We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[SSDD]

Only if you think fusion takes place at the surface. Do you?

Your mind experiment...either your small area element is powered or it isn't...interesting that you can't even give a straight answer to whether or not it is powered.

My example? No, it was your example.

I would never have mentioned it since all of the required information wasn't there....you picked it out and brought it forward as if it proved anything more than that you didn't understand what was missing.

I pointed out that your example showed back radiation.

My example pointed out radiation from the atmosphere...it didn't say that any reached the surface of the earth...and if you plugged the numbers into the SB equation, you would see for yourself that none reached the surface of the earth...of course now we know that plugging in numbers is over your head.

Radiation from the atmosphere is magically different than other radiation and somehow is not absorbed? You make less sense every time you build upon your special theory.

Of course not...your logical fallacy fails every time...it is no different from any radiation which doesn't move from cool to warm. Interesting that you believe intelligence is required to obey the laws of physics....according to you water must be smart to run downhill....and a rock must be smart to fall down instead of up...and electricity must be smart to know to run in only one direction down a wire...

Your link didn't include a complete example?

Sorry you could't tell. It must suck to not be able to speak about the topic in anything more than what you believe are smart assed quips....we all know why people respond with smart assed quips rather than engage in a substantive discussion...your answers are much like those crick and mammoth give....skirting any actual discussion of the topic...no defense of your claims...no actual engaging on the topic...at least Ian discusses the topic....he won't go into the nuts and bolts of what the laws say...or the mathematical formulae that describe them.. but he doesn't do it because he at least knows enough to know that to do so would do nothing but support my position....he spends his time telling me what he wished the laws said rather than what they actually say.

You are becoming increasingly tedious and boring...now that I know that this is all past your ability to understand, there isn't much point in continuing...you are never going to be any more interesting than you are now...which isn't very.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only if you think fusion takes place at the surface. Do you?

Your mind experiment...either your small area element is powered or it isn't...interesting that you can't even give a straight answer to whether or not it is powered.

My example? No, it was your example.

I would never have mentioned it since all of the required information wasn't there....you picked it out and brought it forward as if it proved anything more than that you didn't understand what was missing.

I pointed out that your example showed back radiation.

My example pointed out radiation from the atmosphere...it didn't say that any reached the surface of the earth...and if you plugged the numbers into the SB equation, you would see for yourself that none reached the surface of the earth...of course now we know that plugging in numbers is over your head.

Radiation from the atmosphere is magically different than other radiation and somehow is not absorbed? You make less sense every time you build upon your special theory.

Of course not...your logical fallacy fails every time...it is no different from any radiation which doesn't move from cool to warm. Interesting that you believe intelligence is required to obey the laws of physics....according to you water must be smart to run downhill....and a rock must be smart to fall down instead of up...and electricity must be smart to know to run in only one direction down a wire...

Your link didn't include a complete example?

Sorry you could't tell. It must suck to not be able to speak about the topic in anything more than what you believe are smart assed quips....we all know why people respond with smart assed quips rather than engage in a substantive discussion...your answers are much like those crick and mammoth give....skirting any actual discussion of the topic...no defense of your claims...no actual engaging on the topic...at least Ian discusses the topic....he won't go into the nuts and bolts of what the laws say...or the mathematical formulae that describe them.. but he doesn't do it because he at least knows enough to know that to do so would do nothing but support my position....he spends his time telling me what he wished the laws said rather than what they actually say.

You are becoming increasingly tedious and boring...now that I know that this is all past your ability to understand, there isn't much point in continuing...you are never going to be any more interesting than you are now...which isn't very.

Your mind experiment...

My experiment? It was from your link. Are you stoned?

either your small area element is powered or it isn't

Do you think the surface of the Sun is powered?

I would never have mentioned it since all of the required information wasn't there....

Your own link showed back radiation.

My example pointed out radiation from the atmosphere...it didn't say that any reached the surface of the earth..

So, your smart waves radiated from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, because they knew they wouldn't actually reach the warmer surface? What prevented them from reaching the warmer surface?

it is no different from any radiation which doesn't move from cool to warm.

Except, apparently, the radiation shown in your source. LOL!

You are becoming increasingly tedious and boring...

Having your idiocy rubbed in your face must be very exhausting for you.
Especially when you do it to yourself. Thanks again for those links.

 

[SSDD]

Since it is clear that you really can't talk about the topic...and aren't going to show how any of the physical laws in question support your claims....I suppose the conversation has gone as far as it will ever go....just a side note on the topic however...

A paper was recently published in the Journal of the Royal Meterological Society finding that GHG's at present earth temperatures are providing a negative feedback and causing cooling rather than the warming you warmers and luke warmers believe. This paper supports my position that the climate sensitivity to GHG's is in fact zero or LESS than ZERO and would explain why the tropospheric hot spot which would necessarily exist if back radiation existed has never appeared. There is no back radiation and the absence of the hot spot proves it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since it is clear that you really can't talk about the topic...and aren't going to show how any of the physical laws in question support your claims....I suppose the conversation has gone as far as it will ever go....just a side note on the topic however...

A paper was recently published in the Journal of the Royal Meterological Society finding that GHG's at present earth temperatures are providing a negative feedback and causing cooling rather than the warming you warmers and luke warmers believe. This paper supports my position that the climate sensitivity to GHG's is in fact zero or LESS than ZERO and would explain why the tropospheric hot spot which would necessarily exist if back radiation existed has never appeared. There is no back radiation and the absence of the hot spot proves it.

A paper was recently published in the Journal of the Royal Meterological Society finding that GHG's at present earth temperatures are providing a negative feedback and causing cooling rather than the warming you warmers and luke warmers believe.

That's interesting and certainly could be the case.

It also has nothing to do with your claim there is no back radiation or your idiocy concerning SB.

 

[SSDD]

It also has nothing to do with your claim there is no back radiation or your idiocy concerning SB.

There is no spontaneous back radiation...never has been. Not one observation ever of energy moving spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It also has nothing to do with your claim there is no back radiation or your idiocy concerning SB.

There is no spontaneous back radiation...never has been. Not one observation ever of energy moving spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area.

There is no spontaneous back radiation

That's so weird, your own source showed there was.

Not one observation ever of energy moving spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area.

I've always heard that heat won't do that, never saw the claim, except from you, that energy won't.

 

[SSDD]

That's so weird, your own source showed there was.

Actually toddster...without completing the equation..it showed nothing at all....the numbers are there...go ahead and complete the equation and tell me how much back radiation they show.

I've always heard that heat won't do that, never saw the claim, except from you, that energy won't.

Is heat a form of energy itself or is heat merely the physical evidence of energy moving from one place to another? Important question...got an answer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's so weird, your own source showed there was.

Actually toddster...without completing the equation..it showed nothing at all....the numbers are there...go ahead and complete the equation and tell me how much back radiation they show.

I've always heard that heat won't do that, never saw the claim, except from you, that energy won't.

Is heat a form of energy itself or is heat merely the physical evidence of energy moving from one place to another? Important question...got an answer?

Actually, your link did show that. In the diagram on the last page.

So you don't actually have a source that says that about energy.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, your link did show that. In the diagram on the last page.

So you don't actually have a source that says that about energy.

Is heat a form of energy or is heat the evidence that energy is moving from one place to another?

 

[SSDD]

Actually, your link did show that. In the diagram on the last page.

So you don't actually have a source that says that about energy.

Didn't see any numbers plugged into the SB equations....All I saw is the same sort of magical assumptions you and ian have been making all along...plug the numbers into the SB equation and tell me how much radiation you see racing the surface of the earth.

 

[Crick]

Actually, your link did show that. In the diagram on the last page.

So you don't actually have a source that says that about energy.

Is heat a form of energy or is heat the evidence that energy is moving from one place to another?

What would you like it to be Sid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, your link did show that. In the diagram on the last page.

So you don't actually have a source that says that about energy.

Didn't see any numbers plugged into the SB equations....All I saw is the same sort of magical assumptions you and ian have been making all along...plug the numbers into the SB equation and tell me how much radiation you see racing the surface of the earth.

Didn't see any numbers plugged into the SB equations....

No numbers, and yet they still know more about energy than you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, your link did show that. In the diagram on the last page.

So you don't actually have a source that says that about energy.

Is heat a form of energy or is heat the evidence that energy is moving from one place to another?

Tell me again about your link that said energy from the Sun's surface is emitted toward the core.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, your link did show that. In the diagram on the last page.

So you don't actually have a source that says that about energy.

Is heat a form of energy or is heat the evidence that energy is moving from one place to another?

What would you like it to be Sid?

As usual, a mamootesque comment meaning nothing and not moving the conversation in any direction whatsoever....typical for someone who really isn't prepared to discuss the topic...no surprise there.

 

[SSDD]

Tell me again about your link that said energy from the Sun's surface is emitted toward the core.

Is heat a form of energy or evidence that energy is moving from one place to another....what's the matter toddster.....cat got your tongue? Which is it?

 

[Crick]

Which one are you talking about?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me again about your link that said energy from the Sun's surface is emitted toward the core.

Is heat a form of energy or evidence that energy is moving from one place to another....what's the matter toddster.....cat got your tongue? Which is it?

Which is it?

You're the one with the unique interpretation of the 2nd Law.
And Stefan-Boltzmann. And relativity. You tell me.
And then explain why your links all contradict your claims.
Is the surface of the Sun powered? LOL!

 

[SSDD]

Which is it?

You're the one with the unique interpretation of the 2nd Law.
And Stefan-Boltzmann. And relativity. You tell me.
And then explain why your links all contradict your claims.
Is the surface of the Sun powered? LOL!

So you are quite sure that energy can move from cool to warm but unsure as to whether heat is energy or an indicator that energy is moving from one place to another....how can you be so sure of one when you are clueless as to the other....answer = faith.

 

[Crick]

Which is it?

You're the one with the unique interpretation of the 2nd Law.
And Stefan-Boltzmann. And relativity. You tell me.
And then explain why your links all contradict your claims.
Is the surface of the Sun powered? LOL!

So you are quite sure that energy can move from cool to warm but unsure as to whether heat is energy or an indicator that energy is moving from one place to another....how can you be so sure of one when you are clueless as to the other....answer = faith.

Since neither will behave as you claim they will, your attempted semantic detour here is simply another failure.

 

[IanC]

I have to agree with crick here. SSDD has lost the war on simple radiation so he wants to switch the discussion to a vastly more complex subject where no one can define the terms let alone describe the process.