Yes, 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

Works out fine since mann's hockey stick was not science...it was a deliberate manipulation of numbers to show a predetermined result....no science required...all that is needed is sufficient mathematics to find the deception and he had more than enough math to do that.

Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero.[3] It represents a conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. Thermal energy results in kinetic energy in the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. All matter with a temperature by definition is composed of particles which have kinetic energy, and which interact with each other. These atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles, i.e., protons and electrons, and kinetic interactions among matter particles result in charge-acceleration and dipole-oscillation. This results in the electrodynamic generation of coupled electric and magnetic fields, resulting in the emission of photons, radiating energy away from the body through its surface boundary. Electromagnetic radiation, including light, does not require the presence of matter to propagate and travels in the vacuum of space infinitely far if unobstructed.

The total amount of radiation of all frequencies increases steeply as the temperature rises; it grows as T4, where T is the absolute temperature of the body. An object at the temperature of a kitchen oven, about twice the room temperature on the absolute temperature scale (600 K vs. 300 K) radiates 16 times as much power per unit area. An object at the temperature of the filament in an incandescent light bulb—roughly 3000 K, or 10 times room temperature—radiates 10,000 times as much energy per unit area. The total radiative intensity of a black body rises as the fourth power of the absolute temperature, as expressed by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. In the plot, the area under each curve grows rapidly as the temperature increases.

You are starting behave very strangely....stalking around, making comments not pertinent to the conversation...got any "THE END IS NEAR" sandwich signs in your closet?....Energy does not move spontaneously from warm to cool...if you believe it does, then present your measured, observed evidence and have the second law of thermodynamics rewritten and collect your Nobel and your million dollars.

I'm used to liberals getting the science wrong.
For some reason, it bothers me a lot more when conservatives get it wrong.
Especially such a huge error.
Smart waves. Objects suddenly start or stop emitting.
It's sad.
SB shows all objects emit all the time, as long as they are above 0K.
Except in your world. Weird.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thank you Todd.

I wanted to make the point to SSDD that the simplest Stefan-Boltzman expression does indeed describe the radiation of a single body. The point he's missing is that it describes the radiation of EVERY single body.

The simplest SB expression only looks at a radiator...not at any other objects or any surroundings...it describes a fictional object, alone in a vacuum. The SB expression that puts the radiator in the company of other objects describes a one way energy flow whose magnitude is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and the other object or its surroundings.

Great. I'll stop pointing out your error if you can explain why a hot object radiates faster to a 50K object than to a 100 K object.
Sounds like more of your smart wave theory.

 

[PratchettFan]

nobody cares

Yes. That really is what it comes down to.

 

[IanC]

crick- somewhere in this thread you asked me why I chose the Doran poll to comment on. because it is the poster child of what is wrong about these surveys, and especially how these surveys are portrayed in the media. two questions; has it warmed?, and if yes to the first question, has mankind influenced that warming. even amongst publishing climate scientists some did not answer in the affirmative to the first question. and some more didnt answer yes to the second part. two of the easiest questions possible to ask and get an affirmative answer yet less than 97% gave them. presumably as the selection procedure gets more general the affirmative response gets smaller still.

it depends on the question.

has the earth warmed since the LIA? there should be close to a 100% yes vote

has the earth warmed more than 1C since the LIA? much less than 100% would agree

has CO2 risen since 1900? there should be close to a 100% yes vote

is mankind responsible for all of the increase? much less than 100% would agree

has CO2 contributed to the warming trend since 1950? there should be close to a 100% yes vote

has CO2 caused all of the warming since 1950? much less than 100% would agree

are climate models helpful in trying to understand the mechanics of climate? of course

are climate models accurate and capable of making meaningful predictions? of course NOT


the majority of skeptics are in the 'consensus' on many of the simple questions. what we question are the unsubstantiated assumptions and the exaggerated conclusions of much of what is printed as climate science.

 

[skookerasbil]

The whole play from the AGW alarmists in this forum.........all based upon unsubstantiated assumptions and exaggerated conclusions.

Its called bogus science.........and that is why they are losing in spectacular fashion in 2014. All their shit is having zero impact in the real world........and these goofballs know it too!!!

 

[Youch]

Look under my pinky and you will see all of the AGW evidence you'll ever need.

While on a crusade, Frank, which speaks to a certain faith-based mission, would it not be rational to look at more evidence than just a handful of regional tree rings?

And oh by the way, are you trying to prove that increases in CO2, plant food, promotes greater crop yields??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look under my pinky and you will see all of the AGW evidence you'll ever need.

While on a crusade, Frank, which speaks to a certain faith-based mission, would it not be rational to look at more evidence than just a handful of regional tree rings?

And oh by the way, are you trying to prove that increases in CO2, plant food, promotes greater crop yields??

I think Mann actually used only one (1) tree ring to demonstrate ManMade Gullible Warming.

He is the perfect poster boy for the biggest "Scientific" Fraud in human history

 

[jc456]

Look under my pinky and you will see all of the AGW evidence you'll ever need.

While on a crusade, Frank, which speaks to a certain faith-based mission, would it not be rational to look at more evidence than just a handful of regional tree rings?

And oh by the way, are you trying to prove that increases in CO2, plant food, promotes greater crop yields??

I think Mann actually used only one (1) tree ring to demonstrate ManMade Gullible Warming.

He is the perfect poster boy for the biggest "Scientific" Fraud in human history

How is that a global answer? I didn't know the globe had but one tree.

 

[Youch]

Look under my pinky and you will see all of the AGW evidence you'll ever need.

While on a crusade, Frank, which speaks to a certain faith-based mission, would it not be rational to look at more evidence than just a handful of regional tree rings?

And oh by the way, are you trying to prove that increases in CO2, plant food, promotes greater crop yields??

I think Mann actually used only one (1) tree ring to demonstrate ManMade Gullible Warming.

He is the perfect poster boy for the biggest "Scientific" Fraud in human history

I misunderstood your point, I think. I think we are in agreement??

 

[Crick]

The Three Missketeers.

 

[jc456]

The Three Missketeers.

They were a fine group! You're part of the three blind mice!

 

[skookerasbil]

The Three Missketeers.

But winning.

By the way s0n.......not sure about that avatar of yours. Standing in front of a glass pyramid looking completely lost, or, "IM THE PROTECTOR OF THE GLASS PYRAMIDS!!!!" Might want to re-think that.......just sayin'.

IDK.......never quite got the whole concept of one putting their own mug in an avatar. Creepy as shit on alot of levels.

 

[SSDD]

I'm used to liberals getting the science wrong.
For some reason, it bothers me a lot more when conservatives get it wrong.
Especially such a huge error.
Smart waves. Objects suddenly start or stop emitting.
It's sad.
SB shows all objects emit all the time, as long as they are above 0K.
Except in your world. Weird.

I am afraid that it is you who has it wrong Toddster. I don't know how many different ways this can be demonstrated to you. If you don't understand the SB equation, I can't make you.

Sure, this version of the SB equation (

) shows us that all objects emit all the time as long as they are above 0K and are alone in a vacuum. You keep leaving out that part. Leave out the (e) if the object is a perfect radiator.

If the object is radiating into cooler surroundings or is not alone, then you use this equation

"P" is determined by the temperature difference between T and Tc. Now, I am going to try and explain this in the simplest fashion that I know how. Grab yourself a pencil and a piece of paper....or a calculator and put in the number for (e) whatever you wish the emissivity to be although in this case it doesn't matter...put in the SB constant...put in the area of your radiator...again, it doesn't matter...and now put in the temperature for your radiator (T)...now make (Tc) equal to (T). What is the value of P?

OK now make (T) any temperature over 100K, then make (Tc) 100K...what is the value of P? Now make (T) any temperature over 100K and make the value of (Tc) 50K...what is the value of (P). Note that when the radiator is radiating to an object at 50K (P) is a higher value than when the object is at 100K. What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object?? I can't tell you and neither can anyone else... What exact mechanism makes the object radiate zero when the radiator is the same temperature as the object?...again, can't tell you but if you accept the SB law, then you must accept that P = 0 if the radiator and the object are the same temperature.

Don't know any other way to explain this to you...if you don't get it now, sorry. I have proven my point...accept it or not but the equation describes a one way energy flow and if the radiator and the object are the same temperature, P= 0.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm used to liberals getting the science wrong.
For some reason, it bothers me a lot more when conservatives get it wrong.
Especially such a huge error.
Smart waves. Objects suddenly start or stop emitting.
It's sad.
SB shows all objects emit all the time, as long as they are above 0K.
Except in your world. Weird.

I am afraid that it is you who has it wrong Toddster. I don't know how many different ways this can be demonstrated to you. If you don't understand the SB equation, I can't make you.

Sure, this version of the SB equation (

) shows us that all objects emit all the time as long as they are above 0K and are alone in a vacuum. You keep leaving out that part. Leave out the (e) if the object is a perfect radiator.

If the object is radiating into cooler surroundings or is not alone, then you use this equation

"P" is determined by the temperature difference between T and Tc. Now, I am going to try and explain this in the simplest fashion that I know how. Grab yourself a pencil and a piece of paper....or a calculator and put in the number for (e) whatever you wish the emissivity to be although in this case it doesn't matter...put in the SB constant...put in the area of your radiator...again, it doesn't matter...and now put in the temperature for your radiator (T)...now make (Tc) equal to (T). What is the value of P?

OK now make (T) any temperature over 100K, then make (Tc) 100K...what is the value of P? Now make (T) any temperature over 100K and make the value of (Tc) 50K...what is the value of (P). Note that when the radiator is radiating to an object at 50K (P) is a higher value than when the object is at 100K. What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object?? I can't tell you and neither can anyone else... What exact mechanism makes the object radiate zero when the radiator is the same temperature as the object?...again, can't tell you but if you accept the SB law, then you must accept that P = 0 if the radiator and the object are the same temperature.

Don't know any other way to explain this to you...if you don't get it now, sorry. I have proven my point...accept it or not but the equation describes a one way energy flow and if the radiator and the object are the same temperature, P= 0.

Run the equation with a single 100K object.....write down your answer.
Run the equation with a single 50K object.....write down your answer.

Now run it with a 100K object and a 50K object.
Isn't it weird that your answer is exactly the radiation of the warmer minus the radiation of the cooler?
It's almost like they're both radiating continuously.

Of course your smart wave theory might work too.
So how does your smart wave theory explain why a hot object radiates slower to 100K than to 50K?
Oh, right, you can't explain the change in speed.

What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object?? I can't tell you and neither can anyone else...

I can tell you......I just did.

 

[SSDD]

I'm used to liberals getting the science wrong.
For some reason, it bothers me a lot more when conservatives get it wrong.
Especially such a huge error.
Smart waves. Objects suddenly start or stop emitting.
It's sad.
SB shows all objects emit all the time, as long as they are above 0K.
Except in your world. Weird.

I am afraid that it is you who has it wrong Toddster. I don't know how many different ways this can be demonstrated to you. If you don't understand the SB equation, I can't make you.

Sure, this version of the SB equation (

) shows us that all objects emit all the time as long as they are above 0K and are alone in a vacuum. You keep leaving out that part. Leave out the (e) if the object is a perfect radiator.

If the object is radiating into cooler surroundings or is not alone, then you use this equation

"P" is determined by the temperature difference between T and Tc. Now, I am going to try and explain this in the simplest fashion that I know how. Grab yourself a pencil and a piece of paper....or a calculator and put in the number for (e) whatever you wish the emissivity to be although in this case it doesn't matter...put in the SB constant...put in the area of your radiator...again, it doesn't matter...and now put in the temperature for your radiator (T)...now make (Tc) equal to (T). What is the value of P?

OK now make (T) any temperature over 100K, then make (Tc) 100K...what is the value of P? Now make (T) any temperature over 100K and make the value of (Tc) 50K...what is the value of (P). Note that when the radiator is radiating to an object at 50K (P) is a higher value than when the object is at 100K. What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object?? I can't tell you and neither can anyone else... What exact mechanism makes the object radiate zero when the radiator is the same temperature as the object?...again, can't tell you but if you accept the SB law, then you must accept that P = 0 if the radiator and the object are the same temperature.

Don't know any other way to explain this to you...if you don't get it now, sorry. I have proven my point...accept it or not but the equation describes a one way energy flow and if the radiator and the object are the same temperature, P= 0.

Run the equation with a single 100K object.....write down your answer.
Run the equation with a single 50K object.....write down your answer.

Now run it with a 100K object and a 50K object.
Isn't it weird that your answer is exactly the radiation of the warmer minus the radiation of the cooler?
It's almost like they're both radiating continuously.

Of course your smart wave theory might work too.
So how does your smart wave theory explain why a hot object radiates slower to 100K than to 50K?
Oh, right, you can't explain the change in speed.

What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object?? I can't tell you and neither can anyone else...

I can tell you......I just did.

Can't help but notice that you completely ignored what P is when T is equal to Tc....and the fact that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow. You may as well pack it in and go home...energy only moves spontaneously in one direction just like the 2nd law and the SB law predict.

And you didn't even begin to describe any mechanism...if you think you did, then you know even less than I thought....Hell, you didn't even understand what the equation was telling you...you looked right past it and again spouted what you believe rather than what the equation said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm used to liberals getting the science wrong.
For some reason, it bothers me a lot more when conservatives get it wrong.
Especially such a huge error.
Smart waves. Objects suddenly start or stop emitting.
It's sad.
SB shows all objects emit all the time, as long as they are above 0K.
Except in your world. Weird.

I am afraid that it is you who has it wrong Toddster. I don't know how many different ways this can be demonstrated to you. If you don't understand the SB equation, I can't make you.

Sure, this version of the SB equation (

) shows us that all objects emit all the time as long as they are above 0K and are alone in a vacuum. You keep leaving out that part. Leave out the (e) if the object is a perfect radiator.

If the object is radiating into cooler surroundings or is not alone, then you use this equation

"P" is determined by the temperature difference between T and Tc. Now, I am going to try and explain this in the simplest fashion that I know how. Grab yourself a pencil and a piece of paper....or a calculator and put in the number for (e) whatever you wish the emissivity to be although in this case it doesn't matter...put in the SB constant...put in the area of your radiator...again, it doesn't matter...and now put in the temperature for your radiator (T)...now make (Tc) equal to (T). What is the value of P?

OK now make (T) any temperature over 100K, then make (Tc) 100K...what is the value of P? Now make (T) any temperature over 100K and make the value of (Tc) 50K...what is the value of (P). Note that when the radiator is radiating to an object at 50K (P) is a higher value than when the object is at 100K. What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object?? I can't tell you and neither can anyone else... What exact mechanism makes the object radiate zero when the radiator is the same temperature as the object?...again, can't tell you but if you accept the SB law, then you must accept that P = 0 if the radiator and the object are the same temperature.

Don't know any other way to explain this to you...if you don't get it now, sorry. I have proven my point...accept it or not but the equation describes a one way energy flow and if the radiator and the object are the same temperature, P= 0.

Run the equation with a single 100K object.....write down your answer.
Run the equation with a single 50K object.....write down your answer.

Now run it with a 100K object and a 50K object.
Isn't it weird that your answer is exactly the radiation of the warmer minus the radiation of the cooler?
It's almost like they're both radiating continuously.

Of course your smart wave theory might work too.
So how does your smart wave theory explain why a hot object radiates slower to 100K than to 50K?
Oh, right, you can't explain the change in speed.

What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object?? I can't tell you and neither can anyone else...

I can tell you......I just did.

Can't help but notice that you completely ignored what P is when T is equal to Tc....and the fact that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow. You may as well pack it in and go home...energy only moves spontaneously in one direction just like the 2nd law and the SB law predict.

And you didn't even begin to describe any mechanism...if you think you did, then you know even less than I thought....Hell, you didn't even understand what the equation was telling you...you looked right past it and again spouted what you believe rather than what the equation said.

Can't help but notice that you completely ignored what P is when T is equal to Tc....

Net energy flow is zero.
You feel that it's because the matter magically knows it should stop radiating.
That's why I continue to mock you.

So how does the hotter object know that the cooler object is cooler?
ESP?
Spell it out why don't you?

 

[IanC]

I was trying to think of a simple way of showing that the radiation continues in both objects even if their temperatures are the same. when a photon is emitted it imparts a small amount of momentum to the emiiter and the same amount of momentum in the opposite direction in the absorber. (this is one of the forms of entropy increase that precludes perpetual motion machines). therefore the two objects should slightly move away from each other. if SSDD is right, and the objects simply stop radiating, then the objects will not only lose the slight repulsive force but the unopposed momentum shift from the opposite side of the objects will actually drive the objects closer. this would decrease entropy. isnt there some pretty strict rules about S ?

I looked around and didnt find anything about this written up but I did remember about that weather vane thingy that spins when you shine a light on it. false path. Crooke's Tubes work on a totally different principle.

 

[Politico]

Whenever I see anyone start a comment by quoting a "percent" rather than a number, I'm always suspicious.

1000 words of qualifying bullshit doesn't make me less suspicious.

Give them a break. Words and feelings are all they have.

 

[Crick]

In regards to the topic of this thread, all I have are facts.

 

[SSDD]

Net energy flow is zero.

Keep believing if it makes you feel better...the equation does not describe net energy flow...the equation describes one way energy flow. If the equation described two way energy flow it would be written differently. You don't seem to understand that those equations describe a specific process...not whatever the hell you wan't them to mean. The SB equation describes a one way energy flow.

You feel that it's because the matter magically knows it should stop radiating.

I am afraid it is you who is guilty of magical thinking here...claiming that an equation that describes a one way energy flow is actually describing a two way energy flow....and thinking you actually described a mechanism by which your magic happened.

That's why I continue to mock you.

You think you hurt me when you attempt to mock me? Like your interpretation of the SB equation, you couldn't be more wrong. Do you know why one person mocks another? Ever think about it? All behavior has psychological roots and mocking has them also. You feel the need to mock people who cause you to feel insecure. Mocking is an attempt by the mocker to appear large while feeling small....in this case, it is most likely because you are afraid to step outside your comfort zone....typical of zealots. You have a belief and cling to it for some reason you will probably never know. You cling to it so desperately that you lose sight of the fact that it is only a belief. Your belief becomes real to you and anything that challenges your belief challenges your reality....even though your reality never was real....

Our behavior reveals a great deal about us...and our internal landscape. Look around you, there is a smorgasbord of moderately abnormal psychology on display here...I doubt that there are any actual psychopaths, but people put their internal landscapes on display in places like this. Take rolling thunder for example...do you really think he is someone who is operating day to day on an even keel? You can say pretty much whatever you want and talk to people any way you like...you are dancing here as if no one is looking....except people are looking...I am looking because I find people's behavior interesting in the extreme....because I have taken quite some time examining what elicits behaviors.

For one reason or another, I make you feel very uncomfortable. In short, I threaten you somehow. If I didn't, you would simply show me the hard, observed evidence that energy in fact moves in both directions and move on to the next topic...and perhaps taunt me if I failed to alter my position after you showed me incontrovertible observed proof that you were right. You and I both know that there is no such evidence and you, as a result, are left frustrated and threatened because you can't convince me your reality (which is only a belief) is real. That makes you uncomfortable...and me, pointing out that the equation you rely on here is describing a one way energy flow ( which it is) only heightens that discomfort.

The result is that you must attempt to make me smaller in your own eyes...that's what we do to people who threaten us...we try to make them appear smaller and less threatening.. People like thunder do it to everyone who disagrees with them all the time. It is his automatic response. People like that are a quivering mass of insecurity who find it intolerable to be at odds with anyone on anything. Any and every disagreement calls their entire self image into question...they use every tool at their disposal (and a small toolbox it is) in an effort to make the other person look as small and non threatening as possible in a futile attempt to reinforce their own self image.

Obviously, you are no rolling thunder. You don't go around hurling insult at everyone who disagrees with you and it is clear that you don't see every disagreement as a personal assault on you...but something about me threatens you and you feel a real need, be it consciously our subconsciously to cut me down to size and make me less threatening...Something I am saying calls your unreal reality, that is your belief system into question and you are not at all comfortable with stepping outside that belief...and are just as uncomfortable with people not sharing that belief with you.

So you go right on mocking if it makes you feel better...although I wonder if you will continue to be as comfortable putting your weakness on display having realized that not only are you feeling weak, but are actually publicly voicing that weakness. Folks like rolling thunder can't stop because they are so insecure that it is simply impossible...the need to constantly reinforce their self worth outweighs the knowledge that their behavior exposes their internal insecurities....they are caught in a vicious cycle and are simply unable to break it and probably never will.

So how does the hotter object know that the cooler object is cooler?

How does the air inside a balloon know that the air pressure is less on the outside? How does the radiation from one microwave dish know that the radiation from another dish is of a grater magnitude and in turn allow the interference to diminish its own signal. Anthropomorphizing radiation, or anything else, is a particularly childish and weak means of reinforcing your unreal reality...We could go into how we are taught to anthropomorphize from an early age to frame things we really have no control over in human terms so that we can believe we have dealt with them.

Spell it out why don't you?

Unlike you, I don't need to think I know everything. I am perfectly comfortable with mystery. The physicist at the top of the heap..the smartest guy in the world doesn't grasp the mechanism of how or why energy moves...it is beyond our scope at this point. Ask yourself why you have the need to believe that science knows everything even when they don't...Ask yourself why you would need to convince yourself that science actually grasps the mechanism by which energy moves about when in reality, science really doesn't even begin to understand it. Sure, they can predict where energy will move because every observation of energy movement ever made is in one direction...such a track record makes it easy to predict...

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can spell out the underlying hows and whys of energy movement than we can spell out the underlying hows and whys of gravity...we can predict what, because we see the what, and how big or small it is, but the hows and whys?...that is beyond us...and I am perfectly comfortable with that and for some reason that will probably remain forever unknown...you are not. For some reason, something inside you assigns some point value to knowing, even the unknowable, to your self worth...or your unreal reality...which is the same thing.

So like I said, go ahead and mock if it makes you feel better....it certainly makes me feel better even though I know that I shouldn't feel good about the fact that I threaten you....goes back to the psychology of laying them out on the table and whipping out a ruler I guess.

I do derive pleasure in seeing the lengths people will go in an effort to convince themselves that a mathematical construct is real though...you don't seem to believe in the AGW mathematical construct and readily point out that it isn't real, but you hold great faith in another mathematical construct which is no more real and can't bear to see it questioned even when all observation shows that it is wrong.