Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has happened with every single piece of matter in the universe since the Big Bang.

You're the one with the extraordinary claim. You're the one with the burden of making a case. You've been presented several 'experiments' that conflict seriously with your contention and you're explanations so far wouldn't have convinced a second grader.

The real nail in the coffin of the idea that you have the SLIGHTEST scientific competency, is your unwillingness to alter your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For god's sake, multiple individuals on your side of the environmental issues under discussion here have come out against you. Forcefully. Toddsterpatriot, of all people - called you a nitwit and completely justified the charge.

Until you admit that you've been wrong about this (and several other issues on which you've expressed your personal wisdom), it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that you're most ignorant fool most of us have ever had the displeasure to have met.

it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that you're most ignorant fool most of us have ever had the displeasure to have met.

To be fair, he hasn't pushed for us to waste trillions on less reliable, more expensive energy to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.1 degrees.
He hasn't argued for crippling our economy based on the theory that warmer is worse than cooler or that if we stopped using carbon fuels the climate would stop changing.

There are many more ignorant, much more dangerous fools out there.

 

[Crick]

Yeah. There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.

 

[Crick]

Fighting global warming may be expensive, but it is not a waste. Dealing with its unchecked effects will cost orders of magnitude MORE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah. There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.

There are idiots on the left that people also listen to, so what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fighting global warming may be expensive, but it is not a waste. Dealing with its unchecked effects will cost orders of magnitude MORE.

How do you separate natural hurricanes from "hurricanes caused by human CO2"?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah. There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.

ROFL and your girlfriend reads tarot cards, right?

 

[Crick]

My girlfriend? Tarot cards? WTF are you talking about?

 

[Crick]

Yeah. There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.

There are idiots on the left that people also listen to, so what?

If you care to name one, we can chat. But at the for the moment, we've been talking about SSDD. The existence of other idiots doesn't get him off the hook.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah. There are folks like SSDD to whom people actually listen.

There are idiots on the left that people also listen to, so what?

If you care to name one, we can chat. But at the for the moment, we've been talking about SSDD. The existence of other idiots doesn't get him off the hook.

We can talk about the elephant in the room, but mocking Al Gore for his weight wouldn't be nice.

You're right, the existence of SSDD does not let Al Gore off the hook for his idiotic, economy destroying suggestions.

 

[Crick]

Nor vice versa

PS: when was the last time you heard anything out of Al Gore?

And perhaps more to the point, when was the last time anyone here concerned about AGW used Al Gore as a reference?

Don't get me wrong. I think Al Gore is a great guy. I voted for him twice for VP and once for President. I've shaken his hand once. I think almost everything he put out in his movie was correct and needed to be said. However, as he himself would admit, he's not a climate scientist. If I want to tell you about some climate science, I'm going to go to the refereed journals, not to Al. I am quite certain the same is true for every poster here who's concerned about AGW. Too bad the deniers don't seem so concerned about the qualifications of the few sources from which they're forced to work

So... could you explain why you think Al Gore is relevant to any discussion of global warming?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nor vice versa

PS: when was the last time you heard anything out of Al Gore?

and perhaps more to the point, when was the last time anyone here concerned about AGW used Al Gore as a reference?

So... could you explain why you think Al Gore is relevant to any discussion of global warming?

He has been less vociferous recently.

Or at least the press is covering his muttering less.

His Nobel Prize and Oscar for that error filled drone fest makes him relevant.
And, of course, he is an easy target for mocking. Well deserved mocking.

 

[Crick]

No, he actually doesn't deserve your mocking. Keep in mind that a majority of your fellow Americans wanted him to be their president. He single-handedly raised our awareness of the threat of global warming a hundred-fold. Whether or not you think he should have, you'd have to admit the man was effective. How much success have any of your denier icons had at undoing what he started?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, he actually doesn't deserve your mocking. Keep in mind that a majority of your fellow Americans wanted him to be their president. He single-handedly raised our awareness of the threat of global warming a hundred-fold. Whether or not you think he should have, you'd have to admit the man was effective. How much success have any of your denier icons had at undoing what he started?

Unfortunately, for tubby, we don't elect presidents based on majority vote.

Yes, his lies and exaggerations did raise awareness.

How much success have any of your denier icons had at undoing what he started?

How's that cap and trade working out for ya?

 

[Crick]

Cap and trade was never my idea and I never expressed any support for it. I figured all those MBA's know what they were talking about. And, maybe it would have worked just great if not for folks like you opposing it without cause. I guess we're unlikely to know. I find the situation serious enough now that I think carbon emissions need to be restricted by fiat. It's way past time when we can just gently urge the world's fossil fuel consumers to move where they need to move.

How are the opinions of the world's climate experts working out for you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cap and trade was never my idea and I never expressed any support for it. I figured all those MBA's know what they were talking about. And, maybe it would have worked just great if not for folks like you opposing it without cause. I guess we're unlikely to know. I find the situation serious enough now that I think carbon emissions need to be restricted by fiat. It's way past time when we can just gently urge the world's fossil fuel consumers to move where they need to move.

How are the opinions of the world's climate experts working out for you?

Cap and trade was never my idea

I was talking about Gore.

And, maybe it would have worked just great if not for folks like you opposing it without cause.

Preventing damage to the economy is not "without cause"

I find the situation serious enough now

Right, because after we waste trillions you'll be able to point to the benefit. LOL!

 

[Crick]

You asked me how cap and trade was working for me. I gave you an answer. Here is a very large article on emissions trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade. Gore's name does not appear once. I suppose he may have supported the idea, but it was not his.

What damage has the economy suffered from climate change responses?

If you want to minimize the amount of money that will have to be spent, ignoring global warming is precisely the WRONG thing to do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You asked me how cap and trade was working for me. I gave you an answer. Here is a very large article on emissions trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade. Gore's name does not appear once. I suppose he may have supported the idea, but it was not his.

What damage has the economy suffered from climate change responses?

If you want to minimize the amount of money that will have to be spent, ignoring global warming is precisely the WRONG thing to do.

You asked me how cap and trade was working for me.

You asked me what the deniers did.

What damage has the economy suffered from climate change responses?

How many billions were wasted on less reliable energy?
How did Spain benefit from their massive green energy initiatives?
How much warming did Spain's wasted spending and economic damage prevent?

Please show all your work.

ignoring global warming is precisely the WRONG thing to do

How much warming will $1 trillion prevent? How about $2 trillion?

How many Cat 5 hurricanes will $3 trillion prevent?

 

[mamooth]

How's that cap and trade working out for ya?

Ten northeastern states have been using it, called RGGI, since 2009. Emissions are down 5%, and electricity prices have fallen 8%.

Media Center - Environment Northeast

I hope you won't follow the failure-worship path of most conservatives, and will instead praise the success of RGGI.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How's that cap and trade working out for ya?

Ten northeastern states have been using it, called RGGI, since 2009. Emissions are down 5%, and electricity prices have fallen 8%.

Media Center - Environment Northeast

I hope you won't follow the failure-worship path of most conservatives, and will instead praise the success of RGGI.

RGGI has now raised $1.75 billion for member states, the majority of which is reinvested in energy efficiency and other consumer programs.

Since RGGI's launch, emissions have declined significantly as electric generation from natural gas and renewables has displaced carbon-intensive generation from coal and oil, and as investments in energy efficiency have reduced demand for power. Declining emissions have been accompanied by a drop in electricity prices, which are down 8% on average across the region since RGGI took effect in 2009.

Despite paying $1.75 billion in additional taxes, utilities still dropped prices 8%.
That is awesome! Fracking has been a real benefit to natural gas consumers.

If they gave the $1.75 billion back to rate payers, instead of the states, I wonder how much rates would have dropped?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer. Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T. All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.

The question of the finite speed limit on information (c) brings time into the question. Neither we nor all universe's matter SSDD believes to be alive and thinking, can perceive our surroundings in real time. There is always a passage of time and thus the temperature of a remote object whose temperature is changing due to some ongoing process, can NOT be known and there would be a 50/50 chance (ie, VERY close to a guarantee) that a colder object would inadvertently radiate to a hotter object and thus violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).

So lets see an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature. You guys claim it is happening as if the claims were true...surely you can provide observed, measured examples.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.



Why are you ignoring this article from 1963?
Did Science Magazine misunderstand the 2nd Law?

Why are you ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann constant?

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?
Do we need an SSDD amendment to the constant?

[MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION] Hey, where'd you go?
Running away may conserve energy, but it doesn't help your silly claim.