Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change

[Old Rocks]

I would like you to go debate the people at Skeptical science and make them looks like idiots---Like you're making most of the warmers here. That would do some good as they're the more hard core knowledgeable ones. I will be reading of course.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

If you win there then no one here can even start to touch your theories...Next you should go up against hansen and friends. Face to face.

To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.

And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.

 

[westwall]

I would like you to go debate the people at Skeptical science and make them looks like idiots---Like you're making most of the warmers here. That would do some good as they're the more hard core knowledgeable ones. I will be reading of course.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

If you win there then no one here can even start to touch your theories...Next you should go up against hansen and friends. Face to face.

To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.

And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.

Oh some of them know their science. But as Wired said, when you are winning they begin censoring. It is far, far from a level playing field. But then again a level playing field is the worst thing in the world for them.

 

[gslack]

I would like you to go debate the people at Skeptical science and make them looks like idiots---Like you're making most of the warmers here. That would do some good as they're the more hard core knowledgeable ones. I will be reading of course.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

If you win there then no one here can even start to touch your theories...Next you should go up against hansen and friends. Face to face.

To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.

And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.

Wouldn't that be the early stages of Quantum mechanics and quantum theory? If memory serves, the physical laws we have here either do not apply or apply in the same manner often in Quantum mechanics especially. Things that seemed impossible in our physical reality are often common place in the sub-atomic quantum reality.

A microwave oven isn't magic, socks... Its due to quantum research.

Right now a growing body of scientists are entertaining the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is not finite or constant. Some are trying to find out if the speed of light could have been different at one time or place comparative to another.

Speed of light may have changed recently - physics-math - 30 June 2004 - New Scientist

Sounds crazy but there it is.

 

[wirebender]

And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.

I did my work in the open right here on the board rocks so that everyone could look at it and point directly to my errors if I made them. I welcome you to show me any mathematical error on my part or to explain which law of physics I misapplied. If you can't do that rocks, your mewling about this scientist or that scientists being proven wrong has no meaning at all, and what do you suppose there is more me to publish. My work isn't original and certainly not groundbreaking and has been published so many times that it is now standard in textbooks which is where I got it. The AGW hoaxters know about it already rocks but simply ignore scientific integrity in favor of the money.

 

[konradv]

I wouild like for someone to explain how a surface that, is nothing like a perfect reflector and receives only 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate 356 watts per square meter. Explain it within the context of the law of conservation of energy and show me your math.

Then tell me that you believe that you could place any number of reflectors around an electric heater with an output of 1000 watts and increase that output by even one watt. Tell me you believe that by using reflectors around an electric heater that you can get a single joule of energy out of that heater that you don't have to pay the electric company for. Or tell me that you believe that if you put a light bulb inside a sphere such as a mirror, and feed it a watt, or 5 watts of energy, that eventually it will be radiating 1000 watts. If that sort of thing were possible, we could be generating amazing amounts of energy by following the simple formula of confine, wait, and collect.

And if you believe such magic is possible, tell me why we aren't applying such technology today because it would solve all of our energy problems if we could simply use reflectors to multiply energy output.

Conservation of energy is not just a phrase to be tossed about. It actually means something.

You say 161 watts, but in the diagram I see 494. You apparently forgot to add in the back radiation. Eagerly awaiting your thanks and pos-rep!

 

[wirebender]

I wouild like for someone to explain how a surface that, is nothing like a perfect reflector and receives only 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate 356 watts per square meter. Explain it within the context of the law of conservation of energy and show me your math.

You say 161 watts, but in the diagram I see 494. You apparently forgot to add in the back radiation. Eagerly awaiting your thanks and pos-rep!

konradv, we have already been over this and it is clearly way over your head. Even the reading of such a simple graphic apparently. Did I not state clearly enough in my post that I was interested to hear how a surface that only receives 161 watts per square meter from ITS ONLY ENERGY SOURCE?

Backradiation is unphysical, not supported by any of the laws of physcs, and can be proven false by very simple, repeatable, and inexpensive experiment.

Now if you would like to pick up the challenge I initially laid down and explain a mechanism supported by the laws of physics by which the atmosphere (not an energy source) can radiate 333 watts per square meter of IR energy to the surface of the earth, by all means lets hear it. I am all ears. Be sure to explain this mechanism within the context of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and describe the physical law(s) that predict and support the phenomenon of backradiation; and, oh yes, show your math.

Do you just like being publicly humiliated at my hands?

 

[Old Rocks]

To much hostility at skeptical science for me. I have been there and entered into discussions and not enjoyed the exchange at all. I will say that I never had a point disproven, nor did anyone ever point out and then prove a misapplied law of physics. Like I said, I can do the math, but in no way enjoy it. A discussion at skeptical science involves much debunking of mathematical sleight of hand. It just takes to much time and isn't worth the effort because as you said, they are hard core believers and if God himself came down from the sky riding a fiery charriot and told them that they were wrong, they would ask for proof that he was God.

I am not looking for any sort of fame. I am just a guy (and not the only one by the way) who has done the math and seen for myself that the hypotheses put forward by warmists fail at the most fundamental level.

And then there are the all those physicists that just don't know their craft, right, Bent? Since I was a teenager over half a century ago, I have seen people come out with all sorts of fancy math and hypothesis showing relitivity was wrong. And there was a conspriacy among all the scientists to keep them from publisizing their hypothesis.

I see no differance between you and them, Bent. Fancy talk, but no submissions to real science publications.

Oh some of them know their science. But as Wired said, when you are winning they begin censoring. It is far, far from a level playing field. But then again a level playing field is the worst thing in the world for them.

As in nobody would publish your bs for lack of methodology and coherance.

 

[Old Rocks]

I wouild like for someone to explain how a surface that, is nothing like a perfect reflector and receives only 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate 356 watts per square meter. Explain it within the context of the law of conservation of energy and show me your math.

You say 161 watts, but in the diagram I see 494. You apparently forgot to add in the back radiation. Eagerly awaiting your thanks and pos-rep!

konradv, we have already been over this and it is clearly way over your head. Even the reading of such a simple graphic apparently. Did I not state clearly enough in my post that I was interested to hear how a surface that only receives 161 watts per square meter from ITS ONLY ENERGY SOURCE?

Backradiation is unphysical, not supported by any of the laws of physcs, and can be proven false by very simple, repeatable, and inexpensive experiment.

Now if you would like to pick up the challenge I initially laid down and explain a mechanism supported by the laws of physics by which the atmosphere (not an energy source) can radiate 333 watts per square meter of IR energy to the surface of the earth, by all means lets hear it. I am all ears. Be sure to explain this mechanism within the context of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and describe the physical law(s) that predict and support the phenomenon of backradiation; and, oh yes, show your math.

Do you just like being publicly humiliated at my hands?

Bent, you have not publicaly humilated anyone other than yourself. Your claim is that you know physics better than six generations of scientists since the time of Arrnhenius. But you cannot point to a single peer reviewed article in any scientific journal where you have proven this.

Yes, I know. It is an international conspriracy, even extending to Outer Slobovia, to keep the truth hidden.

Hell, you are just another tinfoil hat fellow.

 

[Old Rocks]

Speaking of tinfoil hats, Walleyes, it is less than six months until the next AGU convention. Have you submitted your lecture yet proving that AGW is a total fraud? May I expect to see you give this lecture?

 

[wirebender]

Bent, you have not publicaly humilated anyone other than yourself. Your claim is that you know physics better than six generations of scientists since the time of Arrnhenius. But you cannot point to a single peer reviewed article in any scientific journal where you have proven this.

Yes, I know. It is an international conspriracy, even extending to Outer Slobovia, to keep the truth hidden.

Hell, you are just another tinfoil hat fellow.

Poor rocks. Being uneducated must suck. You continue to rail against my stance all the while being completely unable to point to any error, or misapplied physical law on my part. We know that you hold your position as a matter of faith; not based on any knowledge, or understanding of the science.

 

[gslack]

Oldsocks having another tantrum I see...

 

[wirebender]

Oldsocks having another tantrum I see...

He just doesn't seem to grasp that if enough money is thrown at a hoax, it can become mainstream, and on top of that, he believes that skeptics are getting more money than climate science.