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

[westwall]

The Anomalous magnetic dipole moment is the result of a mathematical model, used to verify another mathematical model...ie...place holding story...

The Rydberg constant is no more than a fine measurement (boosted by a mathematical model) of the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom.

And the Fine-structure constant is a measurement of the magnetic strength between elementary charged particles...

Fine achievements one and all...but in the larger picture about as impressive as a toddlers first step compared to the performance of a world champion try-athelete. The child should be proud but for all the accomplishment, it is just a first step.

From that, you leap to the claim that we know what is happening, and what forces are at work at the level of single atom interactions?....You are as nutty as ian....you have accepted science as some all knowing, infallible cultish religion that already knows all the answers....newsflash...it doesn't.

Have you read the news lately?...Medical science, which labors under a far higher....a far far far higher standard than climatology will ever be held to, has recently admitted that as much as 75% of the published findings from the field are false...I would be very surprised if 50% of the work coming out of post modern physics stands the test of time and would be very surprised if more than 2% of the tripe that comes from climate science is still mainstream science in 10 years.

My gosh, I have never seen such an anti-science diatribe. I was saying that many precise "observable, measurable, testable" measurements have been made in labs and they agree perfectly with mathematical predictions. Then you reply with definitions of the experiments, a comparison with a child, and distractions into a denigration medical science and of modern physics.

Yet, your own misunderstanding of the science of thermodynamics and radiation physics is a travesty. Absolutely no physicist believes what you do in those fields. You are alone in your opinion of what modern science is.

Do you understand that the entropy definition of the second law of thermodynamics is about the dynamic nature of disordered states of systems and and has no restrictions on thermal photons moving from cold bodies to warmer bodies?

Do you disagree with the entropy definition?

Please post a link to those lab studies.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And then we have the paleo records which show the AGW meme to nothing to worry about...

I figured it was about time for a reality check... SO here it is..

 

[SSDD]

I am stating the fact that I never suggested anyone be killed or commit suicide. And a skeptic is someone who exhibits skepticism.

Of course you did crick...why lie?

Do you know the definition of suggest?

Suggest -
verb
1.
to mention or introduce (an idea, proposition,plan, etc.) for consideration or possible action.

Here is what you said....

Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers.

By DEFINITION, you suggested that deniers be killed.

You and everyone else here knows what you deny.

We deny the false religion of environmentalism/agw....we are very skeptical of the pseudoscience that climate science is putting out in support of that religion.

 

[SSDD]

My gosh, I have never seen such an anti-science diatribe. I was saying that many precise "observable, measurable, testable" measurements have been made in labs and they agree perfectly with mathematical predictions. Then you reply with definitions of the experiments, a comparison with a child, and distractions into a denigration medical science and of modern physics.

3 is not many...and none of those 3 tell us what is happening at the level of single atom interactions....and I am not anti science....I am all for science...My formative years were in the early 1960's when science was king...every kid wanted to be a scientist...science made discoveries and proved them....post modern science is plagued with the publish or perish mentality and rarely proves anything....in short, little of what is called science today actually meets the bar of actual science....and far far to much of it is false.

I agree with the laws of thermodynamics...the second states clearly that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from cool to warm...such movement has never been observed...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm...the claim that they do is post modern unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical modeling....let me know when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to reflect the claims made by the models...here is a hint...it isn't going to happen...the models will change 50 times before those laws are even slightly challenged.

 

[Wuwei]

3 is not many...and none of those 3 tell us what is happening at the level of single atom interactions....and I am not anti science....I am all for science...My formative years were in the early 1960's when science was king...every kid wanted to be a scientist...science made discoveries and proved them....post modern science is plagued with the publish or perish mentality and rarely proves anything....in short, little of what is called science today actually meets the bar of actual science....and far far to much of it is false.

I agree with the laws of thermodynamics...the second states clearly that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from cool to warm...such movement has never been observed...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm...the claim that they do is post modern unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical modeling....let me know when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to reflect the claims made by the models...here is a hint...it isn't going to happen...the models will change 50 times before those laws are even slightly challenged.

Right. 3 is not many in the list, but I listed 3 classic examples of quantum electrodynamics that were impossible to consider with old theories. Other examples include the atomic spectra of elements; why the valences of the rare earths deviate from classical physics; energy levels of muonic hydrogen.

Laser spectroscopy has increased the level of precision to one part per trillion in "measurable, observable, repeatable" laboratory measurements of the energy states of hydrogen and helium. These measurements also agree with models at the same level of calculated precision: one part per trillion. Virtually every aspect of atomic physics that can be observed and measured agrees with the modern physics models to unprecedented accuracy.

You go ahead and disparage the models of modern physics if you like, but it brought you lasers, microchips, GPS, thin screen LCD monitors, and many more.

As far as the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is the all-encompassing definition that is valid for all processes including nuclear energy, chemical changes, radiation physics, and yes, steam engines. The law you cling to actually has been rewritten with a broader over-arching basis on entropy.

You didn't answer my question. This is the third time you avoided it:

Do you understand that the entropy definition of the second law of thermodynamics is about the dynamic nature of disordered states of systems and and has no restrictions on thermal photons moving from cold bodies to warmer bodies?

Do you disagree with the entropy definition?

Please answer the question.

 

[jc456]

So, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL

Like you, no, I don't believe you or your scientists.

 

[jc456]

View attachment 100472

Well now, you seem to think that the temperature for the US is going down. So why are our glaciers melting? If the graph showing a cooling is correct, why are not they expanding, rather than receding? After all, during the little ice age they did actually expand.

so what's your temperatures looking like this week and next?

 

[jc456]

Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
predictable of crazy Cali...

California regulates cow farts

You cannot call something 'pseudo science' when the vast majority of scientists believe in it. Not when folks like Stephen Hawking believe in it.

Prof Stephen Hawking said the biggest threats to planet Earth were of our own making, including nuclear war, global warming and genetically engineered viruses. .

prove the vast majority. list the names of this supposed group. how many scientists does this number represent out of how many? Come now, don't come in here posting nonsense without facts, let's see the counts.

 

[jc456]

Dear little cocksuck, so you are accusing every scientist in every nation of committing fraud or being accessory to fraud. Make sure you have plenty of tinfoil for your little hats.

Poor rocks...reduced to nothing but name calling....I am still waiting for that observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW....been waiting for decades now and suppose the wait will go on just as long.

To bad you follow such an expensive religion, what with the funding for said religion coming to a close....perhaps we can get on to some real science now and find out what factors actually drive the climate and put our resources into adaptation, which is our only realistic response to the climate since we have no power over it whatsoever.

the religion is done on Jan 20th. I can't wait for that transition. can you say boom?

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?

But since it doesn't, that's a rather stupid statement on your part.

Even your graphs show it. Anomaly up at +.5C, and still rising. None of the previous cycles passed +.3C.

And by the way, nobody knows what those graphs even represent, since you haven't seen fit to tell us. Are they global? Regional? A single ice core? Being we don't know and you won't tell us, the graphs are meaningless.

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?

I understand the earth should have continued a slow cooldown for at least another 20,000 years, being that was the natural cycle. As a sharp sustained warmup suddenly happened, and we completely skipped thousands of years of global glaciation, climate is certainly not behaving as per the natural cycle.

But please, expound more on your theory. Tell us how completely skipping a natural glaciation cycle is part of the natural cycle. How is the doing the complete opposite of the natural cycle part of the natural cycle?

Of course the current profile matches the temperature profile of the interglacial cycles. Are you smoking crack? The data comes from NASA. The graphs represent global temperature vs time.

I'll annotate the graphs to illustrate the stupidity of your argument.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Good God, Ding, you have just proven how utterly stupid you are. Very different scales on the two graphs. Were the tow graphs on the same scaling, the upper graph on the climb in temperatures for the last thawing would be a very low slope. About 1 degree per thousand years, compared to the bottom graph of the present warming with is about 1 degree per hundred years. So it is warming about ten times faster than it did coming out of the last glacial period.

 

[Old Rocks]

Obviously it is. You can see the decline and the incline. They are both at the correct AGT. You are arguing with NASA data.

Simply denying that ice cores don't contain any data from recent years isn't going to make that inconvenient fact go away. That graph does _not_ contain the last 1500 years, period.

Look at the AGT

America's Got Talent?

Oh, average global temperature. Again, your graph doesn't show that. It shows the temperature at a single ice core location.

They aren't my graphs. They are NASA's graphs. The AGT's are the same on each curve for the last 1500 years. The last 1500 years is included in both plots. Stop crapping your pants over nothing.

Your interpretations of the NASA graphs is totally bogus. The two graphs are on very different scales. The slopes of the lines cannot be compared as you are comparing them. Sure as hell glad you don't work in our engineering department.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid

Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?

Oh no. crikey wasn't being sarcastic. He said "off the sceptics". That is a clear call for murder. I said "regulate" as in a legal manner. jillian is an attorney and has a brain so she understands exactly what I meant. Unlike a lying POS like you.

I used the term "off the deniers" (none of you have ever qualified as skeptics) in a direct and immediate quotation of poster Stephanie who told me I should "off myself" but to whom none of you have ever said a single fucking word.

What exactly are we "denying"? And what is your definition of a skeptic?

An ignorant delusional willfully ignorant fuck, in most cases. Otherwise, assholes that lie for money, and don't give a shit about what we hand our descendants. Given that the ability of GHG's to warm the atmosphere is based on established physics, they are not skeptics at all, they are in denial of basic science for political reasons.

 

[SSDD]

Do you understand that the entropy definition of the second law of thermodynamics is about the dynamic nature of disordered states of systems and and has no restrictions on thermal photons moving from cold bodies to warmer bodies?

I understand that you have a distorted understanding of entropy...objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature....if, AND ONLY, if they are theoretical perfect black bodies in a theoretical perfect vacuum...put them in the presence of other objects and they start radiating according to the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...and every observation ever made, supports that statement.

As to what entropy is and how it relates to the second law, let me give you a couple of examples....

Heat a frying pan on the eye of a stove...the atoms are vibrating rapidly as a result of the heat...meaning that the energy is localized in the hot frying pan...Take the frying pan from the heat source and that localized energy will spread out unless it is prevented from doing so in some way that involves work...the energy will disperse into the cooler room...the pan's localized energy is spread out into the cooler room...entropy...a natural and irreversible process without some work being done to reverse it.

Hold a marble above your head...there is potential energy stored in that action...drop it and that potential energy becomes kinetic energy...as it falls and moves air aside as it is falling, and when it hits the ground, then it hits the ground and a bit of energy becomes sound, a bit becomes heat in the form of friction. The marble remains mostly unchanged, except for perhaps a scratch, but the potential energy that your muscles localized by lifting up the marble has been completely dispersed in a bit of movement of air, a bit of sound and a bit of heat...entropy...a natural and irreversible process without some work being done to reverse it.

The very atoms of some things have energy stored within them in the form of localized energy...iron for example..and oxygen....combine them and you get iron oxide...or rust...which has less energy than the iron and oxygen that formed it...energy was lost in the reaction...entropy...a natural and irreversible process without some work having been done to reverse the process...

Energy moves from more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth would be exactly the opposite of entropy...it would be energy moving from a more dispersed state to a more localized state...that can't happen without some work being done to make it happen.

Entropy is all about how energy is being dispersed from concentrated localized potential energy to an ever more spread out and less useful state.

Do you disagree with the entropy definition?

I agree that entropy is energy dispersing from a concentrated localized state to an ever more dispersed and less useful state....which is what entropy, in fact, is...now if you are somehow suggesting that entropy allows energy, or heat, to move from a dispersed state to a more localized state and therefore spontaneously increase its potential, then you have a terribly flawed understanding of what entropy is.

 

[westwall]

Nope. I happen to like jillian a lot. I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant". It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid

Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?

Oh no. crikey wasn't being sarcastic. He said "off the sceptics". That is a clear call for murder. I said "regulate" as in a legal manner. jillian is an attorney and has a brain so she understands exactly what I meant. Unlike a lying POS like you.

I used the term "off the deniers" (none of you have ever qualified as skeptics) in a direct and immediate quotation of poster Stephanie who told me I should "off myself" but to whom none of you have ever said a single fucking word.

What exactly are we "denying"? And what is your definition of a skeptic?

An ignorant delusional willfully ignorant fuck, in most cases. Otherwise, assholes that lie for money, and don't give a shit about what we hand our descendants. Given that the ability of GHG's to warm the atmosphere is based on established physics, they are not skeptics at all, they are in denial of basic science for political reasons.

They are theoretical constructs and nothing more. To date there has never been a controlled lab experiment that even begins to support the nonsense you bleat.

 

[westwall]

The Anomalous magnetic dipole moment is the result of a mathematical model, used to verify another mathematical model...ie...place holding story...

The Rydberg constant is no more than a fine measurement (boosted by a mathematical model) of the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom.

And the Fine-structure constant is a measurement of the magnetic strength between elementary charged particles...

Fine achievements one and all...but in the larger picture about as impressive as a toddlers first step compared to the performance of a world champion try-athelete. The child should be proud but for all the accomplishment, it is just a first step.

From that, you leap to the claim that we know what is happening, and what forces are at work at the level of single atom interactions?....You are as nutty as ian....you have accepted science as some all knowing, infallible cultish religion that already knows all the answers....newsflash...it doesn't.

Have you read the news lately?...Medical science, which labors under a far higher....a far far far higher standard than climatology will ever be held to, has recently admitted that as much as 75% of the published findings from the field are false...I would be very surprised if 50% of the work coming out of post modern physics stands the test of time and would be very surprised if more than 2% of the tripe that comes from climate science is still mainstream science in 10 years.

My gosh, I have never seen such an anti-science diatribe. I was saying that many precise "observable, measurable, testable" measurements have been made in labs and they agree perfectly with mathematical predictions. Then you reply with definitions of the experiments, a comparison with a child, and distractions into a denigration medical science and of modern physics.

Yet, your own misunderstanding of the science of thermodynamics and radiation physics is a travesty. Absolutely no physicist believes what you do in those fields. You are alone in your opinion of what modern science is.

Do you understand that the entropy definition of the second law of thermodynamics is about the dynamic nature of disordered states of systems and and has no restrictions on thermal photons moving from cold bodies to warmer bodies?

Do you disagree with the entropy definition?

Please post a link to those lab studies.

Wuwei Still waiting for a link to those studies you claim exist.

 

[ding]

And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?

But since it doesn't, that's a rather stupid statement on your part.

Even your graphs show it. Anomaly up at +.5C, and still rising. None of the previous cycles passed +.3C.

And by the way, nobody knows what those graphs even represent, since you haven't seen fit to tell us. Are they global? Regional? A single ice core? Being we don't know and you won't tell us, the graphs are meaningless.

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?

I understand the earth should have continued a slow cooldown for at least another 20,000 years, being that was the natural cycle. As a sharp sustained warmup suddenly happened, and we completely skipped thousands of years of global glaciation, climate is certainly not behaving as per the natural cycle.

But please, expound more on your theory. Tell us how completely skipping a natural glaciation cycle is part of the natural cycle. How is the doing the complete opposite of the natural cycle part of the natural cycle?

Of course the current profile matches the temperature profile of the interglacial cycles. Are you smoking crack? The data comes from NASA. The graphs represent global temperature vs time.

I'll annotate the graphs to illustrate the stupidity of your argument.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Good God, Ding, you have just proven how utterly stupid you are. Very different scales on the two graphs. Were the tow graphs on the same scaling, the upper graph on the climb in temperatures for the last thawing would be a very low slope. About 1 degree per thousand years, compared to the bottom graph of the present warming with is about 1 degree per hundred years. So it is warming about ten times faster than it did coming out of the last glacial period.

The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.

 

[Wuwei]

I understand that you have a distorted understanding of entropy...objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature....if, AND ONLY, if they are theoretical perfect black bodies in a theoretical perfect vacuum...put them in the presence of other objects and they start radiating according to the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...and every observation ever made, supports that statement.

That is only your opinion. All your sentences are flat wrong except, "objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature."

As to what entropy is and how it relates to the second law, let me give you a couple of examples....
Heat a frying pan......
Hold a marble above your head......
combine them and you get iron oxide...or rust... ......

I'm talking about radiation physics and you digress into frying pans, marbles, and rust.

Entropy is all about how energy is being dispersed from concentrated localized potential energy to an ever more spread out and less useful state....

I agree that entropy is energy dispersing from a concentrated localized state to an ever more dispersed and less useful state....which is what entropy, in fact, is.

Right.

...now if you are somehow suggesting that entropy allows energy, or heat, to move from a dispersed state to a more localized state and therefore spontaneously increase its potential, then you have a terribly flawed understanding of what entropy is.

This is where you misunderstand entropy. Your mistake is that you are only focusing on the radiation of the colder body to the hotter body. Don't forget that the hotter body will always emit more radiation to the colder body than vice versa. That radiation imbalance means the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats, and entropy increases.

Again, radiation exchange doesn't violate entropy when it's thermal black body radiation. There is nothing in the definition of entropy that prevents that imbalance of two way radiation.

.

 

[jc456]

I understand that you have a distorted understanding of entropy...objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature....if, AND ONLY, if they are theoretical perfect black bodies in a theoretical perfect vacuum...put them in the presence of other objects and they start radiating according to the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...and every observation ever made, supports that statement.

That is only your opinion. All your sentences are flat wrong except, "objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature."

As to what entropy is and how it relates to the second law, let me give you a couple of examples....
Heat a frying pan......
Hold a marble above your head......
combine them and you get iron oxide...or rust... ......

I'm talking about radiation physics and you digress into frying pans, marbles, and rust.

Entropy is all about how energy is being dispersed from concentrated localized potential energy to an ever more spread out and less useful state....

I agree that entropy is energy dispersing from a concentrated localized state to an ever more dispersed and less useful state....which is what entropy, in fact, is.

Right.

...now if you are somehow suggesting that entropy allows energy, or heat, to move from a dispersed state to a more localized state and therefore spontaneously increase its potential, then you have a terribly flawed understanding of what entropy is.

This is where you misunderstand entropy. Your mistake is that you are only focusing on the radiation of the colder body to the hotter body. Don't forget that the hotter body will always emit more radiation to the colder body than vice versa. That radiation imbalance means the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats, and entropy increases.

Again, radiation exchange doesn't violate entropy when it's thermal black body radiation. There is nothing in the definition of entropy that prevents that imbalance of two way radiation.

.

wooo here, I thought if the cold body radiated toward the hotter body, the hotter body got hotter?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

 

[Wuwei]

Wuwei Still waiting for a link to those studies you claim exist.

Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia
The Wonders of Accuracy: Field Theory and Atomic Spectra