The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[mamooth]

When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?

First, as that's false, of course I won't acknowledge it. Again, it goes back to the fact that you're deliberately running from, which is that your graph does come up to the present.

And weepy one, you don't get to ask any new questions until you answer all of the ones that you've run away from.

So, reach down now, try to locate your balls, and address the issue. Why are you trying to fake things with statistics? Are you a deliberate fraud, or just a brainless cultist?

And one more thing, oh great yellow-bellied one. Content-free spam in this subforum is prohibited by board rules. That includes your stupid images. You won't get another warning from me. Any more of it gets reported.

 

[ding]

First, as that's false, of course I won't acknowledge it. Again, it goes back to the fact that you're deliberately running from, which is that your graph does come up to the present.

What? Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials? Can you share the data that you are basing that on?

 

[ding]

When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?

First, as that's false, of course I won't acknowledge it. Again, it goes back to the fact that you're deliberately running from, which is that your graph does come up to the present.

And weepy one, you don't get to ask any new questions until you answer all of the ones that you've run away from.

So, reach down now, try to locate your balls, and address the issue. Why are you trying to fake things with statistics? Are you a deliberate fraud, or just a brainless cultist?

And one more thing, oh great yellow-bellied one. Content-free spam in this subforum is prohibited by board rules. That includes your stupid images. You won't get another warning from me. Any more of it gets reported.

I think you shouldn't wait, I think you should report it now. It is my sincerest desire that everyone starts to repost these graphs.

 

[Wuwei]

Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
Neither one said what you are saying here. Where did you get that from? The "Skeptical Science" cartoonist`s blog or from some other pseudo science group-think consensus?
Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann`s constant σ has nothing to do with absorption.
In addition to that it can only be applied to IDEAL black bodies and the earth isn`t one.
It DOES NOT absorb all emr regardless of frequency nor does it have an ε of 1.0.
If it were then you could write a program to predict global temperature with a vintage commodore 64.

Thank you for the correction. I see that you spelled S and B's full names impeccably. Did you spell that from memory too? You are wrong about sigma regarding absorption. I remember the average emissivity of earth is over 0.95. That includes ice, water, dirt, etc. However plants have a slightly lower emissivity. You can look it up if you're interested. Even if the emissivity were low, it is still taken care of in the SB equation.

 

[ding]

Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
Neither one said what you are saying here. Where did you get that from? The "Skeptical Science" cartoonist`s blog or from some other pseudo science group-think consensus?
Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann`s constant σ has nothing to do with absorption.
In addition to that it can only be applied to IDEAL black bodies and the earth isn`t one.
It DOES NOT absorb all emr regardless of frequency nor does it have an ε of 1.0.
If it were then you could write a program to predict global temperature with a vintage commodore 64.

Thank you for the correction. I see that you spelled S and B's full names impeccably. Did you spell that from memory too? You are wrong about sigma regarding absorption. I remember the average emissivity of earth is over 0.95. That includes ice, water, dirt, etc. However plants have a slightly lower emissivity. You can look it up if you're interested. Even if the emissivity were low, it is still taken care of in the SB equation.

Dude... you should have stayed down.

 

[ding]

When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?

First, as that's false, of course I won't acknowledge it. Again, it goes back to the fact that you're deliberately running from, which is that your graph does come up to the present.

And weepy one, you don't get to ask any new questions until you answer all of the ones that you've run away from.

So, reach down now, try to locate your balls, and address the issue. Why are you trying to fake things with statistics? Are you a deliberate fraud, or just a brainless cultist?

And one more thing, oh great yellow-bellied one. Content-free spam in this subforum is prohibited by board rules. That includes your stupid images. You won't get another warning from me. Any more of it gets reported.

Here you go, sweetie.... report me.

Climate Change Likely Caused Deadly 2016 Avalanche In Tibet

 

[mamooth]

Yanking your own chain like that is called mental masturbation....you let me know when you get an observed, measured instance of back radiation gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature.

As we've pointed out before, anyone can buy a longwave IR camera, one that works at ambient temperature, which does exactly that. Point it at the sky, it displays in image showing the differing temperatures of clouds and sky. It is clearly measuring the IR radiation coming down from the very cold sky. That is, the backradiation.

We've also pointed out that sensors never needed to be chilled to measure backradiation. Chilling just lowered the thermal noise, making the image clearer. Modern electronics found around around that need for chilling.

Now, wait until you see how SSDD handwaves that away. It's both hilarious and pathetic.

 

[mamooth]

Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials?

Because, as has been pointed out over and over, your graph doesn't show the present.

And it points at a single location on earth, so no conclusions from global temperature can be drawn from it.

And the time scale is too compressed for any rate-of-change data to be drawn from it.

This is issue has been studied in detail, by very smart people, and good summary is here. Read it. Try to learn about the many, many ways that you've faceplanted here.

The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?

 

[ding]

Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials?

Because, as has been pointed out over and over, your graph doesn't show the present.

And it points at a single location on earth, so no conclusions from global temperature can be drawn from it.

And the time scale is too compressed for any rate-of-change data to be drawn from it.

This is issue has been studied in detail, by very smart people, and good summary is here. Read it. Try to learn about the many, many ways that you've faceplanted here.

The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?

lol, what do you believe the present AGT is?

Let me make it easy for you, lol.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

 

[ding]

Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials?

Because, as has been pointed out over and over, your graph doesn't show the present.

And it points at a single location on earth, so no conclusions from global temperature can be drawn from it.

And the time scale is too compressed for any rate-of-change data to be drawn from it.

This is issue has been studied in detail, by very smart people, and good summary is here. Read it. Try to learn about the many, many ways that you've faceplanted here.

The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?

Are you struggling to find out what the current AGT is?

 

[SSDD]

As we've pointed out before, anyone can buy a longwave IR camera, one that works at ambient temperature, which does exactly that.
Now, wait until you see how SSDD handwaves that away. It's both hilarious and pathetic.

Sorry hairball...fooling yourself with instrumentation again...but I am sure that you believe your own story.

 

[Crick]

Why would it require cooling to measure infrared but none whatsoever to measure visible light. What is the qualitative difference between the two Whizzo?

 

[SSDD]

Why would it require cooling to measure infrared but none whatsoever to measure visible light. What is the qualitative difference between the two Whizzo?

Because you idiot, that with reflected light, you are seeing light reflected from a light source..ususally the sun, or a light bulb...in either case, the source is generally very hot.

if you are an engineer of any sort other than custodial...I am the king of Siam.

 

[Crick]

I asked for the "QUALITATIVE" difference. "Generally very hot" besides being worthlessly vague, is not a qualitative difference.

 

[SSDD]

I asked for the "QUALITATIVE" difference. "Generally very hot" besides being worthlessly vague, is not a qualitative difference.

Sorry...forgot there for a second that I was talking to an abject idiot...if you are seeing something in the visible range and the light source is the sun, then the light source is something like 10,000 degrees....if it is light reflected from a standard light bulb, then the source is somewhere upwards of 4000 degrees....now if you don't know the difference between IR and visible, then I am afraid that you are even more stupid than I thought and frankly, I have always thought you to be a complete idiot...what is stupider than that? A cretin perhaps?...an imbecile,

 

[IanC]

And on and on and still you can't read an equation..

You clearly don't grasp even basic algebra so it is pointless to talk to you on the topic...come back when you can write a formula and actually describe what it is saying...

Read my post 248 again. It isn't about me. It's about the entire body of physicists and science over the last 140 years.

Your ideas are muddled. The areas are quite obviously the same and Kirchoff and Einstein showed that the SB constant sigma is indeed the same for absorption and emission. You are still arguing against things you don't understand.

Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
Neither one said what you are saying here. Where did you get that from? The "Skeptical Science" cartoonist`s blog or from some other pseudo science group-think consensus?
Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann`s constant σ has nothing to do with absorption.
In addition to that it can only be applied to IDEAL black bodies and the earth isn`t one.
It DOES NOT absorb all emr regardless of frequency nor does it have an ε of 1.0.
If it were then you could write a program to predict global temperature with a vintage commodore 64.

why are you insulting Wuwei while at the same time ignoring SSDD's nonsense?

you did the same thing years ago when you fought me tooth and nail while ignoring wirebender's equally absurd nonsense. actually I think SSDD and wirebender are one and the same but that is a different topic.

 

[polarbear]

Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
Neither one said what you are saying here. Where did you get that from? The "Skeptical Science" cartoonist`s blog or from some other pseudo science group-think consensus?
Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann`s constant σ has nothing to do with absorption.
In addition to that it can only be applied to IDEAL black bodies and the earth isn`t one.
It DOES NOT absorb all emr regardless of frequency nor does it have an ε of 1.0.
If it were then you could write a program to predict global temperature with a vintage commodore 64.

Thank you for the correction. I see that you spelled S and B's full names impeccably. Did you spell that from memory too? You are wrong about sigma regarding absorption. I remember the average emissivity of earth is over 0.95. That includes ice, water, dirt, etc. However plants have a slightly lower emissivity. You can look it up if you're interested. Even if the emissivity were low, it is still taken care of in the SB equation.

No I am German and should therefore know how to spell a German name. In addition to that we read their publications in the language they were written in, which again is German.
If you have a physics book in which you have been reading that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant has anything to do with absorption then you better chuck it out.
Why are you throwing this in? Earth "average" Ɛ= 0.95 ? Is that supposed to be a deflection from that St-B constant relating to absorption nonsense?
Okay I`ll oblige you..
Not that I really care what you think is the "average emissivity" of earth or who says so that it is 0.95 because there is no way that earth can emulate an ideal black body with a 95% efficiency.
Just what is an IDEAL black body in your mind?
Obviously just a bunch of dirt ice water etc is all you need to get within 0.05 of Ɛ= 1.0 for which you need... aah shit I`m too lazy for all that so I`ll copy&paste it:
An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large enclosure (see below). Any light entering the hole is reflected indefinitely or absorbed inside and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. The radiation confined in such an enclosure may or may not be in thermal equilibrium, depending upon the nature of the walls and the other contents of the enclosure.
Construction of black bodies with emissivity as close to one as possible remains a topic of current interest

And while I was at it I also came across this:

is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612
If you disagree then take it up with the authors of this page:
Climate model - Wikipedia

 

[polarbear]

Yanking your own chain like that is called mental masturbation....you let me know when you get an observed, measured instance of back radiation gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature.

As we've pointed out before, anyone can buy a longwave IR camera, one that works at ambient temperature, which does exactly that. Point it at the sky, it displays in image showing the differing temperatures of clouds and sky. It is clearly measuring the IR radiation coming down from the very cold sky. That is, the backradiation.

We've also pointed out that sensors never needed to be chilled to measure backradiation. Chilling just lowered the thermal noise, making the image clearer. Modern electronics found around around that need for chilling.

Now, wait until you see how SSDD handwaves that away. It's both hilarious and pathetic.

That brings an interesting quiz to mind.
Suppose you point an IR sensor at a target which is an ice cube right next to another same sized object which is at +20C. How many watts/m^2 should you see on the instrument`s display?
The ice cube @ 0 C radiates just under 314 w/m^2 and the 20 degC object radiates almost 418 w/m^
I take it you would say that the instrument would display the sum of both, a total of 732 w/m^2 ?
And if I can get only 400 watts/m^2 you would say that there is something wrong with my IR gun?
Buy one and try it out. Maybe you can come up with an explanation why it`s never higher than that. Off the shelf these are calibrated for Temperature but from that you can calculate the watts/m^ 2. Mine has a laser pointer so it`s quite easy to center it and you can find out the proper distance just as easily if you move back till the indicated temperature deviates to below the known temperature of the target.
I also have a thermal imaging camera, but it does not have a USB to connect to another storage device else I would upload some pictures.
If I put a cold object next to a warm one, the side of the warm object facing the cold one shows up cooler than the rest of that object...conforming to "a cold object can make a warm object even warmer" my camera should not see what it is seeing...explain that

 

[flacaltenn]

Why would it require cooling to measure infrared but none whatsoever to measure visible light. What is the qualitative difference between the two Whizzo?

A LOT of cameras are cooled for "low photon imaging". BOTH visible and IR.. It's one of tricks we do in imaging instrumentation. The purpose is to reduce the self-generated thermal noise so that the images are cleaner. Has NOTHING to do with the amount of photons they intercept as heat or light.

 

[Wuwei]

And while I was at it I also came across this:

is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612
If you disagree then take it up with the authors of this page:

You are wrong about sigma regarding absorption.
Emissivity is wavelength dependent. The area of interest is IR from 3 to 20 microns. It varies around 0.95.