Climate scientists laugh at AGW cult

[SSDD]

Because, as we all know, matter will not emit photons in the direction of warmer material. Right? Right?

What I know is that there is no measurement of a discrete "greenhouse gas" emission from the atmosphere to the surface made by instruments not cooler than the atmosphere. As to why.....look to the second law of thermodynamics and energy not moving from cool to warm. I din't make up the law...I just agree with it.

 

[Crick]

Such measurements have been repeatedly made and have been posted here on multiple occasions. Again, you simply lie about any data you do not like.

You DID make up your contention that emitted photons will not travel towards warmer matter. It is ignorant nonsense. Despite many attempts to explain it to you, you do NOT understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You have never had a class in thermo and you would never pass one if you did. If you attempted to stick with your delusion, I suspect you'd actually get booted from the classroom. And, then, of course, you'd use that to support your persecuted victim mentality.

 

[Old Rocks]

No answer? Or are you just to embarrassed to say where you think climate science gets its money from?

I asked you, little pissaholic. After all, it was your crazy claim. As usual, instead of backing it up, you deflected by lying.

The climate change industry is in excess of 1.5 trillion dollars per year...

So, you're actually now claiming that money spent to built a wind turbine goes into the pocket of scientist. Even for you, the sheer magnitude of the dishonesty there is rather shocking.

If all the facts didn't say you were an open fraud, you wouldn't have to lie about everything. But they do, so you do.

4.7 billion dollars in grant money in the U.S. alone.....

Stupidity on stupidity. The global warming 'scare' began about 1820, when Fourier pointed out that something in the atmosphere was absorbing outgoing heat. That was confirmed in 1859 when Tyndall measured the absorption of IR by the GHGs in the atmosphere. Arrhenius quantified the amount of warming that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would create in 1896. Keeling started measuring the CO2 in 1957 on Mauna Loa. Now there are CO2 measuring stations all over the world recording the increase.

So now you admitting 1820?


Way before there was official records, way before any way man could of done it?

Yup Judith and the rest were right.


Science totally ignores the natural variations

Lordy, what a ******* fool you are. Totally ignorant of basic science.

Why we know about the greenhouse gas effect

Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect. Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, asked what seems to be a simple question: why doesn’t the planet keep heating up as it receives sunlight? What is regulating our atmospheric temperature?




Joseph Fourier: bane of countless physics and engineering students.



Knowing that heated surfaces emit radiation (thermal energy), Fourier reasoned that the Earth would emit radiation absorbed by the Sun back into space – resulting in an icy planet. There must be something regulating the temperature – emitting enough thermal energy to keep the planet from freezing and overheating. Not too hot, not too cold.

Fourier’s answer to these questions is formalized in what we now call the greenhouse gas effect. From the American Institute of Physics history of climate change page:



How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape. This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that's less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

Such measurements have been repeatedly made and have been posted here on multiple occasions. Again, you simply lie about any data you do not like.

Nope...lying again skid mark...no discrete measurement of so called back radiation in a so called greenhouse gas frequency has ever been measured without an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...except perhaps in some rare instance of temperature inversion...But feel free to post one if you think you have one...or don't and simply acknowledge that you are once again, just talking out of your ass.

You DID make up your contention that emitted photons will not travel towards warmer matter.

Nope...I just believe the second law when it says that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...and since you have no observed, measured instances of it happening, I am afraid that I will have to stick to the second law, and not some crazy interpretation of it.

you do NOT understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Of course I do...it is a straight forward statement...I don't accept post modern interpretation of it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

You have never had a class in thermo and you would never pass one if you did

Afraid that you are wrong again crick...I took several courses back in college and did quite well...which is why, you don't seem to be able to defeat my arguments...I did well enough to know the difference between observation, and models...and that one is true, and one might possibly be true but the claim is untestable...

Lubos Motl laid it out quite elegantly when he said:

• Classical physics allows you to assume that some things objectively exist. You may make true statements about the objects in Nature but there are underlying objects and all the true statements are just reflections of something that is out there.
• Quantum mechanics allows you to assign truth values or probabilities (a continuous version of the truth value) to propositions about Nature, too. However, you can no longer assume that the true statements that you may derive from quantum mechanics are reflections of the objective reality.

The fact is that QM is not a mirror image of objective reality, and as a result, it is fantasy and will remain so till such time as it is a mirror image of objective reality.

 

[SSDD]

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape. This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that's less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect.

Guess you are unaware that Professor Woods debunked that experiment very shortly after it was published with his own..he demonstrated that the only thing that box did was block convection...the atmosphere is not analogous to a glass pane over a box although plenty of idiots still believe that it is.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Ah, dumb **** rightards. What would we do without them.

You'd freeze in the dark, because you would stop burning fossil fuels. Got any other questions?

 

[Wyatt earp]

No answer? Or are you just to embarrassed to say where you think climate science gets its money from?

I asked you, little pissaholic. After all, it was your crazy claim. As usual, instead of backing it up, you deflected by lying.

The climate change industry is in excess of 1.5 trillion dollars per year...

So, you're actually now claiming that money spent to built a wind turbine goes into the pocket of scientist. Even for you, the sheer magnitude of the dishonesty there is rather shocking.

If all the facts didn't say you were an open fraud, you wouldn't have to lie about everything. But they do, so you do.

4.7 billion dollars in grant money in the U.S. alone.....

Stupidity on stupidity. The global warming 'scare' began about 1820, when Fourier pointed out that something in the atmosphere was absorbing outgoing heat. That was confirmed in 1859 when Tyndall measured the absorption of IR by the GHGs in the atmosphere. Arrhenius quantified the amount of warming that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would create in 1896. Keeling started measuring the CO2 in 1957 on Mauna Loa. Now there are CO2 measuring stations all over the world recording the increase.

So now you admitting 1820?


Way before there was official records, way before any way man could of done it?

Yup Judith and the rest were right.


Science totally ignores the natural variations

Lordy, what a ******* fool you are. Totally ignorant of basic science.

Why we know about the greenhouse gas effect

Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect. Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, asked what seems to be a simple question: why doesn’t the planet keep heating up as it receives sunlight? What is regulating our atmospheric temperature?




Joseph Fourier: bane of countless physics and engineering students.



Knowing that heated surfaces emit radiation (thermal energy), Fourier reasoned that the Earth would emit radiation absorbed by the Sun back into space – resulting in an icy planet. There must be something regulating the temperature – emitting enough thermal energy to keep the planet from freezing and overheating. Not too hot, not too cold.

Fourier’s answer to these questions is formalized in what we now call the greenhouse gas effect. From the American Institute of Physics history of climate change page:



How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape. This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that's less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect.

Again you don't even see it do you, you admitted that it started to happen before we put C02 with any amount of significance in the atmosphere..

.


.

 

[Crick]

Greenhouse gases have been warming the planet since they first entered the atmosphere a few billions years ago. They were certainly doing so before humans began producing them in any significant quantity and before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The point is that INCREASING combustion of fossil fuels and INCREASING deforestation in INCREASING the levels of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere which is raising the Earth's equilibrium temperature.

Got it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

One more time the earth was heating up before any human caused C02 was significant enough in the 1980s plus...



Got it?


.

 

[Crick]

Show us what you're talking about Bear. Let's see some data. The Earth has been warming and cooling since the very beginning. Let's see what you've got that looks like the change rate we've had the last 50 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

I asked you, little pissaholic. After all, it was your crazy claim. As usual, instead of backing it up, you deflected by lying.

So, you're actually now claiming that money spent to built a wind turbine goes into the pocket of scientist. Even for you, the sheer magnitude of the dishonesty there is rather shocking.

If all the facts didn't say you were an open fraud, you wouldn't have to lie about everything. But they do, so you do.

4.7 billion dollars in grant money in the U.S. alone.....

Stupidity on stupidity. The global warming 'scare' began about 1820, when Fourier pointed out that something in the atmosphere was absorbing outgoing heat. That was confirmed in 1859 when Tyndall measured the absorption of IR by the GHGs in the atmosphere. Arrhenius quantified the amount of warming that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would create in 1896. Keeling started measuring the CO2 in 1957 on Mauna Loa. Now there are CO2 measuring stations all over the world recording the increase.

So now you admitting 1820?


Way before there was official records, way before any way man could of done it?

Yup Judith and the rest were right.


Science totally ignores the natural variations

Lordy, what a ******* fool you are. Totally ignorant of basic science.

Why we know about the greenhouse gas effect

Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect. Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, asked what seems to be a simple question: why doesn’t the planet keep heating up as it receives sunlight? What is regulating our atmospheric temperature?




Joseph Fourier: bane of countless physics and engineering students.



Knowing that heated surfaces emit radiation (thermal energy), Fourier reasoned that the Earth would emit radiation absorbed by the Sun back into space – resulting in an icy planet. There must be something regulating the temperature – emitting enough thermal energy to keep the planet from freezing and overheating. Not too hot, not too cold.

Fourier’s answer to these questions is formalized in what we now call the greenhouse gas effect. From the American Institute of Physics history of climate change page:



How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape. This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that's less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect.

Again you don't even see it do you, you admitted that it started to happen before we put C02 with any amount of significance in the atmosphere..

.


.

Crap. It is really hard conversing with people as blind ignorant as you. Were there not the GHGs in the air, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. At 180 ppm, the continental glaciers were south of our northern border. At 280 ppm, we are in the current interglacial. Now we are passing 410+ ppm. Were we to remain at just that level the Arctic would have no sea ice in the summer, and Greenland and Antarctica would have mountain glaciers, not a continental ice cap. But we will not stay at that level. We may double that before this century is out. And we really don't know what kind of results that will have, other than by present events, they will be a negative for most of humanity.

 

[SSDD]

Greenhouse gases have been warming the planet since they first entered the atmosphere a few billions years ago. They were certainly doing so before humans began producing them in any significant quantity and before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The point is that INCREASING combustion of fossil fuels and INCREASING deforestation in INCREASING the levels of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere which is raising the Earth's equilibrium temperature.

Got it?

So lets see some actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports that claim..it is easy to make the claim...providing actual data to support the claim, however, is a ***** since none actually exists beyond the out put of models.

 

[SSDD]

Show us what you're talking about Bear. Let's see some data. The Earth has been warming and cooling since the very beginning. Let's see what you've got that looks like the change rate we've had the last 50 years.

There are multiple points on this gold standard climate reconstruction that show temperature increases greater than what we have seen and in a shorter period of time.

And since you are surely going to whine that the graph above is from above the Arctic circle, I will also provide one from below the Antarctic circle which shows the same sort of temperature variation, at roughly the same time demonstrating beyond any reasonable argument that the climate variations (all natural) were global in nature.

Your claims of unprecedented warming, happening at unprecedented rates are bullshit...and your claims that it is due to our CO2 are also bullshit...in fact, all you seem to have is bullshit piled upon bullshit.

 

[SSDD]

4.7 billion dollars in grant money in the U.S. alone.....

Stupidity on stupidity. The global warming 'scare' began about 1820, when Fourier pointed out that something in the atmosphere was absorbing outgoing heat. That was confirmed in 1859 when Tyndall measured the absorption of IR by the GHGs in the atmosphere. Arrhenius quantified the amount of warming that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would create in 1896. Keeling started measuring the CO2 in 1957 on Mauna Loa. Now there are CO2 measuring stations all over the world recording the increase.

So now you admitting 1820?


Way before there was official records, way before any way man could of done it?

Yup Judith and the rest were right.


Science totally ignores the natural variations

Lordy, what a ******* fool you are. Totally ignorant of basic science.

Why we know about the greenhouse gas effect

Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect. Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, asked what seems to be a simple question: why doesn’t the planet keep heating up as it receives sunlight? What is regulating our atmospheric temperature?




Joseph Fourier: bane of countless physics and engineering students.



Knowing that heated surfaces emit radiation (thermal energy), Fourier reasoned that the Earth would emit radiation absorbed by the Sun back into space – resulting in an icy planet. There must be something regulating the temperature – emitting enough thermal energy to keep the planet from freezing and overheating. Not too hot, not too cold.

Fourier’s answer to these questions is formalized in what we now call the greenhouse gas effect. From the American Institute of Physics history of climate change page:



How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape. This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that's less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect.

Again you don't even see it do you, you admitted that it started to happen before we put C02 with any amount of significance in the atmosphere..

.


.

Crap. It is really hard conversing with people as blind ignorant as you. Were there not the GHGs in the air, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. At 180 ppm, the continental glaciers were south of our northern border. At 280 ppm, we are in the current interglacial. Now we are passing 410+ ppm. Were we to remain at just that level the Arctic would have no sea ice in the summer, and Greenland and Antarctica would have mountain glaciers, not a continental ice cap. But we will not stay at that level. We may double that before this century is out. And we really don't know what kind of results that will have, other than by present events, they will be a negative for most of humanity.

Not true rocks...only the most profound sort of idiot would believe that radiative gasses would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself...the earth would be warmer without the so called greenhouse gasses as it would have to depend entirely on conviction and conduction to cool itself.

 

[Crick]

Please explain to us how the Earth loses heat through convEction or conduction.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, I think he meant conviction. After all, the Earth just knows it has to lose heat because the great SSo DDumb said it has to.

 

[SSDD]

Please explain to us how the Earth loses heat through convEction or conduction.

So you ever think crick?....Ever? Ask yourself how the gas giants do it...they have no appreciable amount of radiative gas within their atmosphere and yet, they manage to shed heat. How do they do it without a significant amount of radiative gas in their atmospheres?

 

[SSDD]

Oh, I think he meant conviction. After all, the Earth just knows it has to lose heat because the great SSo DDumb said it has to.

Still waiting for you to tell me all about those intelligent particles and why they feel the need to behave differently when they are being observed than when they aren't being observed...and I am particularly interested in hearing about how they know they are being observed in the first place. Lets hear it rocks...tell us all about it.

My contention is that photons behave the way they do because they must...you believe that simply looking at particles prompts them to behave differently...which of us actually believes in intelligent particles?

 

[Crick]

I'm still waiting to hear you explain how the Earth loses ANY heat through convection or conduction. There's the small issue of the vacuum surrounding us...

And wait, let me guess, you think that science believes that non-GHG gases don't radiate at all?

God are you stupid.

 

[IanC]

Oh, I think he meant conviction. After all, the Earth just knows it has to lose heat because the great SSo DDumb said it has to.

Still waiting for you to tell me all about those intelligent particles and why they feel the need to behave differently when they are being observed than when they aren't being observed...and I am particularly interested in hearing about how they know they are being observed in the first place. Lets hear it rocks...tell us all about it.

My contention is that photons behave the way they do because they must...you believe that simply looking at particles prompts them to behave differently...which of us actually believes in intelligent particles?

Seems to me that you ignored the answer to that very question when I made the effort to explain it to you.