Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[ReinyDays]

I have never denied SB.

I claimed temperature is proportional to the fourth-root of irradiation ... which is why it takes huge amounts of carbon dioxide to change temperatures a tiny bit ... it's the nature of fourth-root functions ...

You had a cow denying this fourth-root relationship ...

You didn't recognize SB when I slapped your pimply face with it, child ... go hide behind your mother's skirts and cry about it ... damn, you lie worse than the English ...

 

[Crick]

I claimed temperature is proportional to the fourth-root of irradiation ... which is why it takes huge amounts of carbon dioxide to change temperatures a tiny bit ... it's the nature of fourth-root functions ...

You had a cow denying this fourth-root relationship ...

You didn't recognize SB when I slapped your pimply face with it, child ... go hide behind your mother's skirts and cry about it ... damn, you lie worse than the English ...

You are lying. I have never denied Stefan Boltzmann. You might be confused on this point because in your last two posts you stated that temperature was proportional to the 4th root of irradiation. That is not correct. It is proportional to the 4th root of EMISSION. They are not the same thing.

 

[ReinyDays]

You are lying. I have never denied Stefan Boltzmann. You might be confused on this point because in your last two posts you stated that temperature was proportional to the 4th root of irradiation. That is not correct. It is proportional to the 4th root of EMISSION. They are not the same thing.

Fuck you ... we're using the irradiation of the Sun ... the "S" factor ... we need to go through this factor-by-factor because it's obvious you don't know how we define temperature in the first place ...

AND ...

We use the irradiation statement of the constant ... 5.67×10^−8 W/m^2/K^4 ... see the "watts per square meter" in there, that's a unit of irradiance ... STUPID ...

=====

I set you up ... I knew you wouldn't see SB where I used it ... just admit I bested you ... and you've learned, we can move on ...

 

[alang1216]

That's ridiculous. Of course the planet being in an interglacial period is relevant. Especially since we are 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period which literally proves there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

I really don't care if sea levels are rising due to CO2, thermal expansion, or Big Foot. All that matters is that they are rising, as are global temperatures.

 

[alang1216]

I disagree.

Too long but feel free to summarize. Although he starts with a strike against him since he is not a scientist and he's a fan of Rand. Neither impresses me.

 

[alang1216]

Of course your argument is emotional. You are obsessing over weather. The sky is not falling. And you will discover that for yourself soon enough.

Thanks for the assurances, I'm sure I'll sleep better at night now that an internet poster has set me right.

 

[Crick]

Fuck you ... we're using the irradiation of the Sun ... the "S" factor ... we need to go through this factor-by-factor because it's obvious you don't know how we define temperature in the first place ...

AND ...

We use the irradiation statement of the constant ... 5.67×10^−8 W/m^2/K^4 ... see the "watts per square meter" in there, that's a unit of irradiance ... STUPID ...

=====

I set you up ... I knew you wouldn't see SB where I used it ... just admit I bested you ... and you've learned, we can move on ...

I have no recollection of ever having participated in such a conversation. I think you have me confused with another poster. Or you'r simply fabricating this out of whole cloth.

I have reviewed the use of SB in calculating the expected temperature of the Earth solely from insolation. It would be used to determine the sun's emittance given its temperature and after calculating the total amount of energy incident on the Earth, you can back calculate the temperature required for the entire surface of the planet to emit that amount of radiation (assuming thermal equilibrium).

That's all very nice but I have never denied SB. But, if you'd like to review the mistakes you've made in our conversations over just the past few days, we can do so. And I won't have to lie about it, will I.

But, IF, you can find the post and show that I did deny SB, I will fess up and apologize. Till you do, though, I have to conclude you're just lying to get back at me for showing you've made a lot of mistakes.

 

[ReinyDays]

I have no recollection of ever having participated in such a conversation. I think you have me confused with another poster. Or you'r simply fabricating this out of whole cloth.

I have reviewed the use of SB in calculating the expected temperature of the Earth solely from insolation. It would be used to determine the sun's emittance given its temperature and after calculating the total amount of energy incident on the Earth, you can back calculate the temperature required for the entire surface of the planet to emit that amount of radiation (assuming thermal equilibrium).

That's all very nice but I have never denied SB. But, if you'd like to review the mistakes you've made in our conversations over just the past few days, we can do so. And I won't have to lie about it, will I.

But, IF, you can find the post and show that I did deny SB, I will fess up and apologize. Till you do, though, I have to conclude you're just lying to get back at me for showing you've made a lot of mistakes.

Stupid liar ...

Scientific Proof | Science Exposed

ds-wordpress.haverford.edu

Mathematics contains proofs. Physics does not. The laws of physics are not based on proof but on observations and reason.

Are you under the impression that arithmetic is some part of physics?

... yes, we've PROVED temperature is proportional to the fourth-root of irradiation ... lying motherfucker ...

No, we have not.

I have never used the term runaway greenhouse effect wrt AGW. The consensus among published scientists is quite real. It is just as significant as the complete lack of any consensus for your point of view.

You just don't know when to stop digging. And I think you meant to use rigid, not ridged.

I think people on your side of this argument might call me a motherfucker because I continue to embarrass them.

I've never claimed any particular expertise. I'm just an old engineer. But the people I read and the people I quote, they DO understand climatology and meteorology and atmospheric physics and thermodynamics and I know enough science to understand what they're saying. I also know enough about science and the scientific method not to embarrass myself the way you are right now.

Go through the global warming threads and note that I have provided a large number of links to technical and scholarly sources supporting my view (which is unsuprising since my views are based on those sources).

You have now repeatedly accused me of lying and your attempt to show I have, has only exposed your severe ignorance about natural science.

This was just last week ... you can't keep your lies straight for a lousy seven days ...

 

[Crick]

Stupid liar ...







This was just last week ... you can't keep your lies straight for a lousy seven days ...

You're going to have to point out here which of my statements you believe is a lie because there is nothing here I regret having said or believe is incorrect or dishonest.

 

[ReinyDays]

You're going to have to point out here which of my statements you believe is a lie because there is nothing here I regret having said or believe is incorrect or dishonest.

Playing stupid ... good ... stupid motherfucker ...

 

[Crick]

Playing stupid ... good ... stupid motherfucker ...

The text you quoted contains no lies or errors. That you think you see them there is your problem. Your real problem.

 

[ding]

I really don't care if sea levels are rising due to CO2, thermal expansion, or Big Foot. All that matters is that they are rising, as are global temperatures.

And it scares you?

 

[ding]

Too long but feel free to summarize. Although he starts with a strike against him since he is not a scientist and he's a fan of Rand. Neither impresses me.

Basically he's saying you are evil.

 

[ding]

Thanks for the assurances, I'm sure I'll sleep better at night now that an internet poster has set me right.

Don't mention it.

 

[alang1216]

And it scares you?

Hell yes. I guess you don't live in Florida or the East Coast. And don't care about anyone who does.

 

[alang1216]

Basically he's saying you are evil.

Being called evil by a follower of Ayn Rand is a compliment.

 

[ding]

Hell yes. I guess you don't live in Florida or the East Coast. And don't care about anyone who does.

I don't believe it's a problem like you do so I'm not sure you can say that about me. I think you are nuts for blowing weather out of proportion. It's political. You've been hoodwinked.

 

[ding]

Being called evil by a follower of Ayn Rand is a compliment.

Who would that be?

 

[alang1216]

Who would that be?

Alex Epstein, it was your video wasn't it?

 

[ding]

Given that AGW has overwhelmed the prior cooling, he is correct. Your prediction that it will soon be getting cooler is unsupportable nonsense.

That's nonsense. You are saying CO2 save the planet from the cold.

The geologic record isn't unsupportable nonsense. Neither is 50 million years of cooling and a transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Nor is the resulting climate fluctuations because the planet's landmass configuration results in bipolar glaciation with eac h pole at a different temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation.

You don't know the first thing about our planet's climate.