AGW: atmospheric physics

[gslack]

You MUST repost it. That level of scientific stupidity is priceless. Truly epically priceless.

I love his room of mirrors with a light in it analogy LOL.. Priceless.. He says and I quote;

"Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone."-mamooth

LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah...

WOW!

 

[westwall]

You MUST repost it. That level of scientific stupidity is priceless. Truly epically priceless.

I love his room of mirrors with a light in it analogy LOL.. Priceless.. He says and I quote;

"Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone."-mamooth

LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah...

WOW!

Yes, just imagine, no longer would you need to expend vast amounts of technology and material for the creation of lasers, just put a light bulb in a box of mirrors and viola! There's your laser.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo]What A Maroon! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[polarbear]

You MUST repost it. That level of scientific stupidity is priceless. Truly epically priceless.

I love his room of mirrors with a light in it analogy LOL.. Priceless.. He says and I quote;

"Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone."-mamooth

LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah...

WOW!

Yes, just imagine, no longer would you need to expend vast amounts of technology and material for the creation of lasers, just put a light bulb in a box of mirrors and viola! There's your laser.

Isn`t it great, all that new "science" which emerges since Marihuana is being de- criminalized by the Democrats. Libtard IQ 50 people like "mamooth", the brilliant "numan" and the educated journalist "Saigon" can combine to a 150 IQ because they "back radiate" brain power at each other while re- inhaling the wacko-tobacco haze in one of these Hollywood think tanks. You know, the kind of Obama "choom gang" -study environment that is so potent that it`s a sealed record by Obama exec order...else Iran might discover how to build "back radiation bombs" with 1/2 the critical mass

It never would have dawned to the rest of us how to get unlimited wattage out of a 60 Watt light bulb if you turn it on inside a 6 mirror 1 square meter sided cubicle. When you flick on the light each of the six 1 m^2 walls gets 10 watts from the light bulb and another 10 watts from the opposing mirror. That doubles up on all 3 axis while the 60 watt bulb keeps adding photons to the ones that keep doubling up every 1/ 300 000 000 seconds. Before you know it there are so many photons whizzing around in this "mamooth" variation of Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment" that you can switch off the light bulb and it won`t get dark.

Oh, I`m so sorry. I forgot to factor in the other mamooth discovery:

Now, if I covered several square miles with some substance that converted the whole spectrum to electricity...
But it would only be getting +17% more energy briefly, using up some previously stored energy. Then it would gradually fall back to +0%, as the earth and atmosphere below cooled and stopped emitting

Gee and I thought that the earth or the atmosphere would have to be at absolute zero (K) before they would stop emitting.
I guess I should start reading that cartoonist "skeptical science" blog and brush up on "modern AGW physics".
Good thing I`m retired, because I would be "obsolete" to get one of these government funded jobs in "climatology computer modelling" which use "mamooth" algorithms

 

[westwall]

I love his room of mirrors with a light in it analogy LOL.. Priceless.. He says and I quote;

"Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone."-mamooth

LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah...

WOW!

Yes, just imagine, no longer would you need to expend vast amounts of technology and material for the creation of lasers, just put a light bulb in a box of mirrors and viola! There's your laser.

Isn`t it great, all that new "science" which emerges since Marihuana is being de- criminalized by the Democrats. Libtard IQ 50 people like "mamooth", the brilliant "numan" and the educated journalist "Saigon" can combine to a 150 IQ because they "back radiate" brain power at each other while re- inhaling the wacko-tobacco haze in one of these Hollywood think tanks. You know, the kind of Obama "choom gang" -study environment that is so potent that it`s a sealed record by Obama exec order...else Iran might discover how to build "back radiation bombs" with 1/2 the critical mass

It never would have dawned to the rest of us how to get unlimited wattage out of a 60 Watt light bulb if you turn it on inside a 6 mirror 1 square meter sided cubicle. When you flick on the light each of the six 1 m^2 walls gets 10 watts from the light bulb and another 10 watts from the opposing mirror. That doubles up on all 3 axis while the 60 watt bulb keeps adding photons to the ones that keep doubling up every 1/ 300 000 000 seconds. Before you know it there are so many photons whizzing around in this "mamooth" variation of Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment" that you can switch off the light bulb and it won`t get dark.

Oh, I`m so sorry. I forgot to factor in the other mamooth discovery:

Now, if I covered several square miles with some substance that converted the whole spectrum to electricity...
But it would only be getting +17% more energy briefly, using up some previously stored energy. Then it would gradually fall back to +0%, as the earth and atmosphere below cooled and stopped emitting

Gee and I thought that the earth or the atmosphere would have to be at absolute zero (K) before they would stop emitting.
I guess I should start reading that cartoonist "skeptical science" blog and brush up on "modern AGW physics".
Good thing I`m retired, because I would be "obsolete" to get one of these government funded jobs in "climatology computer modelling" which use "mamooth" algorithms

Yes indeed, the Admiral really exposed his credentials...or, more importantly his lack thereof with that wonderful little post! I've seen stoopid (sic) before but this clown really takes the cake.

 

[SSDD]

Yes indeed, the Admiral really exposed his credentials...or, more importantly his lack thereof with that wonderful little post! I've seen stoopid (sic) before but this clown really takes the cake.

Makes you wonder whether they believed this sort of phantasy physics before the AGW hoax began and that is why they so readily believe, or if drinking the koolaid reduced thier IQ's to the point that these phantasy physics seem reasonable and therefore believable.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I guess our educational system teaches that science and people become scientist using it. lol

 

[gslack]

I guess our educational system teaches that science and people become scientist using it. lol

They do not teach people to believe in two-way energy flow, and lossless energy transfer, and they certainly do not teach support of perfect machines of either the first or second kind.

They do not teach "back-radiation" in any actual science save one field, and that is climate science. Meteorologists don't rely on it, physicists don't, no body else but "climate science" even mentions it. The reason is its a theory put forth using mathematics to explain what they cannot. Not a fact, not something we can prove, just a possibility the interpreted from using quantum theory mathematics. The math may be right but the interpretations we have of its answers defies the 1st and 2nd laws we have never seen defied in nature before.

So rather than dismiss the theory as they would have done any other time, they support it and call it fact anyway. It's worth a lot of money and they believe the potential good that can come of it justifies it.

Now what mamooth is doing is talking out of his butt, because his mouth should know better. NONE of what he claims is either supported by or shown true by any scientific measure or any scientist.

If you believe in what he's saying then just say so outright, don't be passive aggressive, man up and say so. Lossless energy transfer, 117% energy efficiency in the atmosphere, you think it's true, fine say so.. Then prove it..

 

[RollingThunder]

I guess our educational system teaches that science and people become scientist using it. lol

They do not teach people to believe in two-way energy flow, and lossless energy transfer, and they certainly do not teach support of perfect machines of either the first or second kind.

They do not teach "back-radiation" in any actual science save one field, and that is climate science. Meteorologists don't rely on it, physicists don't, no body else but "climate science" even mentions it. The reason is its a theory put forth using mathematics to explain what they cannot. Not a fact, not something we can prove, just a possibility the interpreted from using quantum theory mathematics. The math may be right but the interpretations we have of its answers defies the 1st and 2nd laws we have never seen defied in nature before.

So rather than dismiss the theory as they would have done any other time, they support it and call it fact anyway. It's worth a lot of money and they believe the potential good that can come of it justifies it.

Now what mamooth is doing is talking out of his butt, because his mouth should know better. NONE of what he claims is either supported by or shown true by any scientific measure or any scientist.

If you believe in what he's saying then just say so outright, don't be passive aggressive, man up and say so. Lossless energy transfer, 117% energy efficiency in the atmosphere, you think it's true, fine say so.. Then prove it..

It's always hilarious when the anti-science rightwingnut retards imagine that they have it right about the science and all of the world's scientists have got it wrong. This seems to be a very common delusion among people who do not understand the greenhouse effect or the 2nd law of thermodynamics either, for that matter.

A simple understanding of the greenhouse effect: The sun heats the Earth's surface continuously daily and the Earth radiates that heat outward in the form of longwave infrared radiation. Longwave radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively “no change”. The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.

The "2nd law", simply put: "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature"

What this means is this: No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body.

In the case of the real “greenhouse effect" and the real "2nd law of thermodynamics", net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground. It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction.

 

[mamooth]

TOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!

If you followed that rule, you couldn't write or speak a word.

Notice how, on any forum, any thread you touch immediately turns to shit? You, gslack, are poison to any rational discourse. It's your belligerent stupidity that does it. You are anti-knowledge and anti-rationality personified. It stems from the emotional immaturity that prevents you from admitting any error, ever, under any circumstances. Your fellow cultists share that trait to some degree, but you're the worst about it. Since you're totally wrong, being unable to admit error leaves with you a problem. You're forced to double down on "stupid" and scream hatred at whoever tries to educate you, and hence destroy any thread you appear in.

The key is not to engage you. By now, everyone has seen you're stupid and dishonest, so there's no need to waste time reinforcing those points. Instead, it's more fun to use you as evidence of the cult nature of denialism.

 

[mamooth]

LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..

Well, yes. Common sense tells you that. For the same reasons, a room painted white is much brighter than a room painted black. Interesting that you kooks deny something as obvious as that.

ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah..

Good. You just said I was right, but you're too stupid to realize you just said I was right.

Now, the mirror room is interesting. You'd get a "hall of mirrors" effect and see many lights shining at you. It would be very bright. Eventually, imperfections in the mirrors and the fact that you were absorbing light would limit the bounces, but you could easily get ten times the original light flux. And yet it would _not_ be "multiplying energy", as there would be an equilibrium of light emitted and absorbed.

And that leaves you kooks in a quandry. Your idiot argument relies on claiming that increased flux is "multiplying energy". Thus, you have to go into these really stupid contortions to claim that the mirror room wouldn't be brighter. And by that same kook reasoning, a white room wouldn't be brighter than a black room. Now you've all revised interior decorating as well as physics.

It's such a simple scenario, one that I thought even you dimbulbs could grasp. But I underestimated your cult devotion. It's not that you all can't understand, it's that you're all too emotionally invested in not understanding. Essentially, you're all willing yourselves to be stupid.

Oh well. Time to think of some new ways to pull the strings of my puppets. I just have to mention some bit of common sense, and out of pure spite they all start screaming the opposite it true. It's so much fun to make them dance like that.

 

[gslack]

I guess our educational system teaches that science and people become scientist using it. lol

They do not teach people to believe in two-way energy flow, and lossless energy transfer, and they certainly do not teach support of perfect machines of either the first or second kind.

They do not teach "back-radiation" in any actual science save one field, and that is climate science. Meteorologists don't rely on it, physicists don't, no body else but "climate science" even mentions it. The reason is its a theory put forth using mathematics to explain what they cannot. Not a fact, not something we can prove, just a possibility the interpreted from using quantum theory mathematics. The math may be right but the interpretations we have of its answers defies the 1st and 2nd laws we have never seen defied in nature before.

So rather than dismiss the theory as they would have done any other time, they support it and call it fact anyway. It's worth a lot of money and they believe the potential good that can come of it justifies it.

Now what mamooth is doing is talking out of his butt, because his mouth should know better. NONE of what he claims is either supported by or shown true by any scientific measure or any scientist.

If you believe in what he's saying then just say so outright, don't be passive aggressive, man up and say so. Lossless energy transfer, 117% energy efficiency in the atmosphere, you think it's true, fine say so.. Then prove it..

It's always hilarious when the anti-science rightwingnut retards imagine that they have it right about the science and all of the world's scientists have got it wrong. This seems to be a very common delusion among people who do not understand the greenhouse effect or the 2nd law of thermodynamics either, for that matter.

A simple understanding of the greenhouse effect: The sun heats the Earth's surface continuously daily and the Earth radiates that heat outward in the form of longwave infrared radiation. Longwave radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively “no change”. The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.

The "2nd law", simply put: "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature"

What this means is this: No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body.

In the case of the real “greenhouse effect" and the real "2nd law of thermodynamics", net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground. It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction.

You have contributed nothing but scripted nonsense and big font troll boy.. When you post an original post that isn't insulting someone you can preach, until then you're a useless forum troll..

 

[gslack]

TOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!

If you followed that rule, you couldn't write or speak a word.

Notice how, on any forum, any thread you touch immediately turns to shit? You, gslack, are poison to any rational discourse. It's your belligerent stupidity that does it. You are anti-knowledge and anti-rationality personified. It stems from the emotional immaturity that prevents you from admitting any error, ever, under any circumstances. Your fellow cultists share that trait to some degree, but you're the worst about it. Since you're totally wrong, being unable to admit error leaves with you a problem. You're forced to double down on "stupid" and scream hatred at whoever tries to educate you, and hence destroy any thread you appear in.

The key is not to engage you. By now, everyone has seen you're stupid and dishonest, so there's no need to waste time reinforcing those points. Instead, it's more fun to use you as evidence of the cult nature of denialism.

Yes yes, you hate me I got it.. You hate me for??? LOL, outing you for a pathetic lying fraud and an idiot.. You claimed so much but when questioned on it you failed. Here is another case of your childish absolute statements blowing up in your face because you can't take the time to actually learn about what you claim before hand...

Grow up junior..

 

[gslack]

LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..

Well, yes. Common sense tells you that. For the same reasons, a room painted white is much brighter than a room painted black. Interesting that you kooks deny something as obvious as that.

ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah..

Good. You just said I was right, but you're too stupid to realize you just said I was right.

Now, the mirror room is interesting. You'd get a "hall of mirrors" effect and see many lights shining at you. It would be very bright. Eventually, imperfections in the mirrors and the fact that you were absorbing light would limit the bounces, but you could easily get ten times the original light flux. And yet it would _not_ be "multiplying energy", as there would be an equilibrium of light emitted and absorbed.

And that leaves you kooks in a quandry. Your idiot argument relies on claiming that increased flux is "multiplying energy". Thus, you have to go into these really stupid contortions to claim that the mirror room wouldn't be brighter. And by that same kook reasoning, a white room wouldn't be brighter than a black room. Now you've all revised interior decorating as well as physics.

It's such a simple scenario, one that I thought even you dimbulbs could grasp. But I underestimated your cult devotion. It's not that you all can't understand, it's that you're all too emotionally invested in not understanding. Essentially, you're all willing yourselves to be stupid.

Oh well. Time to think of some new ways to pull the strings of my puppets. I just have to mention some bit of common sense, and out of pure spite they all start screaming the opposite it true. It's so much fun to make them dance like that.

Now, now, childish tactics like cutting up a quote won't help you junior... Gonna have to make an example of you again and embarrass you...

"Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone."-mamooth

Your words correct? of course...

My response...

"LOL according to the genius mamooth, the mirrored room is brighter because all the light reflects of each mirror in turn and makes it brighter..ROFL..Hmm, wouldn't be because if the room is a rectangle or square and all the walls and floors and ceiling is mirrored, each mirror is a reflection of the light on its own? Yeah..."-gslack

As you can see by looking at the actual response and your claim, you are indeed being a fraud again... First your claim was the mirrors bounce the same light back and forth making the room brighter than the light bulb alone would make it. And my response was to point out each mirror reflects the light from the source not from the other mirrors but from the light source. The reflected energy from the mirrors coming from themselves is not reflected back again because that energy has now spent most of its energy in the transfer.

Again, you can't get something for nothing. Perfect and lossless energy transfer does not exist, perfect mirrors do not exist, and therefore your infinity reflective room cannot exist..

Now we all know my argument wasn't about energy flux pinhead, it was about energy loss in transfer.. Don't lie about my claim..

I'm gonna re-post your laser oscillator screw up, since you conveniently ignored my response...

Fair warning to you and your troll army. Eventually the mods will no longer be able to ignore your tactics of burying one anothers screw ups, and decide your dishonest habit of selective quoting is BS. Sooner or later you will go too far and then you will need to find a new way to spend your time you should be spending studying for your home schooling..

 

[gslack]

Quote: Originally Posted by mamooth
Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD
The energy flux between the mirrors never even reaches the output of the flashlight..much less become many times greater.
And thus SSDD proves that a laser oscillator can't exist.

Fascinating, how the conspiracy just keeps growing and growing, all because a group of manchildren can't admit to getting anything wrong, ever. Thus, ever deeper into the stupid hole they dig.

Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss? No..LOL

Read up on things for once will ya? Seriously you have a history of making bold claims based on little to no understanding of it. This should be a lesson to you...

Laser Oscillators

Quote:
Pulsed Laser Oscillator

The Neodynium-YAG laser consists of a rod of the material which can be pumped by a flash lamp at a rate of about 15 Hz. The output is Q-switched and mode-locked with the use of a saturable absorber and an acoustooptical modulator. The output consists of an envelope of pulses which can be tuned for optimization by adjusting the mirrors, adjusting the prisms to change optical pathlength, adjusting the crystal in the acoustooptic modulator, and adjusting the frequency of the modulator.

Q-Switching

Q-switching for a laser refers to techniques for obtaining brief, high-energy pulses rather than continuous wave operation. This helps the operation of a pulsed laser oscillator. The basic idea is that for only a brief time is the beam allowed to pass back and forth between the mirrors to achieve the laser action, but the pumping action is continuous so that a large population inversion is waiting when the lasing condition is satisfied. The Q-switching is typically accomplished with an acoustooptic coupler or an electrooptical device.

MORON!!! Lasers, the type of laser you are referring to is pulsed. Meaning the beam is pulsed at a very fast rate, appearing to be a constant and continuous beam to the naked eye. They are done this way because perfect reflectors do not exist and at every transfer or redirection of a beam there will be some energy loss in that transfer. By pulsing the beam they can get the near same effect visually, meaning you won't see a separation in the beam under normal conditions, despite the fact there is not actually one continuous beam but rather a series of very fast pulses of light, grouped so quickly together you won't see the difference.

Imagine taking your flashlight and turning it on and off at a rate so fast it appears as if its constantly on.. Ever wave a flashlight back forth quickly? Why? Because it made the light look like it was a streak of light, a little kid laser of sorts.

There is a loss at each transfer, but it is continually replenished by another pulse of light, quicker than you can see with the naked eye and given the impression of a solid and continuous beam. IDIOT!

STOP CITING THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!

Quote:mamooth
Anyways, let's get back to common sense. If I hang a light bulb in a room with mirrors on all sides, it's going to get very bright in there, as the light reflects from the mirrors many times. Much brighter than the bulb alone could make. A sane person would not call that "creating energy", and an honest person would not claim it won't get brighter than a bulb alone.

Again??? LOL, dude you are too stupid for words... Best shut up and wait for Ian to save you. Frankly I think he has learned the depths of your ignorance and has forsaken you.. What you are doing is changing your claim again.. Grow up admiral...

Quote: Originally Posted by gslack
Energy flux is a rate of energy transfer, either by density as in per unit area, or used for a total rate.. Thats energy transfer dipshit.. Get it yet? Hence energy is being transferred, and unless you have a perfect mirror you have been hiding from the rest of the scientific community, there is a loss in that transfer.

Quote:mamooth
Well sure, there's a "loss", because the total heat flow is from hot to cool, as the second law demands. But, contrary to your retard version of the second law -- the one that contradicts the last century of science -- there's no problem with some heat flowing back to hot, just as long as more heat flows out to cold.

DUDE STOP CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT WE SAW WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE.. Everyone saw it, pretending it's something else now is too late..

Quote:mamooth
You can't get 117% work out of the that system, beyond a short term where you use up the stored energy. Hence, like the light bouncing between mirrors, it's not creating energy, it's just storing previously generated energy. If you think it's creating energy, then simply show us your system that would harvest that 117% energy beyond the short-term. If you can't, have the decency to slither away in disgrace. Or admit you're wrong, but since you toddlers can't admit an error, ever, slinking away seems your best option.

Blah, blah, blah... All I see is you trying to BS your way out of your previous claim...You can't moron,you already proved your an imbecile... NEXT!

Now care to explain why you ignored the post? LOL we know junior we know...

 

[RollingThunder]

They do not teach people to believe in two-way energy flow, and lossless energy transfer, and they certainly do not teach support of perfect machines of either the first or second kind.

They do not teach "back-radiation" in any actual science save one field, and that is climate science. Meteorologists don't rely on it, physicists don't, no body else but "climate science" even mentions it. The reason is its a theory put forth using mathematics to explain what they cannot. Not a fact, not something we can prove, just a possibility the interpreted from using quantum theory mathematics. The math may be right but the interpretations we have of its answers defies the 1st and 2nd laws we have never seen defied in nature before.

So rather than dismiss the theory as they would have done any other time, they support it and call it fact anyway. It's worth a lot of money and they believe the potential good that can come of it justifies it.

Now what mamooth is doing is talking out of his butt, because his mouth should know better. NONE of what he claims is either supported by or shown true by any scientific measure or any scientist.

If you believe in what he's saying then just say so outright, don't be passive aggressive, man up and say so. Lossless energy transfer, 117% energy efficiency in the atmosphere, you think it's true, fine say so.. Then prove it..

It's always hilarious when the anti-science rightwingnut retards imagine that they have it right about the science and all of the world's scientists have got it wrong. This seems to be a very common delusion among people who do not understand the greenhouse effect or the 2nd law of thermodynamics either, for that matter.

A simple understanding of the greenhouse effect: The sun heats the Earth's surface continuously daily and the Earth radiates that heat outward in the form of longwave infrared radiation. Longwave radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively “no change”. The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.

The "2nd law", simply put: "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature"

What this means is this: No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body.

In the case of the real “greenhouse effect" and the real "2nd law of thermodynamics", net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground. It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction.

You have contributed nothing but scripted nonsense and big font troll boy.. When you post an original post that isn't insulting someone you can preach, until then you're a useless forum troll..

This is how retarded trolls respond when their moronic drivel and lies get debunked by the facts. The slackjawedidiot doesn't know his butt from his bingo card but the Dunning-Kruger Effect deludes him into imagining that he understands science better than professional scientists. He's a joke that everyone laughs at but he's too retarded to be able to see how ridiculous he is. As I said before:
"It's always hilarious when the anti-science rightwingnut retards imagine that they have it right about the science and all of the world's scientists have got it wrong."

 

[gslack]

It's always hilarious when the anti-science rightwingnut retards imagine that they have it right about the science and all of the world's scientists have got it wrong. This seems to be a very common delusion among people who do not understand the greenhouse effect or the 2nd law of thermodynamics either, for that matter.

A simple understanding of the greenhouse effect: The sun heats the Earth's surface continuously daily and the Earth radiates that heat outward in the form of longwave infrared radiation. Longwave radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively “no change”. The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.

The "2nd law", simply put: "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature"

What this means is this: No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body.

In the case of the real “greenhouse effect" and the real "2nd law of thermodynamics", net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground. It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction.

You have contributed nothing but scripted nonsense and big font troll boy.. When you post an original post that isn't insulting someone you can preach, until then you're a useless forum troll..

This is how retarded trolls respond when their moronic drivel and lies get debunked by the facts. The slackjawedidiot doesn't know his butt from his bingo card but the Dunning-Kruger Effect deludes him into imagining that he understands science better than professional scientists. He's a joke that everyone laughs at but he's too retarded to be able to see how ridiculous he is. As I said before:
"It's always hilarious when the anti-science rightwingnut retards imagine that they have it right about the science and all of the world's scientists have got it wrong."

And this is how a known forum troll who is busted responds.. Livetrollingblunderfree, your desire to bury juniors screw up is pathetic despite being expected.

Make your font bigger, thats the ticket! rofl.. All you ever do is post a scripted thread and then bark at everyone who tries to debate it. As I said, when you post something original and not from a script, and you actually do decide to debate it,let me know. Until then troll and bark.

 

[SSDD]

The bottom line is that the past and current crop of climate models are based on the sort of physics that the warmist wackos belive in and we all know that climate models are failing spectacularly....why?....because they are based on phantasy physics.

 

[polarbear]

The bottom line is that the past and current crop of climate models are based on the sort of physics that the warmist wackos belive in and we all know that climate models are failing spectacularly....why?....because they are based on phantasy physics.

This is getting funnier all the time.
First the "nuclear engineer" was multiplying photons with mirrors and now this:

Well, yes. Common sense tells you that. For the same reasons, a room painted white is much brighter than a room painted black. Interesting that you kooks deny something as obvious as that.
Now, the mirror room is interesting. You'd get a "hall of mirrors" effect and see many lights shining at you. It would be very bright. Eventually, imperfections in the mirrors and the fact that you were absorbing light would limit the bounces, but you could easily get ten times the original light flux.

A white wall looks brighter than a black wall...what a stunning "insight"..from somebody who keeps painting himself into a corner
And now we got mirrors and white walls increasing the radiant flux that comes from a fixed wattage light bulb "easily" by 10 times.

Radiant flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In radiometry, radiant flux or radiant power is the measure of the total power of electromagnetic radiation (including infrared, ultraviolet, and visible light). The power may be the total emitted from a source, or the total landing on a particular surface.

That interior decorating fag who is posing as an engineering expert now claims that luminous flux is the same thing as radiant flux .
Luminous flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In photometry, luminous flux or luminous power is the measure of the perceived power of light. It differs from radiant flux, the measure of the total power of light emitted, in that luminous flux is adjusted to reflect the varying sensitivity of the human eye to different wavelengths of light.

 

[mamooth]

And now we got mirrors and white walls increasing the radiant flux that comes from a fixed wattage light bulb "easily" by 10 times.

Yep. Those who aren't retards understand how that's possible. Alas, you and gslack fail hard in the common sense department. That's because you've never been trained in common sense, like the scientists have. You simply are _not_ as smart as those scientists, no matter how often your cult tells you otherwise. You really need to come to terms with your lack of skill here, but being you two are poster children for Dunning-Kruger, that's not going to happen.

That interior decorating fag

I delight in ripping apart cowardly bullies like polarbear. Sure, he acts like the friendly guy, your best bud -- that is, until you call him out on his BS. Then he goes into a sputtering meltdown and shows his true face, which is rather ugly.

Radiant flux, luminous flux, it makes no freaking difference to the analogy, where all the frequencies get reflected. By thinking it meant something, polarbear again revealed his lack of common sense. And I suspect he knew he needed a deflection.

One more time, I'll try to dumb it down for the two denialist dimbulbs.

Imagine a room with snow-white walls that have a 0.8 albedo. That is, they reflect 80% of the visible light.

Now, imagine a bulb in the room. It doesn't matter what the exact emission spectrum is, since we're only looking at the visible light here. That visible light is going to hit the walls, and 80% will bounce off. And that reflected light will hit the walls again, and 64% will bounce. And so on. By the infinite summation formula, we can calculate the final light flux at 1/(1-.8) = 5 times the luminous flux of the bulb alone. That's why the white room would be so much brighter than a black room, because given the same light source, it's got 5 times the luminous flux of a black room.

So, 5 times the original luminous flux. The kooks here will claim that means you've multiplied the energy output by 5. However, the kooks here are deeply stupid people. They don't understand it's just a one-time energy storage, not an energy multiplication. The light absorbed in the whole system still equals the light output of the bulb. Same for the planet, where the total energy emitted to space still equals the energy input of the sun.

 

[mamooth]

Yes a ridiculous man-child that would be you we know this..Know what a laser oscillator is? Or what it does? Does make an infinity laser? Or a laser that can be reflected over and over suffering no energy loss?

Why should I care about your crazy claims?

Kook, I know how to handle you, and that frustrates you to no end. It's a given that you'll lie about what everyone else says, and use to the lies to try to drag them down into a pissing match. But I don't have to play that game. I just keep laughing and returning to the point you're running from, to watch you have a meltdown over it.

Your kook theory says that a white room can't possibly be brighter than a dark room with the same light source, because it would be "multiplying energy". That's the point. Can you explain to us how the white room manages to be brighter without having more light flux than the black room?