Why Global Warming is total bullshit 101

[konradv]

there is no doubt that diagraming both the upwards radiation from the earth and the downwards radiation from the atmosphere is misleading. they should only put in the net flow. would you be happier if only showed 63W being radiated upwards rather than (396-333)?

The only downward flow of radiation is from the sun. I have given you a simple experiment that you can perform in your own back yard for less than 40 dollars that will prove beyond any resonable doubt that there is no backradiation.....period. When you can so easily prove to yourself that backradion doesn't exist, one must wonder why you still believe. Because roy spencer says so?

a simple question for you wirebender. if you measure the flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different, do you just count the net flow? you used to claim that the warmer one radiated at full blackbody value while the cooler one didnt radiate at all, which easily leads to massive contradiction.

There is no flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different. There is no flow of radiation between blocks that are 0.0000000000000000001 C different. There is a one way flow from the warmer block to the cooler. Simple as that. The claim that the 2nd law is only a statistical formula is just one more attempt to get around physical laws in order to promote a piss poor hypothesis when no empirical evidence can be found for support. Refer to the actual SB equation, instead of the corrupted one currently in use by climate science.

When are you going to acknowledge that heat and photons aren't the same thing? Whatever you're trying to prove here about heat, has no relevance to the trajectory of a photon.

 

[IanC]

there is no doubt that diagraming both the upwards radiation from the earth and the downwards radiation from the atmosphere is misleading. they should only put in the net flow. would you be happier if only showed 63W being radiated upwards rather than (396-333)?

The only downward flow of radiation is from the sun. I have given you a simple experiment that you can perform in your own back yard for less than 40 dollars that will prove beyond any resonable doubt that there is no backradiation.....period. When you can so easily prove to yourself that backradion doesn't exist, one must wonder why you still believe. Because roy spencer says so?

a simple question for you wirebender. if you measure the flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different, do you just count the net flow? you used to claim that the warmer one radiated at full blackbody value while the cooler one didnt radiate at all, which easily leads to massive contradiction.

There is no flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different. There is no flow of radiation between blocks that are 0.0000000000000000001 C different. There is a one way flow from the warmer block to the cooler. Simple as that. The claim that the 2nd law is only a statistical formula is just one more attempt to get around physical laws in order to promote a piss poor hypothesis when no empirical evidence can be found for support. Refer to the actual SB equation, instead of the corrupted one currently in use by climate science.

wirebender would have us believe that an object radiating at a certain temperature simply stops radiating if a warmer object is put close to it. what is the method for gatekeeping? what is the means of stopping the radiation once the gatekeeper has devined the warmer block? wirebender shouts slogans but has no understanding of the concepts. he is also fuzzy on maths. he does not believe that associative rules hold true for physics. eg. Trenberth's (and I do not vouch for his numbers) 396W up minus 333W down is not equal to a net of 63W up. wirebender wont tell us whether it is too much or too little, just that it is wrong even if the answer is right. he calls it the corrupted S-B Law.

 

[IanC]

there is no doubt that diagraming both the upwards radiation from the earth and the downwards radiation from the atmosphere is misleading. they should only put in the net flow. would you be happier if only showed 63W being radiated upwards rather than (396-333)?

The only downward flow of radiation is from the sun. I have given you a simple experiment that you can perform in your own back yard for less than 40 dollars that will prove beyond any resonable doubt that there is no backradiation.....period. When you can so easily prove to yourself that backradion doesn't exist, one must wonder why you still believe. Because roy spencer says so?

a simple question for you wirebender. if you measure the flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different, do you just count the net flow? you used to claim that the warmer one radiated at full blackbody value while the cooler one didnt radiate at all, which easily leads to massive contradiction.

There is no flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different. There is no flow of radiation between blocks that are 0.0000000000000000001 C different. There is a one way flow from the warmer block to the cooler. Simple as that. The claim that the 2nd law is only a statistical formula is just one more attempt to get around physical laws in order to promote a piss poor hypothesis when no empirical evidence can be found for support. Refer to the actual SB equation, instead of the corrupted one currently in use by climate science.

When are you going to acknowledge that heat and photons aren't the same thing? Whatever you're trying to prove here about heat, has no relevance to the trajectory of a photon.

that is the crux of wirebender's confusion. he believes the SLoT is physical process affecting individual particles or photons rather than the statistical description of a system.

 

[zonly1]

If Conservaton of Energy isn't important, what happens to photons scattered back towards earth? I'd put my science knowledge against yours anyday. Weatwall's description is one only you would understand, but anyone with any real scientific knowledge realizes it's gobble-de-gook!

wha....does anywhere in your description notice that the density of a column of air isn't linear . just figure i throw my two cents in like you have

What does that have to do with photons? Seems irrelevant to me, so the valuation of your comment seems about right.

and i see you getting your azz handed to you about incoherent theories seems about right........ carry on

 

[wirebender]

wirebender would have us believe that an object radiating at a certain temperature simply stops radiating if a warmer object is put close to it.

Are you really this dense ian? Or is it just your inherent dishonesty that makes you distort what I have said? Feel free to point to any post in which I have said that the cooler object simply stops radiating. Is your understanding of physics really that shallow?

Take a 12 volt car battery. Connect it to a AAA battery. The AAA battery still has electricity and still attempts to run electricity down the line, but alas, none of its electricity ever makes it to the car battery because the magnitude of the EM field of the car battery is so much larger than the AAA battery that it simply can't happen. The electricity leaving the AAA battery doesn't simply cease to exist, it is expended in opposition of the EM field radiating from the car battery. As a result, the amount of electricity reaching the AAA battery from the car battery is diminished by the amount of electricity that the AAA battery had available. The physics are the same whether we are talking about IR radiation, electricity down a line, radio waves, microwaves, or shortwaves.

Sorry that the topic is so far over your head that you can't grasp even the most basic concepts. You are victim of an error cascade and group think. You accept assumptions which have never, and can never be proven experimentally.

 

[wirebender]

that is the crux of wirebender's confusion. he believes the SLoT is physical process affecting individual particles or photons rather than the statistical description of a system.

Alas that is the crux of your confusion. You believe the second law means something other than what it says. If it were a statistical model, it would not be stated in absolute terms.

 

[wirebender]

So what? When I see the moon during the day, photons seem to be doing their job, even though you say it should be impossible!

Are you a congenital liar or just stuck on stupid konradv. How many times have I explained to you that you see the moon in daylight because your eye is seeing visible light. Take an infrared camera that detects IR and point it at the moon during daylight and you will not see the moon.

This whole discussion is about ir, not visible light. You should look for other sources for your argument than rocks.

 

[konradv]

wha....does anywhere in your description notice that the density of a column of air isn't linear . just figure i throw my two cents in like you have

What does that have to do with photons? Seems irrelevant to me, so the valuation of your comment seems about right.

and i see you getting your azz handed to you about incoherent theories seems about right........ carry on

 

[Truthseeker420]

because that is what Fox News tells you to think?

 

[konradv]

So what? When I see the moon during the day, photons seem to be doing their job, even though you say it should be impossible!

Are you a congenital liar or just stuck on stupid konradv. How many times have I explained to you that you see the moon in daylight because your eye is seeing visible light. Take an infrared camera that detects IR and point it at the moon during daylight and you will not see the moon.

This whole discussion is about ir, not visible light. You should look for other sources for your argument than rocks.

It's about photons, not visible vs IR light. There's no difference in how they react with each other.

 

[konradv]

that is the crux of wirebender's confusion. he believes the SLoT is physical process affecting individual particles or photons rather than the statistical description of a system.

Alas that is the crux of your confusion. You believe the second law means something other than what it says. If it were a statistical model, it would not be stated in absolute terms.

Your confusion seems to be that you think photons and heat are the same thing.

 

[IanC]

wirebender would have us believe that an object radiating at a certain temperature simply stops radiating if a warmer object is put close to it.

Are you really this dense ian? Or is it just your inherent dishonesty that makes you distort what I have said? Feel free to point to any post in which I have said that the cooler object simply stops radiating. Is your understanding of physics really that shallow?

Take a 12 volt car battery. Connect it to a AAA battery. The AAA battery still has electricity and still attempts to run electricity down the line, but alas, none of its electricity ever makes it to the car battery because the magnitude of the EM field of the car battery is so much larger than the AAA battery that it simply can't happen. The electricity leaving the AAA battery doesn't simply cease to exist, it is expended in opposition of the EM field radiating from the car battery. As a result, the amount of electricity reaching the AAA battery from the car battery is diminished by the amount of electricity that the AAA battery had available. The physics are the same whether we are talking about IR radiation, electricity down a line, radio waves, microwaves, or shortwaves.

Sorry that the topic is so far over your head that you can't grasp even the most basic concepts. You are victim of an error cascade and group think. You accept assumptions which have never, and can never be proven experimentally.

why do you think an electical circuit is the equivalent to an excited molecule emitting a photon to reach a lower energy state? I couldnt be bothered to find one of your posts where you say a flashlight cant emit photons in the same direction as a brighter light is shining, or that a mirror cant reflect a light source back at itself, but you have said those and even more preposterous things such as a CO2 molecule cant absorb the same wavelength photons as it emits.

 

[IanC]

that is the crux of wirebender's confusion. he believes the SLoT is physical process affecting individual particles or photons rather than the statistical description of a system.

Alas that is the crux of your confusion. You believe the second law means something other than what it says. If it were a statistical model, it would not be stated in absolute terms.

please describe the physical process that stops the emmission of photons in the wrong direction by the SLoT. it should be simple for you to do.

 

[wirebender]

please describe the physical process that stops the emmission of photons in the wrong direction by the SLoT. it should be simple for you to do.

I have already done it and done the math to prove it. You were present in the conversation and would have nothing more interesting to say now than you had to say then which was nothing.

A new paradigm is coming ian and your tenatiously held faith is simply going to be swept aside. You and climate science are wrong ian because the laws of physics don't support you. Bastardizing and corrupting the laws of physics doesn't alter them in the least. They existed before we had the slightest clue about them and they will exist after we are gone and they simply don't support your claims.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW will have to have its own wing in the Museum of Scientific Fakes, Frauds and Hoaxes

 

[CrusaderFrank]

because that is what Fox News tells you to think?

"Global Warming" is supposedly causing the oceans to turn "acidic" can you tell use exactly what acid they're talking about?

 

[konradv]

because that is what Fox News tells you to think?

"Global Warming" is supposedly causing the oceans to turn "acidic" can you tell use exactly what acid they're talking about?

LSD

 

[CrusaderFrank]

because that is what Fox News tells you to think?

"Global Warming" is supposedly causing the oceans to turn "acidic" can you tell use exactly what acid they're talking about?

LSD

I thought the "science" was "settled"? Why can't you give an answer?

 

[Oddball]

AGW will have to have its own wing in the Museum of Scientific Fakes, Frauds and Hoaxes

Meh...It'll end up a roadside tourist trap curiosity like Ruby Falls, Wall Drug and The Thing!?

 

[konradv]

"Global Warming" is supposedly causing the oceans to turn "acidic" can you tell use exactly what acid they're talking about?

LSD

I thought the "science" was "settled"? Why can't you give an answer?

If you don't know the answer, you haven't been paying attention.