In summary...

[IanC]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws. D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position. but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.

Your misunderstanding on just about every topic is truly epic. Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people.

 

[jc456]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws. D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position. but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.

Your misunderstanding on just about every topic is truly epic. Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people.

there you go!

 

[Darkwind]

1. climate change is a science, not a theory
2. Global Warming is a fraudulent theory with precisely no evidence to support it
3. the amount of ice on Earth is dictated by the amount of land near the two Earth poles
4. the amount of ice on Earth dictates Earth's climate
5. CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change

The oceans provide more direct impact upon climate than any other factor outside the Sun.

 

[jc456]

1. climate change is a science, not a theory
2. Global Warming is a fraudulent theory with precisely no evidence to support it
3. the amount of ice on Earth is dictated by the amount of land near the two Earth poles
4. the amount of ice on Earth dictates Earth's climate
5. CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change

The oceans provide more direct impact upon climate than any other factor outside the Sun.

they also hold excess heat. Ask the IPCC.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws. D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position. but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws.

We're not talking about cold, we're talking about photons.

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold

Photons flow from cold to hot, hot to cold, and same to same, as long as the matter is above 0K, it
emits, no tiny thermometer or crystal ball needed.

 

[IanC]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws. D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position. but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.

Fire up your stereo, listen to the first side of Sticky Fingers. Then measure the temperature of the top of your amp. Toss a towel from your linen closet on top of the amp. Listen to the second side, and then take the temperature again.

Voilà! A cool object has made a hot object hotter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have jc and SSSD stopped responding here? If you don't have an argument with which to counter Ian's points, perhaps you ought to say so.

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws. D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position. but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.

Fire up your stereo, listen to the first side of Sticky Fingers. Then measure the temperature of the top of your amp. Toss a towel from your linen closet on top of the amp. Listen to the second side, and then take the temperature again.

Voilà! A cool object has made a hot object hotter.

That can't be true, heat doesn't flow from cold to hot.

 

[IanC]

I think you are being unrealistic to expect any specific change in their attitudes. My only hope is that I can reduce the amount of garbage that they spew by calling it out as nonsense when they try.

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws. D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position. but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.

Fire up your stereo, listen to the first side of Sticky Fingers. Then measure the temperature of the top of your amp. Toss a towel from your linen closet on top of the amp. Listen to the second side, and then take the temperature again.

Voilà! A cool object has made a hot object hotter.

That can't be true, heat doesn't flow from cold to hot.

Hahahaha. There's a trick to it. But I won't tell.

 

[Crick]

Ian holds his hands up, arms spread, his thumb and forefingers forming circles on each hand. He then spins around, hiding his hands, says the magic word and then, with a bold "Ta-DAAAAaaa", brings them back out with the two rings now joined!

 

[IanC]

Ian holds his hands up, arms spread, his thumb and forefingers forming circles on each hand. He then spins around, hiding his hands, says the magic word and then, with a bold "Ta-DAAAAaaa", brings them back out with the two rings now joined!

Hey now! Cut me some slack, that trick is a hit with the toddler crowd.

 

[Crick]

; - )

The comment concerned your audience's sense of perspicuity

 

[SSDD]

just remember back radiation is nonsense. Just don't forget that.

just remember back radiation is nonsense

Right. Because photons have tiny thermometers.

because cold doesn't flow to warm as per the laws. D'oh!

Hey Todd,

When you can post up an experiment that shows something hot getting hotter from something cold I might have to reanalyze my position. but until that cold day in hell, I'll stay on point.

Fire up your stereo, listen to the first side of Sticky Fingers. Then measure the temperature of the top of your amp. Toss a towel from your linen closet on top of the amp. Listen to the second side, and then take the temperature again.

Voilà! A cool object has made a hot object hotter.

That can't be true, heat doesn't flow from cold to hot.

Hahahaha. There's a trick to it. But I won't tell.

Of course you won't...you are all about fooling whoever you can to join you on the AGW crazy train...

 

[Crick]

Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.

 

[IanC]

Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.

Says the man who doesn't believe gravity plays a big part in determining the temperature of the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.

There is nothing whatsoever unique about my understanding of the S-B law according to at least 2 top shelf physicists...Ian, and apparently you, have a very odd "interpretation" of the law...Ian now believes that the first equation describes a two dimensional object that somehow radiates in 3 dimensions, and both of you believe that adding the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant will somehow make two way radiation happen in reality. You are both badly mistaken in your interpretations...I suppose that is because neither of you can simply read the equation and understand what it is saying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.

There is nothing whatsoever unique about my understanding of the S-B law according to at least 2 top shelf physicists...Ian, and apparently you, have a very odd "interpretation" of the law...Ian now believes that the first equation describes a two dimensional object that somehow radiates in 3 dimensions, and both of you believe that adding the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant will somehow make two way radiation happen in reality. You are both badly mistaken in your interpretations...I suppose that is because neither of you can simply read the equation and understand what it is saying.

You never did explain your dimmer switch theory.

 

[IanC]

Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.

There is nothing whatsoever unique about my understanding of the S-B law according to at least 2 top shelf physicists...Ian, and apparently you, have a very odd "interpretation" of the law...Ian now believes that the first equation describes a two dimensional object that somehow radiates in 3 dimensions, and both of you believe that adding the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant will somehow make two way radiation happen in reality. You are both badly mistaken in your interpretations...I suppose that is because neither of you can simply read the equation and understand what it is saying.

You never did explain your dimmer switch theory.

Dimmer switches and magical smart photons. (Deep sigh)

And he considers us ignorant because we believe matter radiates according to temperature, and that heat flow is the net difference between two objects. Ockham would spin in his grave.

 

[jc456]

Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.

There is nothing whatsoever unique about my understanding of the S-B law according to at least 2 top shelf physicists...Ian, and apparently you, have a very odd "interpretation" of the law...Ian now believes that the first equation describes a two dimensional object that somehow radiates in 3 dimensions, and both of you believe that adding the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant will somehow make two way radiation happen in reality. You are both badly mistaken in your interpretations...I suppose that is because neither of you can simply read the equation and understand what it is saying.

You never did explain your dimmer switch theory.

Dimmer switches and magical smart photons. (Deep sigh)

And he considers us ignorant because we believe matter radiates according to temperature, and that heat flow is the net difference between two objects. Ockham would spin in his grave.

no, heat flow is from warm to cold. you should read up.

 

[IanC]

Says the man whose interpretation of S-B is absolutely unique.

There is nothing whatsoever unique about my understanding of the S-B law according to at least 2 top shelf physicists...Ian, and apparently you, have a very odd "interpretation" of the law...Ian now believes that the first equation describes a two dimensional object that somehow radiates in 3 dimensions, and both of you believe that adding the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant will somehow make two way radiation happen in reality. You are both badly mistaken in your interpretations...I suppose that is because neither of you can simply read the equation and understand what it is saying.

You never did explain your dimmer switch theory.

Dimmer switches and magical smart photons. (Deep sigh)

And he considers us ignorant because we believe matter radiates according to temperature, and that heat flow is the net difference between two objects. Ockham would spin in his grave.

no, heat flow is from warm to cold. you should read up.

Fuck, you're stupid. Objects radiate according to their temperature.

If two objects are the same temperature they still radiate but there is no net radiation exchange. They give as much as they receive. But there is still radiation. Only dumb fucks like you and SSDD believe the radiation magically stops altogether. That is why everyone laughs at you guys.

 

[SSDD]

Fuck, you're stupid. Objects radiate according to their temperature.

You should read up ian...objects radiate according to their temperature only if they are in a vacuum...or happen to be in an environment that is at absolute zero...which wouldn't last long with an object radiating at above 0 degrees K now would it?

Objects in the real world radiate according to the temperature of their surroundings...like it or not...