how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[PMZ]

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

I bolded the part you pulled out of your butt socko...

First there is no "passive" body involved. Everything radiates some amount of energy. Absolute zero is the idealized temperature in which all entropy stops. Well so far we can't get to that temperature. So your "passive" claim is ignorant...

It seems like you were trying to describe equilibrium or black body radiation but doing so like an idiot who knows nothing of either one..

Now where in any of that nonsense did you state anything real or true? Not a single sentence was either fundamentally,or generally factual or correct to any degree.

You just wasted everyone's time and my patience...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

Thanks, we needed another internet scientist... Moron..

What temperature do you think the earth would be without the sun? The fourth power of that, compared to the fourth power of 288K (present av temp) is the degree to which it's not passive. The estimates that I've seen of earth temp w/o sun range down to 15K or so.

I don't know if your math knowledge is as limited as your science knowledge but take my word for it that is extremely close to passive.

Not that it matters much. My example still holds true.

I hope that some day you'll explain to us why someone as ill equipped as you are feels entitled to be on an equal footing with some of the most accomplished scientists of our time.

It's bizarre.

 

[PMZ]

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

But American conservatism is not an economic movement. Conservatism is a concept demanding liberty and exercise of what we believe are God given unalienable rights that of course include economics as well as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Conservatives are pretty darn gung ho about the right to their liberty, their choices, their options, and their opportunities without interference from climate religionists or anybody else who may be operating from a perspective of bogus or flawed science. Most especially any bogus or flawed science that is deliberately being imposed upon us in order to take away our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities.

Conservatives care about climate, about the environment, about quality of life, about the prosperity and/or lack thereof of humans everywhere every bit as much as any othe people do. In fact I am pretty darn conservative and you won't find many people as interested or as passionate about environment, climate science, and other Earth sciences as I am.

You offer no evidence that "Conservatives care about climate, about the environment, about quality of life, about the prosperity and/or lack thereof of humans everywhere every bit as much as any othe people do." Let me say that my observations from many years in the world of posting conflict with your statement.

By my reckoning though the climate change issue is less about caring and more about knowledge. The continued denial of settled science. It's just not possible for people with college level science to interpret all of the published data in any way that doesn't make getting off of fossil fuels an imperative over the time that it will take.

So, the question is why? Why would anyone take the stand that conservatives do in the face of the evidence?

 

[flacaltenn]

Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.

In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.

The century of the fossil fuel is over. Like most everything conservative we've found that the true cost of fossil fuels is completely unaffordable. The wars to maintain our supply.The recovery from extreme weather. The environmental damages. Plus the fact that we've used up all of the good stuff leaving only expensive to get low quality dregs behind. And burning what's left is the lowest value use of the resource.

So, step one is continuing the process of rendering conservatives impotent in politics. Fortunately they are helping Americans in that process.

Then, we build on the rapidly growing base of both private and publicly funded projects that each chip away at the problem.

We have good leadership today, good science, a recovering private sector with visionary capitalists. We have the majority of voters.

Let conservatism continue its raucous path to extinction and the recovery from America's own dark ages will continue.

Pretty much off topic self-projection there PMZ.. But since you ran this off into the weeds with no hint of where we go after the "Age of fossil fuels" is over--- where did you get this "control freak" gene you describe???

I mean the obvious one that makes leftists want to dictate what car we drive, how many sheets of T.P. to use, when to turn on our lights, how to design our toilets, what to eat, when to eat, how much to eat, and .... . imbues them with a sense of ENTITLEMENT to all of our stuff???

Funny how the advertisment always secretly hints at the weakness of the sponsor....

It's one thing to believe that the government of, by, and for the people can participate in the solution of national problems, it's another to assume that we can bend science to our will. Science is not about pleasing the human race, it's about what is.

What does THAT have to do with your obvious propensity to want to CONTROL all aspects of peoples lives?? Do you somehow believe that control and removing choices is the essence of "of, by and for the people"? Do you think that MANDATES and edicts are because I'm too science ignorant to buy the proper lightbulb or not drown myself in a Big Gulp or to protect myself from your EPA screw-ups like MTBE or Ethanol or declaring CO2 a pollutant?

you're a good dancer.. don't know if you can do anything else..

 

[PMZ]

Pretty much off topic self-projection there PMZ.. But since you ran this off into the weeds with no hint of where we go after the "Age of fossil fuels" is over--- where did you get this "control freak" gene you describe???

I mean the obvious one that makes leftists want to dictate what car we drive, how many sheets of T.P. to use, when to turn on our lights, how to design our toilets, what to eat, when to eat, how much to eat, and .... . imbues them with a sense of ENTITLEMENT to all of our stuff???

Funny how the advertisment always secretly hints at the weakness of the sponsor....

It's one thing to believe that the government of, by, and for the people can participate in the solution of national problems, it's another to assume that we can bend science to our will. Science is not about pleasing the human race, it's about what is.

What does THAT have to do with your obvious propensity to want to CONTROL all aspects of peoples lives?? Do you somehow believe that control and removing choices is the essence of "of, by and for the people"? Do you think that MANDATES and edicts are because I'm too science ignorant to buy the proper lightbulb or not drown myself in a Big Gulp or to protect myself from your EPA screw-ups like MTBE or Ethanol or declaring CO2 a pollutant?

you're a good dancer.. don't know if you can do anything else..

First, I have no idea about you personally.

Second, if I have to pay for the consequences of other people's poor judgement, yes, I think that I should have a say in their behavior. That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens.

Freedom to me means free from the impact of others, especially irresponsible others, on my life. I choose to live responsibly so the laws that make make me free that way, have no consequences to my life. I choose to live in ways that don't require others to clean up after me.

The contract that I have with my government prevents them from legislating my behavior in specific areas detailed in the Bill of Rights. None of that has changed one iota over my 70 years.

People who, out of ignorance, choose to contribute to the problem of AGW, and refuse to participate in the solution to those problems, cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives every year for wars maintaining our sources and clean up from extreme weather. That's a huge imposition on responsible citizens who pay the majority of those bills.

 

[westwall]

Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.

In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.

The century of the fossil fuel is over. Like most everything conservative we've found that the true cost of fossil fuels is completely unaffordable. The wars to maintain our supply.The recovery from extreme weather. The environmental damages. Plus the fact that we've used up all of the good stuff leaving only expensive to get low quality dregs behind. And burning what's left is the lowest value use of the resource.

So, step one is continuing the process of rendering conservatives impotent in politics. Fortunately they are helping Americans in that process.

Then, we build on the rapidly growing base of both private and publicly funded projects that each chip away at the problem.

We have good leadership today, good science, a recovering private sector with visionary capitalists. We have the majority of voters.

Let conservatism continue its raucous path to extinction and the recovery from America's own dark ages will continue.

How about that "entitlement" gene, you know the one where lazy folks feel they are entitled to the money earned by others?

 

[westwall]

The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they? But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?

I think it was yesterday I posted the project of Conoco Phillips, in cooperation with Tyson Foods, that is investing mega milions, probably billions, in production of biofuels made from animal fat. All the oil companies manufacturing ethanol are being heavily subsidized and making huge profits even as they admit ethanol is not energy efficient nor cost effective nor does it significantly lower greenhouse gasses. Chevron recently unveiled the world’s largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia. Why would Exxon try to deliberately discredit global warming after making a huge mega million dollar investment in algae-based biofuels?

Admittedly oil companies are taking full advantage of tax payers money directed to green energy projects, but unlike so many of the so-called investments like Solyndra that go belly up after a fairly short time, the oil companies aren't going to do something they don't believe will result in a usable product and profit for them.

It is a pretty safe bet that oil company dollars going to research are not going to any effort to do bogus research or to discredit global warming.

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

What conservative "denial" of science? The only science deniers i see are the AGW proponents who refuse to let papers that are unsupportive of AGW "theory" get published.

They are universally liberal. So if you are asking what is driving the LIBERAL denial of science I would say money and power.

 

[mamooth]

And I accused nobody of being anybody's sock.

And a day later ...

Well it's tough work remembering who you are supposed to be from day to day.

Poor Fox is encountering the same problem that trips up all my other psychostalkers. They keep losing track of exactly which lies they've told, and so they end up contradicting themselves. (That's why I always just stick with the truth. Much easier on the memory.)

So Fox, can you settle on a single position? Am I a sock, or am I not?

By the way, are you officially taking the Manitoban bullshitter's spot in my psychostalkers group? He seems semi-retired, so they've got an opening. I just need to know whether to put you on the mailing list for the activities calendar. We've got a summer mixer coming up, which should be a lot of fun.

 

[polarbear]

Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.

Just a minute there IanC. I do know the difference !
I was the one who said that CO2 absorbs 15 µm IR and the re-despirses it in all possible directions. So sayeth also all the equations when they factor in "sr", the "solid angle".
And it is the IPCC that says that a portion of the re-dispersed 15 µm IR heats planet earth...so does Hansen, so does Roy Spencer and so did you only weeks ago.
Now you start "morphing" your statements away from that and have me "not understand the difference"....in true liberal fashion I might add !
Need I dig up again what you said when I put a thermistor in the focal point of a 6 inch reflector telescope and pointed it at a window pane that was at room temperature and at a -20 C cold country side ?
Need I dig up what you said to SSDD when he linked you to some "solar refrigerator" web pages ?
You know damn well what I said and what you have been saying...
So does everybody else who has been on this subject.

I wish you would go back and read those threads over again, and actually read my comments rather than work from your faulty memory of what you think I said. BTW, I totally pwned you on that subject. please.....dredge it up again.

You "totally pawned" me? And now I`m supposed to spend all day and "dredge up" all the b.s. you wrote? .."rather than work from my faulty memory"...??
You are shit out of luck there, because
a.) my memory is not faulty and
b.) Your bullshit is all over the place, in fact there is so much of it that it`s hard to ignore it.
Let me refresh your faulty memory with some samples of what you said:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-91.html#post7150587

The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).
here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-
Without the gasses all those photons would shoot off through the atmosphere intop space. But the GHG molecules absorb some and then radiate some of the ones they absorb back towards the earth. It doesn’t matter if they’re cooler
SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2

And now you say that they don`t, after I showed you several times :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-90.html#post7144116

[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]

Your answer was:

you realize this post infuriates me, right?

is the Daly quote something that you just found? I have been saying for years that the CO2 effect is real

Not only that but you went ballistic if anybody debunked Spencer`s "Yes Virginia ", the same argument your beloved Hansen makes....objects getting hotter with the back radiation from cooler objects.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-92.html#post7155354

how odd.....I find that Spencer's arguments are always stronger. not only that but he keeps trying to attack the problem from different sides to give detractors yet another opportunity to see the light.
you can magnify and direct sunlight, or output from a point source but you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any appreciable extent at ambient temperatures.

Every post that you made so far shows that you are a total physics dimwit
So how the fck. do you "magnify sunlight" ?
That tells me that you still don`t have clue what the difference between power and energy is.
If I focus the number of watts that 1 m^2 receives from the sun on 1 cm^2 it is still the same amount of watts as it was before when it was spread out over 1 m^2

but you cannot magnify diffuse radiation from the surface or the sky to any appreciable extent at ambient temperatures.

No I can`t "magnify" diffused light it unless I use a photon multiplier like we do in state of the art spectrophotometers, but "mamooth" apparently can, just by painting the walls of a room white.
And you used the same idiotic mechanism to defend Spencer and Hansen over and over again.
But you have no idea how to explain it.
As soon as you get cornered by somebody who does know physics, then you got "back radiation" from a cooler object and if you boxed yourself into another corner then you start denying your "back radiation" and call it something else, like a "radiation imbalance"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-80.html#post7127507

therefore the object heats up when the solar oven is pointed at the sun, and the object cools down when pointed at the night time sky. all due to the imbalance of radiation. what could be more simple? how could you misunderstand that?

When you blabbered about photons from a distant red star heating up a white star it was even more ridiculous than that.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7127960

You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient.
Backradiation simply is not happening.

Then all over sudden back radiation is happening again:

The whole CO2 greenhouse theory thing has flared up again at Roy Spencer's blog (and WUWT).
here is one of the comments. it describes my position almost exactly-
Without the gasses all those photons would shoot off through the atmosphere intop space. But the GHG molecules absorb some and then radiate some of the ones they absorb back towards the earth. It doesn’t matter if they’re cooler
SSDD hurts the cause of Climate Skeptics by being so wrong headed. the Slayers hurt the cause by denying CO2

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-93.html#post7159225

H2O molecules absorb most bands of IR radiation from the surface (or elsewhere) and re-radiate it in a random direction just like CO2.
do the SLoTers also deny that atmospheric H2O is capable of capturing and diffusing surface IR, or reflecting it downwards from clouds?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7128506

there is a significant chance that the cooler object may radiate a higher energy photon at the warmer object than the warmer object sends back at the cooler one.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7120214

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7120532

you 'back radiation' deniers jump from being too literal, to too general, and confuse one aspect with another.

Somebody should actually go into the other threads and collect your bullshit the way we did with "numan", "Saigon" and the mamooth bullshitter, but there is enough of it just in this thread alone.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-38.html#post7034925

Does simplified mean entirely different to you? The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and thereby warming the surface of the earth more than the sun alone could manage.

while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?

the other significant point is that solar radiation is shortwave and highly ordered. the IR radiation both from the surface and the atmosphere is disordered and incapable of doing work because there is no appreciable temperature differential.

You don`t even comprehend Trenberth`s version for dummies,
which shows "radiative heat transfer" as 396 from the ground up and 333 watts back radiating and ask 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?

Hasn`t it dawned on you that once you get to the top of the atmosphere that the only way (heat) energy can be shed is by radiation...only a complete idiot would add "17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493."

Reading the rest of your crap it becomes abundantly clear that you do qualify as a idiot when it comes to physics.

you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions.

In addition to "back radiation on or off" you also got "impeded radiation" and "forbidden radiation"...in "certain directions" and "reactive photons"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-65.html#post7102160

reactive photons (force carriers for electromagnetic fields), only become real if there is a particle of matter able to accept it.

interference patterns along a vector from one star to another only exist if you measure them with, you guessed it, a detector made of matter

You surpassed all the other bullshitters with that one. Electromagnetic waves cancel out if they are 180 degrees out of phase no matter if you stand in that spot with a detector or if that spot is vacant of any matter.
And that spot where they are 180 degrees out of phase does not move unless the source that emitted the light moved.

It should have dawned on you that you know nothing about physics and can`t even understand what your own "wikipedia physics lessons" ...seeing that the only people that agree with you are total dimwits:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-74.html#post7117247

Very well said, Ian.

You are obviously someone who knows something about physics and who has some respect for truth -- unlike the Denialist chatterbots which are programmed to lie, distort, insult and obfuscate. Why in the world are you consorting with such mindless devices?

 

[mamooth]

No I can`t "magnify" diffused light it unless I use a photon multiplier like we do in state of the art spectrophotometers, but "mamooth" apparently can, just by painting the walls of a room white.

Wow. You're _still_ claiming a white room isn't brighter than a black room with the same illumination source.

You don't do logic well, thus you usually fail hard at problem setup. You do numbers okay, but since the setup is wrong, the numbers end up being nonsense. "Garbage in, garbage out" basically describes all of your numerical calculations.

 

[PMZ]

Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.

In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.

The century of the fossil fuel is over. Like most everything conservative we've found that the true cost of fossil fuels is completely unaffordable. The wars to maintain our supply.The recovery from extreme weather. The environmental damages. Plus the fact that we've used up all of the good stuff leaving only expensive to get low quality dregs behind. And burning what's left is the lowest value use of the resource.

So, step one is continuing the process of rendering conservatives impotent in politics. Fortunately they are helping Americans in that process.

Then, we build on the rapidly growing base of both private and publicly funded projects that each chip away at the problem.

We have good leadership today, good science, a recovering private sector with visionary capitalists. We have the majority of voters.

Let conservatism continue its raucous path to extinction and the recovery from America's own dark ages will continue.

How about that "entitlement" gene, you know the one where lazy folks feel they are entitled to the money earned by others?

I think that irresponsible people all have an entitlement gene. Some are poor. Some are wealthy. Some are ignorant. Some are educated. Some are lazy. Some work hard on helping themselves to the work of others.

But, what they have in common is that they are criminals and we pay lots of money to law enforcement to increase the odds that they pay the proscribed consequences for their crime.

The ones that I worry about least are the poor as they cost us the least. One criminal CEO costs us more than thousands of poor. Plus, people don't choose poverty if they have a choice.

 

[westwall]

Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.

In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.

The century of the fossil fuel is over. Like most everything conservative we've found that the true cost of fossil fuels is completely unaffordable. The wars to maintain our supply.The recovery from extreme weather. The environmental damages. Plus the fact that we've used up all of the good stuff leaving only expensive to get low quality dregs behind. And burning what's left is the lowest value use of the resource.

So, step one is continuing the process of rendering conservatives impotent in politics. Fortunately they are helping Americans in that process.

Then, we build on the rapidly growing base of both private and publicly funded projects that each chip away at the problem.

We have good leadership today, good science, a recovering private sector with visionary capitalists. We have the majority of voters.

Let conservatism continue its raucous path to extinction and the recovery from America's own dark ages will continue.

How about that "entitlement" gene, you know the one where lazy folks feel they are entitled to the money earned by others?

I think that irresponsible people all have an entitlement gene. Some are poor. Some are wealthy. Some are ignorant. Some are educated. Some are lazy. Some work hard on helping themselves to the work of others.

But, what they have in common is that they are criminals and we pay lots of money to law enforcement to increase the odds that they pay the proscribed consequences for their crime.

The ones that I worry about least are the poor as they cost us the least. One criminal CEO costs us more than thousands of poor. Plus, people don't choose poverty if they have a choice.

There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before. One criminal CEO costs us millions. The BILLIONS we are spending on entitlements are killing this country very quickly. I agree that CEO's for the most part are greatly overpaid. Just like I think that firefighters are greatly overpaid, city managers, or how about those stage hands at Carnegie Hall who are paid 400,000 per year. I think they're pretty grossly overpaid too.

This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants".

 

[PMZ]

How about that "entitlement" gene, you know the one where lazy folks feel they are entitled to the money earned by others?

I think that irresponsible people all have an entitlement gene. Some are poor. Some are wealthy. Some are ignorant. Some are educated. Some are lazy. Some work hard on helping themselves to the work of others.

But, what they have in common is that they are criminals and we pay lots of money to law enforcement to increase the odds that they pay the proscribed consequences for their crime.

The ones that I worry about least are the poor as they cost us the least. One criminal CEO costs us more than thousands of poor. Plus, people don't choose poverty if they have a choice.

There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before. One criminal CEO costs us millions. The BILLIONS we are spending on entitlements are killing this country very quickly. I agree that CEO's for the most part are greatly overpaid. Just like I think that firefighters are greatly overpaid, city managers, or how about those stage hands at Carnegie Hall who are paid 400,000 per year. I think they're pretty grossly overpaid too.

This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants".

"There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before."

They are called unemployed. The reason that they are unemployed is that their jobs were filled with cheap foreign labor recruited here or jobs sent there by executives in exchange for monumental bonuses. I guess that they felt entitled. And you said that entitled CEO's don't cost us much.

It's a good thing that we borrowed the money to make up for all of the consumerism that went away with the jobs because now we are leading the civilized world in recovery from Bush's Great Resession and the deficit is dropping like a rock.

"This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants"."

The data shows that the whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are "wealthy".

 

[gslack]

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

I bolded the part you pulled out of your butt socko...

First there is no "passive" body involved. Everything radiates some amount of energy. Absolute zero is the idealized temperature in which all entropy stops. Well so far we can't get to that temperature. So your "passive" claim is ignorant...

It seems like you were trying to describe equilibrium or black body radiation but doing so like an idiot who knows nothing of either one..

Now where in any of that nonsense did you state anything real or true? Not a single sentence was either fundamentally,or generally factual or correct to any degree.

You just wasted everyone's time and my patience...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

Thanks, we needed another internet scientist... Moron..

What temperature do you think the earth would be without the sun? The fourth power of that, compared to the fourth power of 288K (present av temp) is the degree to which it's not passive. The estimates that I've seen of earth temp w/o sun range down to 15K or so.

I don't know if your math knowledge is as limited as your science knowledge but take my word for it that is extremely close to passive.

Not that it matters much. My example still holds true.

I hope that some day you'll explain to us why someone as ill equipped as you are feels entitled to be on an equal footing with some of the most accomplished scientists of our time.

It's bizarre.

LOL, there is no such thing as "passive" in regards to entropy dumbass. Jesus man.. Everything is effected. Absolute zero is an idealized temperature where entropy stops. IDEALIZED, meaning it is a hypothetical, hypothetical as in not real or at least we haven't been able to prove it's existence yet.

You have some wacky concept of entropy or black-body radiation that not only is not true, but complete make-believe.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black-body radiation is the type of electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, or emitted by a black body (an opaque and non-reflective body) held at constant, uniform temperature. The radiation has a specific spectrum and intensity that depends only on the temperature of the body.[1][2][3][4]
A perfectly insulated enclosure that is in thermal equilibrium internally contains black-body radiation and will emit it through a hole made in its wall, provided the hole is small enough to have negligible effect upon the equilibrium.
A black-body at room temperature appears black, as most of the energy it radiates is infra-red and cannot be perceived by the human eye. At higher temperatures, black bodies glow with increasing intensity and colors that range from dull red to blindingly brilliant blue-white as the temperature increases.
Although planets and stars are neither in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings nor perfect black bodies, black-body radiation is used as a first approximation for the energy they emit.[5] Black holes are near-perfect black bodies, and it is believed that they emit black-body radiation (called Hawking radiation), with a temperature that depends on the mass of the hole.[6]

Or is it your concept of thermal equilibrium that is nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium

In physics, the phrase thermal equilibrium is used sometimes in the common parlance of the ordinary language of physical discourse, and sometimes as a specialized technical term in thermodynamics.
As common parlance, the phrase refers to steady states of temperature, which may be spatial or temporal. The meaning varies from occasion to occasion, as with all ordinary language usages.
Thermal equilibrium as a technical term in thermodynamics can also be used in two senses. One sense is that of thermal equilibrium within a system for itself. The other sense is that of a relation between the respective physical states of two bodies. Thermal equilibrium in a system for itself means that the temperature within the system is spatially and temporally uniform. Thermal equilibrium as a relation between the physical states of two bodies means that there is actual or implied thermal connection between them, through a path that is permeable only to heat, and that no energy is transferred through that path. This technical sense is concerned with the theory of the definition of temperature.

So you are discussing equilibrium? Fine then I assume you know the difference between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium then?

There is an important distinction between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium. According to Münster (1970), in states of thermodynamic equilibrium, the state variables of a system do not change at a measurable rate. Moreover, "The proviso 'at a measurable rate' implies that we can consider an equilibrium only with respect to specified processes and defined experimental conditions." Also, a state of thermodynamic equilibrium can be described by fewer macroscopic variables than any other state of a given body of matter. A single isolated body can start in a state which is not one of thermodynamic equilibrium, and can change till thermodynamic equilibrium is reached. Thermal equilibrium is a relation between two bodies or closed systems, in which transfers are allowed only of energy and take place through a partition permeable to heat, and in which the transfers have proceeded till the states of the bodies cease to change.[15]
An explicit distinction between 'thermal equilibrium' and 'thermodynamic equilibrium' is made by C.J. Adkins. He allows that two systems might be allowed to exchange heat but be constrained from exchanging work; they will naturally exchange heat till they have equal temperatures, and reach thermal equilibrium, but in general will not be in thermodynamic equilibrium. They can reach thermodynamic equilibrium when they are allowed also to exchange work.[16]
Another explicit distinction between 'thermal equilibrium' and 'thermodynamic equilibrium' is made by B. C. Eu. He considers two systems in thermal contact, one a thermometer, the other a system in which several irreversible processes are occurring. He considers the case in which, over the time scale of interest, it happens that both the thermometer reading and the irreversible processes are steady. Then there is thermal equilibrium without thermodynamic equilibrium. Eu proposes consequently that the zeroth law of thermodynamics can be considered to apply even when thermodynamic equilibrium is not present; also he proposes that if changes are occurring so fast that a steady temperature cannot be defined, then "it is no longer possible to describe the process by means of a thermodynamic formalism. In other words, thermodynamics has no meaning for such a process."[17]

Now as you can see there is more to this than pulling random numbers off a AGW blog and shouting...

I did some checking and found where you got your numbers from... It's part of Boltzmann's work and you are incorrectly trying to get it across. LOL, no idea what you're actually talking about are you?

That's why all the vague circle talk. ROFL,it's okay socko we didn't expect anything more from you..

BOTLZMANN numbnuts...

Stefan?Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body irradiance or emissive power), , is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

Idiot..LOL, it gets better...

As a result, the Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (15 °C), which is higher than the 255 K effective temperature, and even higher than the 279 K temperature that a black body would have.

Does that look familiar? It should it's what you just tried to say but unlike you it was accurately used.. Here's the first line of what you just tried to cut and paste incorrectly as your own..

Temperature of the Earth [edit]
Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth TE by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation. The amount of power, ES, emitted by the Sun is given by:

Yes approximation, meaning its a best guess using what we currently believe based on current knowledge...

Next time you want to cite somebody else's work cite them accurately, and if you aren't at least try and use it correctly socko...

Damn you internet fake scientists get dumber and dumber every day..

 

[PMZ]

I bolded the part you pulled out of your butt socko...

First there is no "passive" body involved. Everything radiates some amount of energy. Absolute zero is the idealized temperature in which all entropy stops. Well so far we can't get to that temperature. So your "passive" claim is ignorant...

It seems like you were trying to describe equilibrium or black body radiation but doing so like an idiot who knows nothing of either one..

Now where in any of that nonsense did you state anything real or true? Not a single sentence was either fundamentally,or generally factual or correct to any degree.

You just wasted everyone's time and my patience...

Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube

Thanks, we needed another internet scientist... Moron..

What temperature do you think the earth would be without the sun? The fourth power of that, compared to the fourth power of 288K (present av temp) is the degree to which it's not passive. The estimates that I've seen of earth temp w/o sun range down to 15K or so.

I don't know if your math knowledge is as limited as your science knowledge but take my word for it that is extremely close to passive.

Not that it matters much. My example still holds true.

I hope that some day you'll explain to us why someone as ill equipped as you are feels entitled to be on an equal footing with some of the most accomplished scientists of our time.

It's bizarre.

LOL, there is no such thing as "passive" in regards to entropy dumbass. Jesus man.. Everything is effected. Absolute zero is an idealized temperature where entropy stops. IDEALIZED, meaning it is a hypothetical, hypothetical as in not real or at least we haven't been able to prove it's existence yet.

You have some wacky concept of entropy or black-body radiation that not only is not true, but complete make-believe.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Or is it your concept of thermal equilibrium that is nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium



So you are discussing equilibrium? Fine then I assume you know the difference between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium then?



Now as you can see there is more to this than pulling random numbers off a AGW blog and shouting...

I did some checking and found where you got your numbers from... It's part of Boltzmann's work and you are incorrectly trying to get it across. LOL, no idea what you're actually talking about are you?

That's why all the vague circle talk. ROFL,it's okay socko we didn't expect anything more from you..

BOTLZMANN numbnuts...

Stefan?Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Idiot..LOL, it gets better...

As a result, the Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (15 °C), which is higher than the 255 K effective temperature, and even higher than the 279 K temperature that a black body would have.

Does that look familiar? It should it's what you just tried to say but unlike you it was accurately used.. Here's the first line of what you just tried to cut and paste incorrectly as your own..

Temperature of the Earth [edit]
Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth TE by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation. The amount of power, ES, emitted by the Sun is given by:

Yes approximation, meaning its a best guess using what we currently believe based on current knowledge...

Next time you want to cite somebody else's work cite them accurately, and if you aren't at least try and use it correctly socko...

Damn you internet fake scientists get dumber and dumber every day..

My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks.

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs.

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance.

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.

 

[westwall]

I think that irresponsible people all have an entitlement gene. Some are poor. Some are wealthy. Some are ignorant. Some are educated. Some are lazy. Some work hard on helping themselves to the work of others.

But, what they have in common is that they are criminals and we pay lots of money to law enforcement to increase the odds that they pay the proscribed consequences for their crime.

The ones that I worry about least are the poor as they cost us the least. One criminal CEO costs us more than thousands of poor. Plus, people don't choose poverty if they have a choice.

There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before. One criminal CEO costs us millions. The BILLIONS we are spending on entitlements are killing this country very quickly. I agree that CEO's for the most part are greatly overpaid. Just like I think that firefighters are greatly overpaid, city managers, or how about those stage hands at Carnegie Hall who are paid 400,000 per year. I think they're pretty grossly overpaid too.

This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants".

"There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before."

They are called unemployed. The reason that they are unemployed is that their jobs were filled with cheap foreign labor recruited here or jobs sent there by executives in exchange for monumental bonuses. I guess that they felt entitled. And you said that entitled CEO's don't cost us much.

It's a good thing that we borrowed the money to make up for all of the consumerism that went away with the jobs because now we are leading the civilized world in recovery from Bush's Great Resession and the deficit is dropping like a rock.

"This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants"."

The data shows that the whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are "wealthy".

Ohhhhh you mean the illegal aliens really DO have a negative effect on our economy. Good to see you come around.

 

[westwall]

What temperature do you think the earth would be without the sun? The fourth power of that, compared to the fourth power of 288K (present av temp) is the degree to which it's not passive. The estimates that I've seen of earth temp w/o sun range down to 15K or so.

I don't know if your math knowledge is as limited as your science knowledge but take my word for it that is extremely close to passive.

Not that it matters much. My example still holds true.

I hope that some day you'll explain to us why someone as ill equipped as you are feels entitled to be on an equal footing with some of the most accomplished scientists of our time.

It's bizarre.

LOL, there is no such thing as "passive" in regards to entropy dumbass. Jesus man.. Everything is effected. Absolute zero is an idealized temperature where entropy stops. IDEALIZED, meaning it is a hypothetical, hypothetical as in not real or at least we haven't been able to prove it's existence yet.

You have some wacky concept of entropy or black-body radiation that not only is not true, but complete make-believe.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Or is it your concept of thermal equilibrium that is nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium



So you are discussing equilibrium? Fine then I assume you know the difference between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium then?



Now as you can see there is more to this than pulling random numbers off a AGW blog and shouting...

I did some checking and found where you got your numbers from... It's part of Boltzmann's work and you are incorrectly trying to get it across. LOL, no idea what you're actually talking about are you?

That's why all the vague circle talk. ROFL,it's okay socko we didn't expect anything more from you..

BOTLZMANN numbnuts...

Stefan?Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Idiot..LOL, it gets better...



Does that look familiar? It should it's what you just tried to say but unlike you it was accurately used.. Here's the first line of what you just tried to cut and paste incorrectly as your own..

Temperature of the Earth [edit]
Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth TE by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation. The amount of power, ES, emitted by the Sun is given by:

Yes approximation, meaning its a best guess using what we currently believe based on current knowledge...

Next time you want to cite somebody else's work cite them accurately, and if you aren't at least try and use it correctly socko...

Damn you internet fake scientists get dumber and dumber every day..

My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks.

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs.

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance.

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.

It is my understanding that those who know nothing only speak in generalities because they don't understand the complex inter-relations of the various chemical and physical operations that occur in this amazingly complex world.

That way when they **** up let's say thousands of water wells in CA in a misbegotten attempt to clean the air, they can throw their hands up in the air and say "well our goal was good but the details were so complex no one could understand them"....which is patently ridiculous because we SCIENTISTS told them MTBE was bad.

They ignored us and did more environmental damage in 10 years than all the oil companies have in the last 40.

GOOD JOB MORONS!

 

[PMZ]

There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before. One criminal CEO costs us millions. The BILLIONS we are spending on entitlements are killing this country very quickly. I agree that CEO's for the most part are greatly overpaid. Just like I think that firefighters are greatly overpaid, city managers, or how about those stage hands at Carnegie Hall who are paid 400,000 per year. I think they're pretty grossly overpaid too.

This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants".

"There are more people getting entitlements now then ever before."

They are called unemployed. The reason that they are unemployed is that their jobs were filled with cheap foreign labor recruited here or jobs sent there by executives in exchange for monumental bonuses. I guess that they felt entitled. And you said that entitled CEO's don't cost us much.

It's a good thing that we borrowed the money to make up for all of the consumerism that went away with the jobs because now we are leading the civilized world in recovery from Bush's Great Resession and the deficit is dropping like a rock.

"This whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are public "servants"."

The data shows that the whole country has loads of people who are overpaid and the majority of them are "wealthy".

Ohhhhh you mean the illegal aliens really DO have a negative effect on our economy. Good to see you come around.

Come around to what? That business recruiting cheap foreign labor here to replace American workers is bad for the economy? Who would disagree?

 

[gslack]

What temperature do you think the earth would be without the sun? The fourth power of that, compared to the fourth power of 288K (present av temp) is the degree to which it's not passive. The estimates that I've seen of earth temp w/o sun range down to 15K or so.

I don't know if your math knowledge is as limited as your science knowledge but take my word for it that is extremely close to passive.

Not that it matters much. My example still holds true.

I hope that some day you'll explain to us why someone as ill equipped as you are feels entitled to be on an equal footing with some of the most accomplished scientists of our time.

It's bizarre.

LOL, there is no such thing as "passive" in regards to entropy dumbass. Jesus man.. Everything is effected. Absolute zero is an idealized temperature where entropy stops. IDEALIZED, meaning it is a hypothetical, hypothetical as in not real or at least we haven't been able to prove it's existence yet.

You have some wacky concept of entropy or black-body radiation that not only is not true, but complete make-believe.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Or is it your concept of thermal equilibrium that is nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium



So you are discussing equilibrium? Fine then I assume you know the difference between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium then?



Now as you can see there is more to this than pulling random numbers off a AGW blog and shouting...

I did some checking and found where you got your numbers from... It's part of Boltzmann's work and you are incorrectly trying to get it across. LOL, no idea what you're actually talking about are you?

That's why all the vague circle talk. ROFL,it's okay socko we didn't expect anything more from you..

BOTLZMANN numbnuts...

Stefan?Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Idiot..LOL, it gets better...



Does that look familiar? It should it's what you just tried to say but unlike you it was accurately used.. Here's the first line of what you just tried to cut and paste incorrectly as your own..

Temperature of the Earth [edit]
Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth TE by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation. The amount of power, ES, emitted by the Sun is given by:

Yes approximation, meaning its a best guess using what we currently believe based on current knowledge...

Next time you want to cite somebody else's work cite them accurately, and if you aren't at least try and use it correctly socko...

Damn you internet fake scientists get dumber and dumber every day..

My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks.

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs.

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance.

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.

And if BS and circle talk was going for 50 cents a pound you would be doing better than big oil...

So what? That wasn't in question schmuck what was in question was your application of the general knowledge. How does that correlate to AGW theory? What are you trying to actually say this time? Anything?

Are you saying that increased GH gas emissions increase reflectivity? Funny that would deny your previous claim as well as AGW theory in general due to the supposed ability of short wave EM radiation passing through GH gases relatively unhindered. So if it increases reflectivity now as you claim it cannot be transparent to short wave EM as per the theory now can it...

See dummy, no matter how much BS you try and cover it in, it's still meaningless in your incapable hands. You don't even understand your previous numbers or their significance do you? LOL, the fact is you pulled bits of boltzmann and read some drivel from some obscure blog, and tried to wing it.

here's a link to help you once again...

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude you really are just blindly winging it aren't you.... ROFL..

 

[PMZ]

LOL, there is no such thing as "passive" in regards to entropy dumbass. Jesus man.. Everything is effected. Absolute zero is an idealized temperature where entropy stops. IDEALIZED, meaning it is a hypothetical, hypothetical as in not real or at least we haven't been able to prove it's existence yet.

You have some wacky concept of entropy or black-body radiation that not only is not true, but complete make-believe.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Or is it your concept of thermal equilibrium that is nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium



So you are discussing equilibrium? Fine then I assume you know the difference between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium then?



Now as you can see there is more to this than pulling random numbers off a AGW blog and shouting...

I did some checking and found where you got your numbers from... It's part of Boltzmann's work and you are incorrectly trying to get it across. LOL, no idea what you're actually talking about are you?

That's why all the vague circle talk. ROFL,it's okay socko we didn't expect anything more from you..

BOTLZMANN numbnuts...

Stefan?Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Idiot..LOL, it gets better...



Does that look familiar? It should it's what you just tried to say but unlike you it was accurately used.. Here's the first line of what you just tried to cut and paste incorrectly as your own..



Yes approximation, meaning its a best guess using what we currently believe based on current knowledge...

Next time you want to cite somebody else's work cite them accurately, and if you aren't at least try and use it correctly socko...

Damn you internet fake scientists get dumber and dumber every day..

My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks.

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs.

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance.

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.

It is my understanding that those who know nothing only speak in generalities because they don't understand the complex inter-relations of the various chemical and physical operations that occur in this amazingly complex world.

That way when they **** up let's say thousands of water wells in CA in a misbegotten attempt to clean the air, they can throw their hands up in the air and say "well our goal was good but the details were so complex no one could understand them"....which is patently ridiculous because we SCIENTISTS told them MTBE was bad.

They ignored us and did more environmental damage in 10 years than all the oil companies have in the last 40.

GOOD JOB MORONS!

Did you agree or not?

 

[PMZ]

LOL, there is no such thing as "passive" in regards to entropy dumbass. Jesus man.. Everything is effected. Absolute zero is an idealized temperature where entropy stops. IDEALIZED, meaning it is a hypothetical, hypothetical as in not real or at least we haven't been able to prove it's existence yet.

You have some wacky concept of entropy or black-body radiation that not only is not true, but complete make-believe.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Or is it your concept of thermal equilibrium that is nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium



So you are discussing equilibrium? Fine then I assume you know the difference between thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium then?



Now as you can see there is more to this than pulling random numbers off a AGW blog and shouting...

I did some checking and found where you got your numbers from... It's part of Boltzmann's work and you are incorrectly trying to get it across. LOL, no idea what you're actually talking about are you?

That's why all the vague circle talk. ROFL,it's okay socko we didn't expect anything more from you..

BOTLZMANN numbnuts...

Stefan?Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Idiot..LOL, it gets better...



Does that look familiar? It should it's what you just tried to say but unlike you it was accurately used.. Here's the first line of what you just tried to cut and paste incorrectly as your own..



Yes approximation, meaning its a best guess using what we currently believe based on current knowledge...

Next time you want to cite somebody else's work cite them accurately, and if you aren't at least try and use it correctly socko...

Damn you internet fake scientists get dumber and dumber every day..

My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks.

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs.

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance.

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.

And if BS and circle talk was going for 50 cents a pound you would be doing better than big oil...

So what? That wasn't in question schmuck what was in question was your application of the general knowledge. How does that correlate to AGW theory? What are you trying to actually say this time? Anything?

Are you saying that increased GH gas emissions increase reflectivity? Funny that would deny your previous claim as well as AGW theory in general due to the supposed ability of short wave EM radiation passing through GH gases relatively unhindered. So if it increases reflectivity now as you claim it cannot be transparent to short wave EM as per the theory now can it...

See dummy, no matter how much BS you try and cover it in, it's still meaningless in your incapable hands. You don't even understand your previous numbers or their significance do you? LOL, the fact is you pulled bits of boltzmann and read some drivel from some obscure blog, and tried to wing it.

here's a link to help you once again...

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude you really are just blindly winging it aren't you.... ROFL..

Did you agree or not?