AGW: atmospheric physics

[SSDD]

You mean the 30 years of accurate temperature predictions? The correct predictions of the heat balance, the polar amplification, the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, the squeezing down of the outward IR radiation in the CO2 bands?

There have been no years of accurate temperature predictions...the fact that the predictions remain off even after 30 years of constant tweaking of the models should clue you in but you are so far in denial that you can't see the truth when it is right in your face.

That's why AGW science has such credibility, because it's been making falsifiable predictions for decades, and seeing those predictions come true over and over.

Falsifiable predictions? Are you kidding?? More snow less snow....more rain less rain....more tropical storms fewer tropical storms...more tornadoes fewer tornadoes...colder winters warmer winters...and on and on and on. No matter what the climate does, climate science claims it has predicted it and I guess they did because their claim is that everyting is due to manmade climate change even though there doesn't exist the first scrap of hard evidence that man is causing the global climate to change.

In contrast, your crank science specializes in avoiding predictions of any sort. That's why your side has no credibility.

My science? I have been quoting the second law of thermodynamics and you have been denying it. I am afraid that you are the denier here...willing to belive that one of the fundamental laws of nature is in error so that you can continue to hold your cult beliefs.

 

[polarbear]

1.) Your phony "nuclear engineer" " DD214
where you said it was photobucket that changed the fingerprint to HTML was shot full of holes

Then this:

And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it...

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bull-freaking-shit.

Again, you don't have a clue about what a black body is, or how it works.

Any other 'tards here want to back up PolarBear's nutty claim about how a dark object radiates more at the same temperature?

If only the world knew that they could make heat sinks more effective by painting them flat black. Once more, PolarBear has made an amazing new discovery in physics that the rest of humanity had somehow missed.

Carbon: candle soot emissivity 0.95
Glass emissivity 0.92


Why are car radiators painted black

Why are car radiators painted black?

Car radiators are painted black because it emits the most heat through radiation (highest emissivity). This improves the heat transfer out of the radiator when air isn't moving through the radiator.

Strike 2!

And now this:

Energy to boil 1 gram of 100C water: around 540 calories.
But then, you don't even know what Steam tables are, or how to use them. I do, of course, given I was freakin' trained in it.

So you Googled for a steam table ?
Did it tell you why it takes 540 cals to boil 1 gram of water ?.
Funny that your choice of words matched the same as the top Google search result for "how much energy does it take to boil water".
You did not even get it from a a steam table, because every steam table lists it in Joules or watt seconds and includes the pressure.
And even an elementary grade school kid knows how to conevert it...why would you bother then to convert it to calories and grams?
To show off your "I was freakin trained in it " ?
Or was it the US messageboard that did that conversion?
...like Photobucket converted your cell phone cam digital fingerprint to a web-page grabbed picture?
No engineer would use grams and calories, and sure as shit not a "nuclear engineer" who "used to run nuclear reactors",,,and the steam turbines that go with these.
And sure as shit not at standard pressure.
Have you got any idea under what pressure the steam is at the turbine intake side?
It sure as shit is not 14.7 psi which is the value you used.
An engineer that goes through the paces to use dieticians "calories" would have also specified that the 540 cals were for standard pressure.


Dieticians label fast food and pet food in Calories.

Engineers don`t use Calories they use either Btu`s, because most fuel sources are cataloged that way. And for the rest of it we use Joules.
You googled for it and used the first thing you saw:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Energy-to-boil-water_4836.html

Hi all,

Maybe someone can help me with this:

Can someone tell me how long and how many BTU is needed to boil 1 once of water? This water is at atmosfere pressure and room temperature (70 F).



The link above explains how many calories is needed to steam water. According to it, 1 calorie will raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. Also, it takes 540 calories to turn 1 gram of water (at 100 degrees C) to steam.

Strike 3..you`re out !

Only a total retard like you would still assume that others don`t realize by now how full of b.s you are.

**** off to your "numan footprint" and " I used to run nuclear reactors" thread and cuddle up to the "erudite numan" who has solar wind blowing away water and "oxidizes" limestone to CO2...then your stupidity won`t stand out as much.

 

[IanC]

So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?

You mean the 30 years of accurate temperature predictions? The correct predictions of the heat balance, the polar amplification, the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, the squeezing down of the outward IR radiation in the CO2 bands?

That's why AGW science has such credibility, because it's been making falsifiable predictions for decades, and seeing those predictions come true over and over.

In contrast, your crank science specializes in avoiding predictions of any sort. That's why your side has no credibility.

oh-oh. now your crank science is surfacing.

 

[polarbear]

So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?

You mean the 30 years of accurate temperature predictions? The correct predictions of the heat balance, the polar amplification, the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, the squeezing down of the outward IR radiation in the CO2 bands?

That's why AGW science has such credibility, because it's been making falsifiable predictions for decades, and seeing those predictions come true over and over.

In contrast, your crank science specializes in avoiding predictions of any sort. That's why your side has no credibility.

oh-oh. now your crank science is surfacing.

Right on time IanC as usual...

bury your sock puppet`s stupidity as fast as you can

I`ll just copy and paste it then what you are trying to bury with 2 or 3 pages in the next 10 minutes:

1.) Your phony "nuclear engineer" " DD214
where you said it was photobucket that changed the fingerprint to HTML was shot full of holes

Then this:

And the water in blackened water glass will cool off way quicker than the water in the clear glass right next to it...

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bull-freaking-shit.

Again, you don't have a clue about what a black body is, or how it works.

Any other 'tards here want to back up PolarBear's nutty claim about how a dark object radiates more at the same temperature?

If only the world knew that they could make heat sinks more effective by painting them flat black. Once more, PolarBear has made an amazing new discovery in physics that the rest of humanity had somehow missed.

Carbon: candle soot emissivity 0.95
Glass emissivity 0.92


Why are car radiators painted black
Strike 2!

And now this:

Energy to boil 1 gram of 100C water: around 540 calories.
But then, you don't even know what Steam tables are, or how to use them. I do, of course, given I was freakin' trained in it.

So you Googled for a steam table ?
Did it tell you why it takes 540 cals to boil 1 gram of water ?.
Funny that your choice of words matched the same as the top Google search result for "how much energy does it take to boil water".
You did not even get it from a a steam table, because every steam table lists it in Joules or watt seconds and includes the pressure.
And even an elementary grade school kid knows how to conevert it...why would you bother then to convert it to calories and grams?
To show off your "I was freakin trained in it " ?
Or was it the US messageboard that did that conversion?
...like Photobucket converted your cell phone cam digital fingerprint to a web-page grabbed picture?
No engineer would use grams and calories, and sure as shit not a "nuclear engineer" who "used to run nuclear reactors",,,and the steam turbines that go with these.
And sure as shit not at standard pressure.
Have you got any idea under what pressure the steam is at the turbine intake side?
It sure as shit is not 14.7 psi which is the value you used.
An engineer that goes through the paces to use dieticians "calories" would have also specified that the 540 cals were for standard pressure.


Dieticians label fast food and pet food in Calories.

Engineers don`t use Calories they use either Btu`s, because most fuel sources are cataloged that way. And for the rest of it we use Joules.
You googled for it and used the first thing you saw:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Energy-to-boil-water_4836.html

Hi all,

Maybe someone can help me with this:

Can someone tell me how long and how many BTU is needed to boil 1 once of water? This water is at atmosfere pressure and room temperature (70 F).



The link above explains how many calories is needed to steam water. According to it, 1 calorie will raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. Also, it takes 540 calories to turn 1 gram of water (at 100 degrees C) to steam.

Strike 3..you`re out !

Only a total retard like you would still assume that others don`t realize by now how full of b.s you are.

**** off to your "numan footprint" and " I used to run nuclear reactors" thread and cuddle up to the "erudite numan" who has solar wind blowing away water and "oxidizes" limestone to CO2...then your stupidity won`t stand out as much.

 

[IanC]

screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder

 

[gslack]

screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder

PB nailed it.. Why didn't you say something to your boy over the ignorant quantum theory disproved the 2nd law claim?

Truth my ass...

A fine example of why I treat your posts the way I do. It's pointless to treat you any better, you're incapable of being honest or sincere.

Now I must humiliate junior before I leave...

 

[gslack]

Here's a pic I found of Ian, mammooth and saigon...

I think Ian is the one in the middle.. It's either him or hes a sock and numans the guy... Doesn't really matter does it...

 

[gslack]

So the fact that the hypothesis is unable to make any accurate predictions means nothing to you?

You mean the 30 years of accurate temperature predictions? The correct predictions of the heat balance, the polar amplification, the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, the squeezing down of the outward IR radiation in the CO2 bands?

That's why AGW science has such credibility, because it's been making falsifiable predictions for decades, and seeing those predictions come true over and over.

In contrast, your crank science specializes in avoiding predictions of any sort. That's why your side has no credibility.

AAAAAAHHHHHHH!

 

[polarbear]

screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder

Try screw me!...you are a phony just like the "Nuclear Admiral"
You don`t know shit about black bodies and these "back radiation photons" you keep yapping about..
how many posts do you have so far?...let`s see:
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,900
usless B.S. backradiation postings.
As soon as somebody who does know physics debunks your b.s. and explains the real science then it`s either "long winded" or the rest of the GW kooks chime in, bury it or provoke somebody else with taunts to change the subject.
You had every opportunity to defend your ridiculous "photons" when I showed you that real photons are not itsy bitsy particles but behave like waves. I even gave you a chance to review and correct your stupid AGW regurgitated nonsense photons when I told you here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7119346

Light speed in a vacuum = 3*10^5 km/ s , in glass it is 2* 10^5 km/s
The frequency, the wavelength and the energy of the mass-less photons stay the same even though light travels only at 2/3 of c through glass
So what happened ?
If f= velocity / wavelength and the velocity is only 2/3 rd. in the glass did the wavelength get shorter so that the equation remains valid ?
That can`t be else the photons just gained a shitload of energy just as soon as they encountered the glass.
You are the physics expert, so you tell me...!
If photons had a mass then m *50 000 000 000 km^2 / s ^2 energy would have gone missing, like as in "absorbed"..???..."heating up the glass"..??
Photons don`t have a mass and don`t transfer "thermal energy" to the glass, no energy was "absorbed" because photons don`t behave like the silly little bullets that you all use in your stupid "back radiation" examples.
They obey wave mechanic and for you to get a specific energy flux, be that light or any other electromagnetic wave you have to increase the square meters by the square of the distance to get the same photon energy flux in watts per m^2 , .....
...or wait in seconds by the square of the distance longer to get the same same number of watt seconds energy, as you would get from a closer light source .
It`s called the "Poynting factor" something I`m sure you never even heard of.

And you came back with the most ridiculous example of "back radiation" that according to you takes place between 2 burning pieces of coal.
After that your 3 buddies chimed in and buried your stupidity with over 10 pages of their own in a matter of minutes.
And you do exactly the same thing when one of them got nailed.
I`ll give you something "longwinded"...speak too complicated for you to comprehend.. somebody sent me the link for the English translation pdf file in my pn.)..
It`s somebody you call ignorant, has been reading it and had no problem understanding it.
I`ll get to the crux with an excerpt :

Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 2.0 (July 24, 2007)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007)
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2.1.5 Conclusion
Three facts should be emphasized here:
In classical radiation theory radiation is not described by a vector field assigning to every space point a corresponding vector.
Rather, with each point of space many rays are associated (Figure 3). This is in sharp contrast to the modern description of the radiation field as an electromagnetic field with the Poynting vector field as the relevant
quantity [99].

And here is the link that one of the "ignorant denialists" mailed me, found it in my PNs today:

Re: Got something you may want to read

Found a couple papers by German scientists denouncing greenhouse effect, back-radiation and AGW in general.. Seems they got buried when they were published...Big shock there..

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v2.pdf

Thanks again to the sender...but I`m sure this will get buried just like the rest within minutes after it was posted.
Because you can`t argue physics with Neanderthalers
So screw you too IanC
You don`t have any more education than "Saigon".
Instead of going to school you screwed the pooch or maybe a cat

 

[mamooth]

and I guess they did because their claim is that everyting is due to manmade climate change

If you're just to spout your cult's idiot dishonest propaganda crap, what's the point in talking to you? We already know you're a cultist. Hence your peculiar "THE VERY STARS STOP RADIATING WHEN I WANT THEM TO!" dementia.

I gave you a long list of successful AGW theory predictions. You ignored them and instead chose to babble crazy lies about things AGW theory never said. You used a deflection to cut and run, like you _always_ do, because you can't ever back up your fuktard science.

 

[mamooth]

I'm new here,

Oh, you're a sock.

Just kidding. I'm not desperate enough to call everyone who disagrees with me a sock. I leave that kind of sissy squealing to you-know-who.

just wanted to ask if You truly believe that energy can flow both ways?

Of course it can. Again, see the star example. Do you think a cooler star doesn't radiate towards a warmer star?

And what you said earlier about quantum theory disproving the 2nd law, you actually believe that as well?

Given that the whole scientific community of planet earth believes it, why do you find it so shocking? The 2nd law doesn't hold on the atomic level, only on the macro level. It was formulated before people knew what atoms were.

It's just like how Newton's Laws of Motion don't hold near light speed. They seemed to tell the whole story when they were first discovered, but later info showed they didn't tell the whole story, and didn't hold in all cases.

 

[mamooth]

1.) Your phony "nuclear engineer" " DD214 where you said it was photobucket that changed the fingerprint to HTML was shot full of holes

You said you'd look at my new image, the one you demanded with the pennies. You haven't. You appeared to have lied yet another time. It's a habit you have.

You got caught lying about me for a full week running, when you claimed I downloaded the image from the internet. Now that the new image with the pennies disproves that big lie of yours conclusively, you're pretending you never demanded the new image.

A man with gonads would 'fess up to his error and apologize. 'Nuff said.

Funny that your choice of words matched the same as the top Google search result for "how much energy does it take to boil water".

Sherlock is on the case again!

Funny how I say there are 12 inches in a foot, and Google says THE SAME THING! Very suspicious! Yes, PolarBear has conclusively proven that Google searches about certain constants bring up those constants!

You did not even get it from a a steam table

Correct again, Sherlock! Of course, I never said I got it from a steam table, so one wonders what the jabbering is all about.

See Sherlick, there's this thing in English called "future tense". As in "I _could_ dig up the steam tables". Indicating a future event. You've gone unhinged because you can't parse basic English.

No engineer would use grams and calories

A good engineer would, if it was the clearest way to explain the problem. The issue was heating water, and since calories are based on heating water, calories are the quickest and clearest way to explain it.

Now suckass engineers, on the other hand, needlessly complicate every problem with irrelevant jabber. You are one seriously suckass engineer.

Have you got any idea under what pressure the steam is at the turbine intake side?

600 psi. You didn't know that?

It sure as shit is not 14.7 psi which is the value you used.

Given I never stated such a thing, you appear to be listening to the voices in your head again. Have they told you any lotto numbers?

 

[gslack]

I'm new here,

Oh, you're a sock.

Just kidding. I'm not desperate enough to call everyone who disagrees with me a sock. I leave that kind of sissy squealing to you-know-who.

just wanted to ask if You truly believe that energy can flow both ways?

Of course it can. Again, see the star example. Do you think a cooler star doesn't radiate towards a warmer star?

And what you said earlier about quantum theory disproving the 2nd law, you actually believe that as well?

Given that the whole scientific community of planet earth believes it, why do you find it so shocking? The 2nd law doesn't hold on the atomic level, only on the macro level. It was formulated before people knew what atoms were.

It's just like how Newton's Laws of Motion don't hold near light speed. They seemed to tell the whole story when they were first discovered, but later info showed they didn't tell the whole story, and didn't hold in all cases.

ROFL... Enjoy delusions admiral?

Seems science disagrees with you...

Does Quantum Mechanics Flout the Laws of Thermodynamics? | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network

But this, luckily for the second law (though not for would-be inventors of perpetual motion machines), is not the case. Landauer’s insight is still fine, and erasing information adds entropy to the environment. What saves the second law is that, in quantum physics, entropy can actually be negative. Adding negative entropy is the same as taking entropy away. The key phenomenon behind it is the spookiest of all quantum phenomena, entanglement.

Hmm that's how many times you stuck your foot in your mouth admiral?

look admiral you and your socks butchering science has gone on long enough..

You try and regurgitate what Ian says, but you fail every time. The worst part of it all is neither of you understand what you are talking about. it's a blind leading the blind fiasco with you two..

Want to prove me wrong? Fine, explain "The arrow of Time" to me in your own words.. Not a searched definition because I will know the difference. Explain it to me...

 

[mamooth]

You had every opportunity to defend your ridiculous "photons" when I showed you that real photons are not itsy bitsy particles but behave like waves.

Oh, so _that_ was the purpose of all your senseless jabber. You were trying to overturn the wave-particle duality physics model. Well, isn't that special. Good luck with that. Yes, our PolarBear really does think he's the new Einstein.

Photons don`t have a mass and don`t transfer "thermal energy" to the glass, no energy was "absorbed" because photons don`t behave like the silly little bullets that you all use in your stupid "back radiation" examples.

Yes, wave-particle duality is all wrong, because PolarBear says so! He's clearly headed for another Nobel Physics Prize!

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to read up on the topic, here's a nice discussion.

optics - How does a photon travel through glass? - Physics Stack Exchange

Hey, you guys should all head over to those physics forums and let all those pointy-headed liberal eggheads know how wrong they are!

And you came back with the most ridiculous example of "back radiation" that according to you takes place between 2 burning pieces of coal.

Actually, that was kickass engineering. As simple as possible, and directly to the point. No wonder it caused you to have such a meltdown.

I`ll get to the crux with an excerpt :

No, you'll jabber nonsense.

Instead of being the suckass engineer that you usually are, babbling some confusing mass of crap, why not be a good engineer and keep it simple, stupid?

 

[gslack]

You had every opportunity to defend your ridiculous "photons" when I showed you that real photons are not itsy bitsy particles but behave like waves.

Oh, so _that_ was the purpose of all your senseless jabber. You were trying to overturn the wave-particle duality physics model. Well, isn't that special. Good luck with that. Yes, our PolarBear really does think he's the new Einstein.

Photons don`t have a mass and don`t transfer "thermal energy" to the glass, no energy was "absorbed" because photons don`t behave like the silly little bullets that you all use in your stupid "back radiation" examples.

Yes, wave-particle duality is all wrong, because PolarBear says so! He's clearly headed for another Nobel Physics Prize!

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to read up on the topic, here's a nice discussion.

optics - How does a photon travel through glass? - Physics Stack Exchange

Hey, you guys should all head over to those physics forums and let all those pointy-headed liberal eggheads know how wrong they are!

And you came back with the most ridiculous example of "back radiation" that according to you takes place between 2 burning pieces of coal.

Actually, that was kickass engineering. As simple as possible, and directly to the point. No wonder it caused you to have such a meltdown.

I`ll get to the crux with an excerpt :

No, you'll jabber nonsense.

Instead of being the suckass engineer that you usually are, babbling some confusing mass of crap, why not be a good engineer and keep it simple, stupid?

ROFL your link confirms his claims moron... LOL

 

[gslack]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Times up admiral!

FAIL!

 

[mamooth]

Seems science disagrees with you...

Don't pretend you had the slightest idea of what that article said. You'd just embarrass yourself. You didn't understand it. You're only capable of regurgitating what you lick out of someone else's rectum. Independent thought is beyond you.

Here's a hint. The article didn't say the second law prohibits photon radiation. It was talking about a very specific case that had nothing to do with that.

Want to prove me wrong?

Been there, done that at least a hundred times. Why do it again? No matter what I say, you'll just lie. It's what you do. It's all you do.

You, however, do need to apologize, after getting caught red-handed lying about me for a week solid. Being I'm a generous and forgiving soul, I'll even just settle for your simple admission you made a mistake, and we can leave it at that. You will, however, be expected to also stop the stalking.

 

[mamooth]

ROFL your link confirms his claims moron... LOL

Really? The link claimed wave-particle duality is a myth?

Please, point that part out to us. I seem to have missed it.

 

[gslack]

Seems science disagrees with you...

Don't pretend you had the slightest idea of what that article said. You'd just embarrass yourself. You didn't understand it. You're only capable of regurgitating what you lick out of someone else's rectum. Independent thought is beyond you.

Here's a hint. The article didn't say the second law prohibits photon radiation. It was talking about a very specific case that had nothing to do with that.

Want to prove me wrong?

Been there, done that at least a hundred times. Why do it again? No matter what I say, you'll just lie. It's what you do. It's all you do.

You, however, do need to apologize, after getting caught red-handed lying about me for a week solid. Being I'm a generous and forgiving soul, I'll even just settle for your simple admission you made a mistake, and we can leave it at that. You will, however, be expected to also stop the stalking.

ROFL I know it disputes your claim well enough...

What's wrong admiral, got caught being a BS artist again huh...

Nice work you just disputed science again!

 

[gslack]

ROFL your link confirms his claims moron... LOL

Really? The link claimed wave-particle duality is a myth?

Please, point that part out to us. I seem to have missed it.

Nope that wasn't his claim... nice try...

Afraid to post honestly,so you resort to the childish lies about what was said... Way to go!