Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I wish wirebender and gslack would convert to the other side. they are embarrassing the sceptical/lukewamer side.
[
And I wish you would actually prove wire wrong in his math or prove that EM field vectors aren't real, or that quantum mechanics does not apply because its an esoteric concept similar to magic as you claimed.... Not gonna do it? Didn't think so...
So Ian you have resorted to trolling and attacks from the side now? That's pretty konradv of you don't you think? So let me get this straight, I agree with you and you are never wrong or you harass me and stomp your foot? LOL, Ian pride can be a good thing or a bad thing. Its all in how you use it and how much of it you have. The idea you must be right because you said so and thats that is too much, and trolling because you can't show you are right or there is something you didn't know is just childish...
If you can prove him wrong or his math inaccurate please do so, if not troll to your hearts content. Show your ass as much as you need to fix your pride.
[
And I wish you would actually prove wire wrong in his math or prove that EM field vectors aren't real, or that quantum mechanics does not apply because its an esoteric concept similar to magic as you claimed.... Not gonna do it? Didn't think so...
So Ian you have resorted to trolling and attacks from the side now? That's pretty konradv of you don't you think? So let me get this straight, I agree with you and you are never wrong or you harass me and stomp your foot? LOL, Ian pride can be a good thing or a bad thing. Its all in how you use it and how much of it you have. The idea you must be right because you said so and thats that is too much, and trolling because you can't show you are right or there is something you didn't know is just childish...
If you can prove him wrong or his math inaccurate please do so, if not troll to your hearts content. Show your ass as much as you need to fix your pride.
It might just be me, but if I were going to go about declaring someone wrong, I would make damned sure that I was able to prove them wrong in some way. I mean when RWatt was saying that radiation from the sky was warming the earth via backradiation, I wouldn't have contradicted him unless I could describe exactly why it wasn't happening and do the requisite math to prove my point.
When he and I had that argument, he got so mad that he made up his own senario and did the math himself (a step above Ian's tactics) and reached the same answer as I predicted and couldn't accept his own results. I haven't seen him on the board since as RWatt.
I wish wirebender and gslack would convert to the other side. they are embarrassing the sceptical/lukewamer side.
Thunder you poor idiot, there isn't a word on that page about physical laws. That page is all assumption. It doesn't even begin to state which physical law supports or predicts a greenhouse effect. It is based entirely on false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics.
And so....right there....your raving insanity is laid bare for all to see.
Those scientists from UCAR and NCAR are just full of "false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics" but you are just the guy to set them all straight. Right?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMAO.......
The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases
How do greenhouse gases "work"?
If you are up on your chemistry, you may have noticed that all of the greenhouse gas molecules have three or more atoms. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2), the two most abundant gases in our atmosphere, each have only two atoms per molecule, and are not greenhouse gases. This is not a coincidence. As was mentioned earlier, GHG molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule. So why don't nitrogen and oxygen molecules absorb infrared photons?
Photons, including infrared photons, are of course a form of electromagnetic radiation. As such, they can also be understood as disturbances, or waves, of electromagnetic energy. Atoms, and the molecules they combine to form, have electrically charged particles (electrons and protons) in them. The gas molecules we are currently considering, nitrogen and oxygen and the various GHGs, have no net charge; they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. However, molecules that are on average neutral (in terms of their electrical charge) can still have localized charges, either some of the time (when they are vibrating) or all of the time. For example, surface tension in water is caused by the tendency of water molecules to stick together because the electrons that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms share are not shared equally. The shared electrons spend more time closer to the oxygen atom's nucleus, which has more protons and thus pulls on the electrons more strongly. The portion of each water molecule that is near the oxygen atom has a negative charge (excess electrons), while the areas around the two hydrogen atoms have positive charges (fewer electrons to offset the protons). Water molecules have localized areas of positive and negative charges, so individual water molecules tend to "stick" to one another (the positive hydrogen segments being attracted to the negative oxygen portion).
Molecules are not, however, rigid ball and stick figures as our chemistry class models may lead us to believe. Molecules are in motion; continuously bouncing around and jiggling and vibrating. Consider first a diatomic nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) molecule. A pair of balls attached by a spring is a good model of such a molecule. Pull the balls apart and release them; they alternately move closer together and further apart. This vibrational mode is extremely symmetric, however; the center of mass of the system always remains at the point midway between the two balls/atoms. Electromagnetic "disturbances" (waves) do not tend to interact with, or transfer energy to, such diatomic molecules (such as N2 or O2).
Molecules with three or more atoms, however, are a different story. The figure (below) shows three different vibrational modes of a carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. The first mode, (a), is symmetric; it is comparable to the vibrational mode of diatomic molecules. The center of mass, and of charge, of the system is not displaced during vibration. However, such is not the case for the other two modes, (b) and (c). In the latter two cases, the "center of charge" moves as the molecule vibrates, creating a "dipole moment". As explained for the the case of water above, electrons are not shared equally between the atoms in the CO2 molecule, so the molecule is not electrically neutral in all places. As the molecule oscillates, the center of charge moves; from side to side in case (b), and up and down in case (c). A passing electromagnetic "disturbance" (wave, or IR photon) can "excite" such a molecule, causing it to vibrate and transferring energy from the photon to the molecule. This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons.
Vibration modes of carbon dioxide. Mode (a) is symmetric and results in no net displacement of the molecule's "center of charge", and is therefore not associated with the absorption of IR radiation. Modes (b) and (c) do displace the "center of charge", creating a "dipole moment", and therefore are modes that result from EM radiation absorption, and are thus responsible for making CO2 a greenhouse gas.
Credit: Martin C. Doege
Not that rehashed oversimplification again...
Seriously you guys get a reading list you all post from or what? Trolling blunder, do you really think that most basic of explanations is how it actually works in the real world? LOL of course you do... Well then lets ask some questions shall we..
1. IF as the article states all these particles are constantly moving how in the hell do they know how each will be hit or redirected, absorbed, destroyed whatever in every single instance at any and all points in time and space?
Answer: They don't and they can't know. And whats worse they go on ahead and make climate models using this basic way to teach the greenhouse effect concept to kids, as if it is reality. In reality there is no way they can know how much heat will be retained in this greenhouse effect by CO2 alone unless they can accurately predict the positions of all particles, waves, EM fields, at their interaction points and the various trajectories. Its guess work, they know it and thats why the oversimplified drawings and unrealistic examples. If they actually gave you a really accurate conceptual of this entire maddening system at work and all the variables included it would show for the utter madness it is.
2. Do you really think all particles, waves, and their respective electromagnetic fields line up in a row like that pic shows waiting all still and quiet for a photon to come along and give them a gentle push in the perfect direction and give the perfect scripted response in the manner they show?
Answer: Of course you do, its all in the religion and you are one of the faithful... Its utter bunk, and you are too much of a cow-toeing ditto-head follower to question it. If you can show me a perfect reaction to photons hitting a 3 atom molecule that looks exactly as that drawing depicts I would love to see it.. So would a great many others I am sure...
3. You left out something in that article that is very relevant, why?
Answer : you left out this part....
Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG. They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use models of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes. So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, water vapor. They might find that this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect. Note, however, that the absorption of 1,375 NM IR photons by CO2 would increase in this scenario; the CO2 need no longer "compete" for these photons with the water vapor. In essence, the 36% reduction in greenhouse effect computed by this method is a minimum; the impact on the total greenhouse effect from water vapor is actually larger. The end result is that there are rather larger ranges of values associated with the possible contributions of the various GHGs to the total greenhouse effect.
Oh my... So they are guessing? Holy shit! Kind of like I said before huh.. Yeah exactly like i said before....
Now you can return to your mindless cut&paste trolling... Idiot...
[
And I wish you would actually prove wire wrong in his math or prove that EM field vectors aren't real, or that quantum mechanics does not apply because its an esoteric concept similar to magic as you claimed.... Not gonna do it? Didn't think so...
So Ian you have resorted to trolling and attacks from the side now? That's pretty konradv of you don't you think? So let me get this straight, I agree with you and you are never wrong or you harass me and stomp your foot? LOL, Ian pride can be a good thing or a bad thing. Its all in how you use it and how much of it you have. The idea you must be right because you said so and thats that is too much, and trolling because you can't show you are right or there is something you didn't know is just childish...
If you can prove him wrong or his math inaccurate please do so, if not troll to your hearts content. Show your ass as much as you need to fix your pride.
It might just be me, but if I were going to go about declaring someone wrong, I would make damned sure that I was able to prove them wrong in some way. I mean when RWatt was saying that radiation from the sky was warming the earth via backradiation, I wouldn't have contradicted him unless I could describe exactly why it wasn't happening and do the requisite math to prove my point.
When he and I had that argument, he got so mad that he made up his own senario and did the math himself (a step above Ian's tactics) and reached the same answer as I predicted and couldn't accept his own results. I haven't seen him on the board since as RWatt.
Yeah Ian is a lukewarmer and that means he has already indoctrinated himself to the religion. In Religion the difference would something like that between a catholic and a protestant..
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....and that, folks, is how an anti-science flaming retard explains away the scientific evidence to his own satisfaction. "Duh, I can't understand how it works so it must be wrong. Big words and diagrams confuse me. Duh..."
It "remains unanswered" only in your demented little brain, wiredwrong.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....and that, folks, is how an anti-science flaming retard explains away the scientific evidence to his own satisfaction. "Duh, I can't understand how it works so it must be wrong. Big words and diagrams confuse me. Duh..."
The question remains unanswered thunder....
It "remains unanswered" only in your demented little brain, wiredwrong.
It "remains unanswered" only in your demented little brain, wiredwrong.
Do you think you are fooling anyone drone?
Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.
, so fooling you any more would be quite pointless...just like all of your retarded posts.
It might just be me, but if I were going to go about declaring someone wrong, I would make damned sure that I was able to prove them wrong in some way. I mean when RWatt was saying that radiation from the sky was warming the earth via backradiation, I wouldn't have contradicted him unless I could describe exactly why it wasn't happening and do the requisite math to prove my point.
When he and I had that argument, he got so mad that he made up his own senario and did the math himself (a step above Ian's tactics) and reached the same answer as I predicted and couldn't accept his own results. I haven't seen him on the board since as RWatt.
Yeah Ian is a lukewarmer and that means he has already indoctrinated himself to the religion. In Religion the difference would something like that between a catholic and a protestant..
Everybodys suspect but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.
Yeah Ian is a lukewarmer and that means he has already indoctrinated himself to the religion. In Religion the difference would something like that between a catholic and a protestant..
Everybodys suspect but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.
You got to admit that wirebender is intelligent enough to make a rather strong case that's very hard to argue against with the education I have. The reason, I say that is "he" could be wrong within the eye of a physics professor, but he makes a good case within my eye's to the point that I can't say he is wrong. The truth is protons do admit outwards(outbound IR Radiations) from nearly every point in a em field...It is shown that "energy" can't move from "cold to hot"....Not sure about the net thing, but knowing that energy can't be transferred to a molecule of co2 as all co2 molecules have the same energy level; well that brings great doubt within my mind.
His case that the detector of the energy reemitting towards the surface being cooled would also wouldn't break the law of thermodynamics. But proves that we haven't detected back radiation from co2.
Now, there is a hypothesis out there that says that it's only the net energy....But, let me just say this outright that not even Spencer at UAH is more knowledgeable then this guy. Or Hansen, on down the list. We're dealing with one smart person. One that can go up against someone that has spent there lifes in this field. You don't get to this point without being in a field and reading and challenging the idea's and hypothesis as a full blown scientist. I would be blow out of my seat to find out for real that this guy is just someone with a few terms of science under him. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Wirebender is some old Professor at the peak of his field that has his own theory's on how things work and may in fact be totally right, but he is here having some fun. Got to respect that.
The guy is a genius! Yes, I seen him go up against the entire stuff at Skeptical science and run them into the ground.
Right or wrong...Science is all about people challenging the evidence and looking for the truth. This means Professor wirebender could be right and has every right to challenge it.
Is it going to stop me from posting the monthly temperature or sea ice data. HELL NO. I enjoy doing that.
And so....right there....your raving insanity is laid bare for all to see.
Those scientists from UCAR and NCAR are just full of "false assumptions regarding the basic laws of physics" but you are just the guy to set them all straight. Right?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMAO.......
The Greenhouse Effect & Greenhouse Gases
How do greenhouse gases "work"?
If you are up on your chemistry, you may have noticed that all of the greenhouse gas molecules have three or more atoms. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2), the two most abundant gases in our atmosphere, each have only two atoms per molecule, and are not greenhouse gases. This is not a coincidence. As was mentioned earlier, GHG molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule. So why don't nitrogen and oxygen molecules absorb infrared photons?
Photons, including infrared photons, are of course a form of electromagnetic radiation. As such, they can also be understood as disturbances, or waves, of electromagnetic energy. Atoms, and the molecules they combine to form, have electrically charged particles (electrons and protons) in them. The gas molecules we are currently considering, nitrogen and oxygen and the various GHGs, have no net charge; they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. However, molecules that are on average neutral (in terms of their electrical charge) can still have localized charges, either some of the time (when they are vibrating) or all of the time. For example, surface tension in water is caused by the tendency of water molecules to stick together because the electrons that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms share are not shared equally. The shared electrons spend more time closer to the oxygen atom's nucleus, which has more protons and thus pulls on the electrons more strongly. The portion of each water molecule that is near the oxygen atom has a negative charge (excess electrons), while the areas around the two hydrogen atoms have positive charges (fewer electrons to offset the protons). Water molecules have localized areas of positive and negative charges, so individual water molecules tend to "stick" to one another (the positive hydrogen segments being attracted to the negative oxygen portion).
Molecules are not, however, rigid ball and stick figures as our chemistry class models may lead us to believe. Molecules are in motion; continuously bouncing around and jiggling and vibrating. Consider first a diatomic nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2) molecule. A pair of balls attached by a spring is a good model of such a molecule. Pull the balls apart and release them; they alternately move closer together and further apart. This vibrational mode is extremely symmetric, however; the center of mass of the system always remains at the point midway between the two balls/atoms. Electromagnetic "disturbances" (waves) do not tend to interact with, or transfer energy to, such diatomic molecules (such as N2 or O2).
Molecules with three or more atoms, however, are a different story. The figure (below) shows three different vibrational modes of a carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. The first mode, (a), is symmetric; it is comparable to the vibrational mode of diatomic molecules. The center of mass, and of charge, of the system is not displaced during vibration. However, such is not the case for the other two modes, (b) and (c). In the latter two cases, the "center of charge" moves as the molecule vibrates, creating a "dipole moment". As explained for the the case of water above, electrons are not shared equally between the atoms in the CO2 molecule, so the molecule is not electrically neutral in all places. As the molecule oscillates, the center of charge moves; from side to side in case (b), and up and down in case (c). A passing electromagnetic "disturbance" (wave, or IR photon) can "excite" such a molecule, causing it to vibrate and transferring energy from the photon to the molecule. This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons.
Vibration modes of carbon dioxide. Mode (a) is symmetric and results in no net displacement of the molecule's "center of charge", and is therefore not associated with the absorption of IR radiation. Modes (b) and (c) do displace the "center of charge", creating a "dipole moment", and therefore are modes that result from EM radiation absorption, and are thus responsible for making CO2 a greenhouse gas.
Credit: Martin C. Doege
Not that rehashed oversimplification again...
Seriously you guys get a reading list you all post from or what? Trolling blunder, do you really think that most basic of explanations is how it actually works in the real world? LOL of course you do... Well then lets ask some questions shall we..
1. IF as the article states all these particles are constantly moving how in the hell do they know how each will be hit or redirected, absorbed, destroyed whatever in every single instance at any and all points in time and space?
Answer: They don't and they can't know. And whats worse they go on ahead and make climate models using this basic way to teach the greenhouse effect concept to kids, as if it is reality. In reality there is no way they can know how much heat will be retained in this greenhouse effect by CO2 alone unless they can accurately predict the positions of all particles, waves, EM fields, at their interaction points and the various trajectories. Its guess work, they know it and thats why the oversimplified drawings and unrealistic examples. If they actually gave you a really accurate conceptual of this entire maddening system at work and all the variables included it would show for the utter madness it is.
2. Do you really think all particles, waves, and their respective electromagnetic fields line up in a row like that pic shows waiting all still and quiet for a photon to come along and give them a gentle push in the perfect direction and give the perfect scripted response in the manner they show?
Answer: Of course you do, its all in the religion and you are one of the faithful... Its utter bunk, and you are too much of a cow-toeing ditto-head follower to question it. If you can show me a perfect reaction to photons hitting a 3 atom molecule that looks exactly as that drawing depicts I would love to see it.. So would a great many others I am sure...
3. You left out something in that article that is very relevant, why?
Answer : you left out this part....
Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG. They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use models of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes. So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, water vapor. They might find that this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect. Note, however, that the absorption of 1,375 NM IR photons by CO2 would increase in this scenario; the CO2 need no longer "compete" for these photons with the water vapor. In essence, the 36% reduction in greenhouse effect computed by this method is a minimum; the impact on the total greenhouse effect from water vapor is actually larger. The end result is that there are rather larger ranges of values associated with the possible contributions of the various GHGs to the total greenhouse effect.
Oh my... So they are guessing? Holy shit! Kind of like I said before huh.. Yeah exactly like i said before....
Now you can return to your mindless cut&paste trolling... Idiot...
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....and that, folks, is how an anti-science flaming retard explains away the scientific evidence to his own satisfaction. "Duh, I can't understand how it works so it must be wrong. Big words and diagrams confuse me. Duh..."
It "remains unanswered" only in your demented little brain, wiredwrong.
Do you think you are fooling anyone drone?
Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.
You're too big a fool already, wiredwrong
You got to admit that wirebender is intelligent enough to make a rather strong case that's very hard to argue against with the education I have. The reason, I say that is "he" could be wrong within the eye of a physics professor, but he makes a good case within my eye's to the point that I can't say he is wrong. The truth is protons do admit outwards(outbound IR Radiations) from nearly every point in a em field...It is shown that "energy" can't move from "cold to hot"....Not sure about the net thing, but knowing that energy can't be transferred to a molecule of co2 as all co2 molecules have the same energy level; well that brings great doubt within my mind.
His case that the detector of the energy reemitting towards the surface being cooled would also wouldn't break the law of thermodynamics. But proves that we haven't detected back radiation from co2.
Now, there is a hypothesis out there that says that it's only the net energy....But, let me just say this outright that not even Spencer at UAH is more knowledgeable then this guy. Or Hansen, on down the list. We're dealing with one smart person. One that can go up against someone that has spent there lifes in this field. You don't get to this point without being in a field and reading and challenging the idea's and hypothesis as a full blown scientist. I would be blow out of my seat to find out for real that this guy is just someone with a few terms of science under him. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Wirebender is some old Professor at the peak of his field that has his own theory's on how things work and may in fact be totally right, but he is here having some fun. Got to respect that.
The guy is a genius! Yes, I seen him go up against the entire stuff at Skeptical science and run them into the ground.
Right or wrong...Science is all about people challenging the evidence and looking for the truth. This means Professor wirebender could be right and has every right to challenge it.
Is it going to stop me from posting the monthly temperature or sea ice data. HELL NO. I enjoy doing that.
Denier cult dimwits like PoliticalChucklehead and ol' wired&bent are the ugly, dishonest, severely retarded victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect coupled with unfortunate effects of having siblings for parents.
Scheelite in SW UV. Bent's whole hypothesis falsified.
Scheelite in SW UV. Bent's whole hypothesis falsified.
Rocks, get a clue. How hard is it for you to grasp the fact that the energy doesn't radiate back from the stone to its energy source. If it did, then the energy source would absorb the radiation and in turn put out more radiation and the stone would then reradiate more back towards the light which would absorb it and then radiate even more which the stone would reradiate which the light would absorb and radiate even more......if radiation from the the stone went back and was absorbed by its energy source, you would have a perpetual motion engine in an endless feedback loop.
The radiation from the stone can not radiate back up the vectors to its energy source because the magnitude of the EM field radiating from the light is greater than that radiating from the stone. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy rocks. Try learning them.
Try educating yourself just a bit rocks. At least then, it wouldn't be so effortless to make you look like a shallow thinking idiot.
