AGW: atmospheric physics

[Saigon]

I am responding to your posts in a totally appropriate manner

No, you are just posting mindless spam, gibberish and half-witted abuse.

If we checked, I suspect we would find 90% of your posts made during the past week did not even reference the topic.

You have clearly just given up posting on-topic, which is entirely up to you, but spamming and stalking might not be tolerated on the board for ever.

 

[polarbear]

the temps are dropping.

Are they really?

You must have forgotten to prove that.

Say`s the "snow expert"...that said that if it snows in a cold climate zone it`s "proof" of global warming.
Spring is here?finally | Sports | Portage Daily Graphic

Spring is here—finally

What have we done to anger Mother Nature, sports fans?
In what should be the beginning of a busy spring/summer of sports around the Portage la Prairie and Central Plains area, here we are sitting and waiting
Last year seems like ages ago, as the high school soccer, fastpitch and baseball teams were beginning their season this week.
This time around, there will likely be no action until the beginning of May, at the earliest.
It seems every story I write previewing the spring sports season in Portage should have some sort of asterisk beside it.
I’m sure you’re as sick of reading it as I am of writing the fact that each coach I talk to has no idea when their season will start.
Portage La Prairie, MB


Current conditions

Updated: 800 CDT AM

-2°C
Overcast
his morning This afternoon This evening Tonight

Forecast Mixed precip.
Rain or snow
Cloudy periods
Cloudy periods
Temp. -1°C
4°C
1°C
-4°C
Dew point -8°C
-2°C
-8°C
-10°C
Wind W 20 km/h
NW 25 km/h
NW 20 km/h
SW 15 km/h
P.O.P. 40%
40%
30%
20%

 

[polarbear]

Figure that one out.
If the "Nuclear Admiral" switches the

Reported for spamming. Enough is enough. He's posting this same stalky crap across multiple threads.

I actually suggested yesterday that Westwall check the board policy on stalking, as I've noticed he is starting to follow posters around the board posting gibberish and abuse everywhere.

Reporting is probably the best option - along with neg repping.

So how does it feel?... to get a taste of your own medicine, asshole
Here is what the "Nuclear Admiral"said when I ignored that DD214 gibberish
I was "running away scared",.."admitted defeat",...etc etc...and lastly I was "MIA"....and tried to funnel every post that debunked these lies to a dead thread, the"numan footprint" while you were parading as a "Journalist in Finland" with the "nuclear engineer" calling everybody "retards" in all the other threads...and I was supposed to follow "instructions" and post the proof how he faked that in the sweep it under the rug thread?
At one point that freak followed me around in all the other threads and claimed I "chickened out" after I ignored him for a couple of hours.
Matters none to me if a retard insists to play chicken with a freight train.
So I obliged:

Hell no, I just begun...same goes for the "Journalist from Finland" and the "erudite numan".
Like they say, in hell the English do the cooking, the Italians run the economy and the police are German.
Welcome to Hell

 

[polarbear]

IanC:
We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?

 

[IanC]

IanC:
We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?

I'll bite. are you talking about the reflected sunlight coming off the moon or the radiation emitted from the surface?

last year you seemingly agreed with gslacks' owner that photons magically 'expended' themselves against each other, in open space, with no matter present, and that the energy simply vanished. is that still your opinion?

 

[polarbear]

IanC:
We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?

I'll bite. are you talking about the reflected sunlight coming off the moon or the radiation emitted from the surface?

last year you seemingly agreed with gslacks' owner that photons magically 'expended' themselves against each other, in open space, with no matter present, and that the energy simply vanished. is that still your opinion?

Don`t worry. I`m not trying to play you for a sucker and offer you a barbed hook.

So don`t try that with me !
Like I "seemingly agreed with SSDD".
You know damn well what my position on back radiation is and why it it the same as that:
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.go

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].

The constant appearing in the T4 law is not an universal constant of physics.
It strongly depends on the particular geometry of the problem considered.8
The T4-law will no longer hold if one integrates only over a filtered spectrum, appropriate to real world situations.

So if you want to reconsider your position, that`s Okay by me and I won`t stick it into your face later...
But I will if you keep insisting on stuff like that to "explain" back radiation:

And giggle along with the Nuclear Admiral:

Only if you subscribe to the retarded notion that all of the heat from a heat sink fin must radiate straight to the other fin. Of course, only a complete moron could claim something that outrageously stupid. Thus, you do claim that.

Quote:
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

To which I replied:
Why are car radiators painted black
Quote:
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.


Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
A black body is also a perfect emitter. The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity.


And you said nothing, but were happy when that freak buried it with with a flurry of more "Nuclear Engineering" posts taunting SSDD, Westwall, Gslack etc.

 

[IanC]

not SSDD. the other guy, I forget his name offhand. the one who had the crackpot theory that mixed the characteristics of electric fields with plain radiation.

you spent your time and energy attacking me while saying nothing about his bilge.

 

[IanC]

not SSDD. the other guy, I forget his name offhand. the one who had the crackpot theory that mixed the characteristics of electric fields with plain radiation.

you spent your time and energy attacking me while saying nothing about his bilge.

or do you know something I dont know? is SSDD that other guy, back with a new nickname and a modified theory?

 

[IanC]

IanC:
We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?

I'll bite. are you talking about the reflected sunlight coming off the moon or the radiation emitted from the surface?

last year you seemingly agreed with gslacks' owner that photons magically 'expended' themselves against each other, in open space, with no matter present, and that the energy simply vanished. is that still your opinion?

Don`t worry. I`m not trying to play you for a sucker and offer you a barbed hook.

So don`t try that with me !
Like I "seemingly agreed with SSDD".
You know damn well what my position on back radiation is and why it it the same as that:
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.go

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].

The constant appearing in the T4 law is not an universal constant of physics.
It strongly depends on the particular geometry of the problem considered.8
The T4-law will no longer hold if one integrates only over a filtered spectrum, appropriate to real world situations.

So if you want to reconsider your position, that`s Okay by me and I won`t stick it into your face later...
But I will if you keep insisting on stuff like that to "explain" back radiation:

And giggle along with the Nuclear Admiral:

Only if you subscribe to the retarded notion that all of the heat from a heat sink fin must radiate straight to the other fin. Of course, only a complete moron could claim something that outrageously stupid. Thus, you do claim that.

Quote:
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

To which I replied:
Why are car radiators painted black
Quote:
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.


Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
A black body is also a perfect emitter. The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity.


And you said nothing, but were happy when that freak buried it with with a flurry of more "Nuclear Engineering" posts taunting SSDD, Westwall, Gslack etc.

why do you continue to expect me to answer your questions when you ignore my questions to you? why do you lump me in with others when it is obvious that I am a 'free agent' that supports what I consider to be the truth, regardless of which 'side' it appears to bolster? when you first posted that picture I asked you to comment on whether conduction through the metal was the reason the ember appeared cooler. you failed to respond. SSDD thinks radiation is more efficient than conduction, I called him on it, you ignored it.

I dont care who states an idea. if it is reasonably valid I like it. you, on the other hand, seem to care more about who said it and the context of which side it supports. I think that is dishonest but you have to live with yourself, I dont.

 

[SSDD]

or do you know something I dont know? is SSDD that other guy, back with a new nickname and a modified theory?

When I first got to this board I was accused of being someone else...the mods apparently cleared me and said that they could find nothing that suggested that I had ever been here before.

And I don't have any theory...all I have is the laws of thermodynamics which are clear statements made in absolute terms...anyone who disagrees with them is the one with a theory...a theory that is doomed to failure by the way.

 

[IanC]

IanC:
We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?

I'll bite. are you talking about the reflected sunlight coming off the moon or the radiation emitted from the surface?

last year you seemingly agreed with gslacks' owner that photons magically 'expended' themselves against each other, in open space, with no matter present, and that the energy simply vanished. is that still your opinion?

Don`t worry. I`m not trying to play you for a sucker and offer you a barbed hook.

really? you have tried a lot of trick questions in the past. you dont even have the decency to admit it when I have sidestepped them. you just ignore it and go on to the next deflection or distraction.

 

[IanC]

or do you know something I dont know? is SSDD that other guy, back with a new nickname and a modified theory?

When I first got to this board I was accused of being someone else...the mods apparently cleared me and said that they could find nothing that suggested that I had ever been here before.

And I don't have any theory...all I have is the laws of thermodynamics which are clear statements made in absolute terms...anyone who disagrees with them is the one with a theory...a theory that is doomed to failure by the way.

I asked you if you were XXXX at that time. I would never report you to the mods because I only care about the ideas. did someone actually report you?

 

[SSDD]

I asked you if you were XXXX at that time. I would never report you to the mods because I only care about the ideas. did someone actually report you?

Yes. As I remember, there was a half a day or so where I couldn't post while I was cleared.

 

[polarbear]

I'll bite. are you talking about the reflected sunlight coming off the moon or the radiation emitted from the surface?

last year you seemingly agreed with gslacks' owner that photons magically 'expended' themselves against each other, in open space, with no matter present, and that the energy simply vanished. is that still your opinion?

Don`t worry. I`m not trying to play you for a sucker and offer you a barbed hook.

really? you have tried a lot of trick questions in the past. you dont even have the decency to admit it when I have sidestepped them. you just ignore it and go on to the next deflection or distraction.

Like hell I did...
Matter of fact I thanked you on occasions and even "+repped" you for your Marcott proxy posts.
And when you were pondering if red-star photons could penetrate a white star hydrogen plasma, I answered
"Good question" and shared my observations with you what happens to photons that are directed trough a sample beam in an atomic absorption spectrophotometer when everything in the sample region is in emission mode and electrons are no longer associated with a particular nucleus...as is the case in a plasma, where the same electrons that are needed to absorb EM in the IR region are no longer in the "ground state" being able to absorb light at long wave lengths.
So don`t say I "ignored" you.
Could well be you did not find my reply to you, because every time I post the Siamese cat buries it seconds later with 5 pages of taunts directed at SSDD.
Therefore I am not accusing you of what you are accusing me.
Although I could...because 10 pages later you used a Siamese cat misquoting what I did say lecturing me on how a white star is a plasma reactor and then you said "it was not subject related" to your photons from a red star that somehow manage to shoot like armor penetrating munitions right through a blue star.
You did the same when I pointed out that high energy photons are being used to cool macro objects to near 0 K.
And that`s not subject related to photons ?
But 2 pieces of coal in your black smith forge example are ?

 

[polarbear]

I asked you if you were XXXX at that time. I would never report you to the mods because I only care about the ideas. did someone actually report you?

Yes. As I remember, there was a half a day or so where I couldn't post while I was cleared.

I can also show you "Saigon`s" posts where he did the same and tried to get me banned after I pulled his pants down, because the liar`s pants were on fire.
He managed to got me banned ( for one day) after I showed him that he is not in Finland with some funky Java script embedded in a picture I posted:

Your post was a perceived Security Threat. Now that it was checked out, your account has been restored. Don't play with code here. Pretty please.
Just needed to be sure that You weren't collecting IP info on users

Admin deleted my post that showed "the educated Journalist in Finland" `s IP and I promised not to do it again.
And right now the "nuclear engineer" is trying to do the same thing with Gslack, Westwall and me after we blew up his "I used to be a nuclear engineer" garbage.
It`s about time forum admin starts looking at the computer specific MAC addresses like every public WiFi provider....to see how many of these fraud artists are logging on with one ore more different user names and hi-5 their own posts.
If I do it it won`t be as easy as admin can do it if they wanted to.
I`ll get banned for good just for trying.
It`s not all that hard to hack admin accounts in php`s and I`m tempted to do so, had I not better things to do with my time.

 

[IanC]

Quote:
A black body is also a perfect emitter. The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity.


And you said nothing, but were happy when that freak buried it with with a flurry of more "Nuclear Engineering" posts taunting SSDD, Westwall, Gslack etc.

I did read part of that thread. obviously you did not see my 'thanks' (and rep) to Toddster. I have stayed out of the sandbox bullshit between you guys and the 'admiral', except to laugh when he did exactly what you called for. I still chuckle when I think about it.

 

[polarbear]

Quote:
A black body is also a perfect emitter. The radiation of such perfect emitters is called black-body radiation. The ratio of any body's emission relative to that of a black body is the body's emissivity, so that a black body has an emissivity of unity.


And you said nothing, but were happy when that freak buried it with with a flurry of more "Nuclear Engineering" posts taunting SSDD, Westwall, Gslack etc.

I did read part of that thread. obviously you did not see my 'thanks' (and rep) to Toddster. I have stayed out of the sandbox bullshit between you guys and the 'admiral', except to laugh when he did exactly what you called for. I still chuckle when I think about it.

Well good for you.
Yesterday however I was wondering why you showed up in the "numan footprint thread" and hahahad me when the phony nuclear engineer got caught with yet another cheat. The siamese cat had the "erudite" numan`s okay to use his thread to "prove" his phony credentials.
If I don`t respond then I`m "chicken", "running scared", etc and if I do then the fraudster buries it and flaunts the "nuclear engineering expert credentials" in all the other threads and adds that I did not respond.
I`ll give specifics..
Just yesterday the "accredited nuclear engineer" was ridiculing Westwall:
"you don`t even know what a steam table is..."
and "I was (as a phony engineer) freakin trained to use them..."
then quoted an engineering "steam table" in calories per gram using dimensions a dietician would use..certainly not an engineer.
But we are supposed to yield to the Navy engineer theatricks because that phony uses Googled Navy slang buzzwords to garnish his "atmospheric physics expertise"


As far as your comment that I "seemingly agree with SSDD"...:
He applies thermodynamics in a very rudimentary fashion, but I don`t shoot him down, because in the final analysis he is accurate within 2 places behind the decimal point as far as "back radiation" from CO2 is concerned if you actually do a quantitative spectral analysis:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

http://www.john-daly.com/hug2.gif
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]

I`m doing "Spring cleaning" right now and check in again later. to see your comments...
If I don`t reply, it`s not that I don`t want to...it`s because your stuff gets buried by the same bullshitters that bury my posts minutes after it`s been posted.
Have a nice day...
I mean that, because overall you are a pretty decent guy and none of us "denialists" have a problem with you.
Matter of fact 2 of them PN`ed me and said they hold you in pretty high esteem...and I do not object that they do, nor do I think that you are a fraud or a "retard". All you have to do is brush up on modern physics and don`t stay stuck with the AGW word-smithed interpretations of out dated thermodynamics
Just don`t call us retards or ignorant like the rest of the crowd you avoid offending by obliging them to stick with AGW photons and quantum physics as they were over a century ago.

 

[IanC]

IanC:
We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?

I'll bite. are you talking about the reflected sunlight coming off the moon or the radiation emitted from the surface?

last year you seemingly agreed with gslacks' owner that photons magically 'expended' themselves against each other, in open space, with no matter present, and that the energy simply vanished. is that still your opinion?

Polarbear- is this the post that you keep referring back to with respect to "agreeing to SSDD"?

As in many past cases you have become confused and accused me of a strawman of your imagination. I suppose it is easier than quoting me and dealing with my actual statements. I left a pointed comment for you at Climate S.... Where you can respond without getting buried.

Edit- wirebender was the name I I couldn't dredge up

 

[westwall]

I am responding to your posts in a totally appropriate manner

No, you are just posting mindless spam, gibberish and half-witted abuse.

If we checked, I suspect we would find 90% of your posts made during the past week did not even reference the topic.

You have clearly just given up posting on-topic, which is entirely up to you, but spamming and stalking might not be tolerated on the board for ever.

You would probably be correct in that estimate. However, they are entirely appropriate based on the sheer mindless drivel you post, that has been demolished in threads years before you ever infected this forum.

You drone propagandists spew your pap continuously even though it has been shown repeatedly to be either wrong, or to not say what you think it says. If you wish me to respond in a scientific manner then POST SOME DAMNED SCIENCE and none of this CRAP!

 

[westwall]

not SSDD. the other guy, I forget his name offhand. the one who had the crackpot theory that mixed the characteristics of electric fields with plain radiation.

you spent your time and energy attacking me while saying nothing about his bilge.

I think you're thinking of wirebender.