US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change

This is a discussion on Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change within the Environment forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Steerpike Are there really people left who still don't realize that global warming (or 'anthropogenic climate change,' since the warming title ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Environment

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2011, 12:01 PM
konradv's Avatar
Registered User
Member #22976
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 14,089
Thanks: 1,117
Thanked 2,689 Times in 2,038 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1106
konradv could be on the Supreme Court
konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by Steerpike View Post
Are there really people left who still don't realize that global warming (or 'anthropogenic climate change,' since the warming title wasn't looking so good) was completely over-sold and politicized?
You could say the same for the skeptics. They over-sold the "Climategate hoax" and their opposition was totally political, since niether logic nor science is on their side. We know the properties of CO2. We know it's been going up for ~200 years. Given that, how can we expect anything but warming?

The skeptics never tell us where that CO2 is coming from, if not man. So, if AGW believers have "over-sold" their position, it's still doesn't compare to the contortions that the skeptics have had to do to prove their position.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to konradv For This Useful Post:
Old Rocks (08-24-2011)
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2011, 12:07 PM
Steerpike's Avatar
Registered User
Member #7851
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,847
Thanks: 0
Thanked 104 Times in 73 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 50
Steerpike kicks locomotives off the tracks Steerpike kicks locomotives off the tracks Steerpike kicks locomotives off the tracks Steerpike kicks locomotives off the tracks Steerpike kicks locomotives off the tracks Steerpike kicks locomotives off the tracks Steerpike kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by konradv View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Steerpike View Post
Are there really people left who still don't realize that global warming (or 'anthropogenic climate change,' since the warming title wasn't looking so good) was completely over-sold and politicized?
You could say the same for the skeptics. They over-sold the "Climategate hoax" and their opposition was totally political, since niether logic nor science is on their side. We know the properties of CO2. We know it's been going up for ~200 years. Given that, how can we expect anything but warming?

The skeptics never tell us where that CO2 is coming from, if not man. So, if AGW believers have "over-sold" their position, it's still doesn't compare to the contortions that the skeptics have had to do to prove their position.
Thing is, it can't be proven either way. Anyone with an ounce of scientific acumen knows that. At this point, at least, we can try to make some educated decisions but ultimately have to admit we don't know how much of climate change we see in our lifetime is caused by man and how much is due to other factors. So yeah, the extremes on both sides misrepresent the case.
__________________
"There ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk." - Tom Waits
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2011, 02:49 PM
wirebender's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29079
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,723
Thanks: 49
Thanked 577 Times in 414 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 74
wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha
Quote: Originally Posted by konradv View Post
You could say the same for the skeptics. They over-sold the "Climategate hoax" and their opposition was totally political, since niether logic nor science is on their side. We know the properties of CO2. We know it's been going up for ~200 years. Given that, how can we expect anything but warming?
I don't recall ever using climategate or any of the other lesser gates as a basis for my arguments. Could you provide a post by me in which I use any of that as an argument?

Quote: Originally Posted by konradv View Post
The skeptics never tell us where that CO2 is coming from, if not man. So, if AGW believers have "over-sold" their position, it's still doesn't compare to the contortions that the skeptics have had to do to prove their position.
Where the CO2 is coming from is meaningless unless you can first prove that CO2 is driving the climate. Neither you, nor any climate scientist has even come close to providing anything like proof. The whole hypothesis is based on climate models and is flawed at its very foundations.

And what "contortions" might I be guilty of. Do you believe I have misapplied any law of physics? Which one(s). Have I made a mathematical error? Where exactly? It is you and yours who are doing the wild gyrations claiming I am wrong while unable to prove it or even point out an error on my part.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2011, 04:00 PM
waltky's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #27951
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Okolona, KY
Posts: 11,029
Thanks: 12,275
Thanked 1,320 Times in 1,087 Posts
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1208
waltky could be on the Supreme Court
waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court waltky could be on the Supreme Court
Exclamation

Tuesday's high temperature in Phoenix set a new record at 114...

Phoenix-area August heat rewriting the records; Valley could hit 116 today
Aug. 24, 2011 - Not much relief in sight as daily highs continue to rise
Quote:
At midday on Tuesday, the air was still and the sun was high. Dave Visnich sat in the shade outside of the Westward Ho in downtown Phoenix. "I don't know why I bother," Visnich, 51, said. "It's hot in the shade, it's hot in the sun. It's hot. It's hot, hot, hot." And there is no end in sight. A daily record of 113 degrees was tied on Monday.

The high temperature Tuesday set a new record at 114. And today looks like it may be the hottest of all. Temperatures are expected to reach 116 degrees at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, where official measurements are taken. "A persistent, hot, high-pressure system is just sitting over the top of us, and we are baking under it," said Chris Kuhlman of the National Weather Service.

And when might it cool off? "It depends on what you consider cooling off," Kuhlman said. "The pattern is entrenched. It doesn't look like it will change much in the next few days." There will be no real relief until the weekend, when temperatures could tumble into the 109-degree range. And by one measurement, this entire summer could end up on the short list for hottest of all time.

The record for most days of 110 degrees or higher is 32. By the end of this week, if forecasts hold, that mark will have been reached 27 times. The record will be in sight. "I grew up in Mexicali," said Elvira Martinez, 46, seeking shade at a downtown Phoenix park. "But this is hotter, and it never cools off."

MORE
See also:

Heat watch: Temperatures are going to go up, if you can believe it
Unrelenting heat: 105 degrees possible this weekend in Houston
Quote:
Houston notched its 23rd 100-degree day in a row Tuesday and, alas, the trend is showing no signs of slowing down. Hobby Airport, in southeast Houston, also broke its record for most 100-degree days in a single year on Tuesday, racking up its 14th day. In the short-term, expect little change, and actually a slight warm-up if you can believe that. This is because our air should become a little drier as a result of a more northerly flow, according to the National Weather Service.

Beginning Thursday this should allow temperatures to rise into the low to mid-100s for inland areas and as high as 104 or 105 degrees over the weekend. One slight bonus is the drier air should allow overnight temperatures to fall into the mid-70s for inland areas. Most of August has seen overnight temperatures near 80 degrees.

There remains a slight chance of rain this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon, but I wouldn’t expect it. And then things get dry through the weekend. I know, this is really a sorry way to bring August to a close but it is what it is. You’re frustrated, and the next five days are going to really test your patience.

LONG-RANGE OUTLOOK
__________________
Kinda funny how, instead of a 'sequester', the Wall Street bankers got bailed out.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2011, 04:21 PM
wirebender's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29079
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,723
Thanks: 49
Thanked 577 Times in 414 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 74
wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha
Wow. Hot in the desert. Who would have thought?
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2011, 09:30 PM
Registered User
Member #13758
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 32,093
Thanks: 12,404
Thanked 6,497 Times in 4,823 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2666
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew View Post
I would like you to go debate the people at Skeptical science and make them looks like idiots---Like you're making most of the warmers here. That would do some good as they're the more hard core knowledgeable ones. I will be reading of course.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

If you win there then no one here can even start to touch your theories...Next you should go up against hansen and friends. Face to face.
To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.
And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2011, 10:24 PM
westwall's Avatar
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Member #23239
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nevada
Posts: 19,281
Thanks: 16,531
Thanked 6,807 Times in 4,798 Posts
Mentioned: 287 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 10663
westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati
westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew View Post
I would like you to go debate the people at Skeptical science and make them looks like idiots---Like you're making most of the warmers here. That would do some good as they're the more hard core knowledgeable ones. I will be reading of course.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

If you win there then no one here can even start to touch your theories...Next you should go up against hansen and friends. Face to face.
To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.
And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.





Oh some of them know their science. But as Wired said, when you are winning they begin censoring. It is far, far from a level playing field. But then again a level playing field is the worst thing in the world for them.
__________________
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
'Yea, Though I Fly Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 50,000 Feet and Climbing.'
- Sign over SR71 Wing Ops-

"He who asserts must also prove" Aristotle
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,

Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2011, 12:23 AM
gslack's Avatar
Registered User
Member #23002
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,527
Thanks: 934
Thanked 845 Times in 626 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 252
gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator gslack could be State Senator
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew View Post
I would like you to go debate the people at Skeptical science and make them looks like idiots---Like you're making most of the warmers here. That would do some good as they're the more hard core knowledgeable ones. I will be reading of course.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

If you win there then no one here can even start to touch your theories...Next you should go up against hansen and friends. Face to face.
To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.
And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.
Wouldn't that be the early stages of Quantum mechanics and quantum theory? If memory serves, the physical laws we have here either do not apply or apply in the same manner often in Quantum mechanics especially. Things that seemed impossible in our physical reality are often common place in the sub-atomic quantum reality.

A microwave oven isn't magic, socks... Its due to quantum research.

Right now a growing body of scientists are entertaining the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is not finite or constant. Some are trying to find out if the speed of light could have been different at one time or place comparative to another.

Speed of light may have changed recently - physics-math - 30 June 2004 - New Scientist

Sounds crazy but there it is.
__________________
"Part of the issue is that the science behind AGW is over." -PMZ

"I agree that science is never over."-PMZ, from the same thread...



"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion." -PMZ explaining his version of conservation of energy..
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2011, 04:26 AM
wirebender's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29079
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,723
Thanks: 49
Thanked 577 Times in 414 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 74
wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.
I did my work in the open right here on the board rocks so that everyone could look at it and point directly to my errors if I made them. I welcome you to show me any mathematical error on my part or to explain which law of physics I misapplied. If you can't do that rocks, your mewling about this scientist or that scientists being proven wrong has no meaning at all, and what do you suppose there is more me to publish. My work isn't original and certainly not groundbreaking and has been published so many times that it is now standard in textbooks which is where I got it. The AGW hoaxters know about it already rocks but simply ignore scientific integrity in favor of the money.

Last edited by wirebender; 08-25-2011 at 04:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2011, 08:18 AM
konradv's Avatar
Registered User
Member #22976
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 14,089
Thanks: 1,117
Thanked 2,689 Times in 2,038 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1106
konradv could be on the Supreme Court
konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court konradv could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender View Post
I wouild like for someone to explain how a surface that, is nothing like a perfect reflector and receives only 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate 356 watts per square meter. Explain it within the context of the law of conservation of energy and show me your math.

Then tell me that you believe that you could place any number of reflectors around an electric heater with an output of 1000 watts and increase that output by even one watt. Tell me you believe that by using reflectors around an electric heater that you can get a single joule of energy out of that heater that you don't have to pay the electric company for. Or tell me that you believe that if you put a light bulb inside a sphere such as a mirror, and feed it a watt, or 5 watts of energy, that eventually it will be radiating 1000 watts. If that sort of thing were possible, we could be generating amazing amounts of energy by following the simple formula of confine, wait, and collect.

And if you believe such magic is possible, tell me why we aren't applying such technology today because it would solve all of our energy problems if we could simply use reflectors to multiply energy output.

Conservation of energy is not just a phrase to be tossed about. It actually means something.
You say 161 watts, but in the diagram I see 494. You apparently forgot to add in the back radiation. Eagerly awaiting your thanks and pos-rep!
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2011, 09:11 AM
wirebender's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29079
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,723
Thanks: 49
Thanked 577 Times in 414 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 74
wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha
Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender View Post
I wouild like for someone to explain how a surface that, is nothing like a perfect reflector and receives only 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate 356 watts per square meter. Explain it within the context of the law of conservation of energy and show me your math.
Quote: Originally Posted by konradv View Post
You say 161 watts, but in the diagram I see 494. You apparently forgot to add in the back radiation. Eagerly awaiting your thanks and pos-rep!
konradv, we have already been over this and it is clearly way over your head. Even the reading of such a simple graphic apparently. Did I not state clearly enough in my post that I was interested to hear how a surface that only receives 161 watts per square meter from ITS ONLY ENERGY SOURCE?

Backradiation is unphysical, not supported by any of the laws of physcs, and can be proven false by very simple, repeatable, and inexpensive experiment.

Now if you would like to pick up the challenge I initially laid down and explain a mechanism supported by the laws of physics by which the atmosphere (not an energy source) can radiate 333 watts per square meter of IR energy to the surface of the earth, by all means lets hear it. I am all ears. Be sure to explain this mechanism within the context of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and describe the physical law(s) that predict and support the phenomenon of backradiation; and, oh yes, show your math.

Do you just like being publicly humiliated at my hands?

Last edited by wirebender; 08-25-2011 at 09:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2011, 06:27 AM
Registered User
Member #13758
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 32,093
Thanks: 12,404
Thanked 6,497 Times in 4,823 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2666
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by westwall View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender View Post

To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.
And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.





Oh some of them know their science. But as Wired said, when you are winning they begin censoring. It is far, far from a level playing field. But then again a level playing field is the worst thing in the world for them.
As in nobody would publish your bs for lack of methodology and coherance.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2011, 06:31 AM
Registered User
Member #13758
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 32,093
Thanks: 12,404
Thanked 6,497 Times in 4,823 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2666
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by wirebender View Post
I wouild like for someone to explain how a surface that, is nothing like a perfect reflector and receives only 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate 356 watts per square meter. Explain it within the context of the law of conservation of energy and show me your math.
Quote: Originally Posted by konradv View Post
You say 161 watts, but in the diagram I see 494. You apparently forgot to add in the back radiation. Eagerly awaiting your thanks and pos-rep!
konradv, we have already been over this and it is clearly way over your head. Even the reading of such a simple graphic apparently. Did I not state clearly enough in my post that I was interested to hear how a surface that only receives 161 watts per square meter from ITS ONLY ENERGY SOURCE?

Backradiation is unphysical, not supported by any of the laws of physcs, and can be proven false by very simple, repeatable, and inexpensive experiment.

Now if you would like to pick up the challenge I initially laid down and explain a mechanism supported by the laws of physics by which the atmosphere (not an energy source) can radiate 333 watts per square meter of IR energy to the surface of the earth, by all means lets hear it. I am all ears. Be sure to explain this mechanism within the context of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and describe the physical law(s) that predict and support the phenomenon of backradiation; and, oh yes, show your math.

Do you just like being publicly humiliated at my hands?
Bent, you have not publicaly humilated anyone other than yourself. Your claim is that you know physics better than six generations of scientists since the time of Arrnhenius. But you cannot point to a single peer reviewed article in any scientific journal where you have proven this.

Yes, I know. It is an international conspriracy, even extending to Outer Slobovia, to keep the truth hidden.

Hell, you are just another tinfoil hat fellow.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2011, 06:33 AM
Registered User
Member #13758
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 32,093
Thanks: 12,404
Thanked 6,497 Times in 4,823 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2666
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute Old Rocks has a reputation beyond repute
Speaking of tinfoil hats, Walleyes, it is less than six months until the next AGU convention. Have you submitted your lecture yet proving that AGW is a total fraud? May I expect to see you give this lecture?
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2011, 07:36 AM
wirebender's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29079
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,723
Thanks: 49
Thanked 577 Times in 414 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 74
wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha wirebender could be the Buddha
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post

Bent, you have not publicaly humilated anyone other than yourself. Your claim is that you know physics better than six generations of scientists since the time of Arrnhenius. But you cannot point to a single peer reviewed article in any scientific journal where you have proven this.

Yes, I know. It is an international conspriracy, even extending to Outer Slobovia, to keep the truth hidden.

Hell, you are just another tinfoil hat fellow.
Poor rocks. Being uneducated must suck. You continue to rail against my stance all the while being completely unable to point to any error, or misapplied physical law on my part. We know that you hold your position as a matter of faith; not based on any knowledge, or understanding of the science.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Environment
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.