatedly ripped you apart concerning scale issues, so no need to add to that.

Your stupid errors have been pointed out over and over, so you can't use the excuse you didn't know about them. Posting the same debunked crap over and over means you're either a deliberate fraud, or you're monumentally stupid. There aren't any other options. So which is it, dishonesty or stupidity?

Oh, this will be where you refuse to address the points, and instead post the same debunked logical fallacies again. It's all a gutless cultist like you is capable of, mindless propaganda bleating.

When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?

 

[ding]