Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[PMZ]

SSDD -

Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

btw. I have a better vocabulary in 5 languages than you do in one - and I'd be delighted to prove it.

Actually the 2ond Law needs no defense. It just needs to be understood in the context of physics by those who have use for it. It still reigns supreme in its domain, which does not include quantum mechanics. At the atomic level other mechanics take over and other laws reign supreme there.

Just as people hire experts who know the laws of the land in more detail than laypersons, so expertise is required in understanding the laws of physics.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Are you calling rain radiation? Do you think rain is radiation Answer the question and prove that you are every bit the idiot that I think you are. Is rain radiation?

btw. I have a better vocabulary in 5 languages than you do in one - and I'd be delighted to prove it.

And yet, you don't know the definition of experiment...and now apparently radiation since you seem to be claiming that rain is radiation.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

btw. I have not referred to radiation in any of my comments, and won't be doing so.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Backradiation does not exist. The fact that you won't answer the question is in itself an answer. In making the claim that rain is radiation you have finally said something so stupid that even you know it is stupid.

btw. I have not referred to radiation in any of my comments, and won't be doing so.

Refer to your "experiment" idiot.

 

[PMZ]

The experiment from scienceofdoom.com that I posted demonstrates that GHGs behave exactly as science has predicted for the last century.

You're the last person on earth to know that.

 

[SSDD]

The experiment from scienceofdoom.com that I posted demonstrates that GHGs behave exactly as science has predicted for the last century.

You're the last person on earth to know that.

There was no experiment and nothing was demonstrated. Try learning something

 

[Saigon]

Backradiation does not exist.

Classic SSDD. There really is no evidence at all - not even an experiment you could perform yourselfin your owm backgarden - that could get those blinkers off your eyes, is there?

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that backradiation does exist.

What do you get out of ignoring obvious facts?

 

[SSDD]

Backradiation does not exist.

Classic SSDD. There really is no evidence at all - not even an experiment you could perform yourselfin your owm backgarden - that could get those blinkers off your eyes, is there?

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that backradiation does exist.

What do you get out of ignoring obvious facts?

There is an experiment that I can, and have performed in my back yard that would prove backradiation if it existed. You can do it as well for less than 25 dollars. Build yourself a small solar oven (I can provide plans). Aim it at clear sky on a sunny day. Place a thermometer at the focal point of the oven and watch the temperature decrease. If backradiation existed, the temperature would increase as it would be collecting backradiation.

Wait till nightfall when the temperature is above freezing but not more than 45 degrees F. Point your oven at clear sky and place a bowl of water at the focal point of the oven. Ice will form even though the ambient temperature is above freezing. If backradiation were happening, that could not happen. Observable, repeatable, positive proof that backradiation is not happening.

Aside from that, the second law of thermodynamics says that backradiation is not possible. How much more proof do you need? An experiment that produces the very result predicted by the second law of themrodynamics proving that backradiation is not happening...and I wager that you will continue to believe in backradiation.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Does the fact that some smokers never get cancer prove that smoking does not cause cancer?

No one claimed that backradiatoon exists always and everywhere and constantly - what we know for a fact is that it can and does occur in some places and at some times and under certain conditions. YOU KNOW THIS.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Does the fact that some smokers never get cancer prove that smoking does not cause cancer?

No one claimed that backradiatoon exists always and everywhere and constantly - what we know for a fact is that it can and does occur in some places and at some times and under certain conditions. YOU KNOW THIS.

Back radiation never happens. Feed backs can in rare circumstances but AGW requires backradiation

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I am sure that you know that you are wrong, but on the off-chance that sincrely don't get this - this article might help.

The Amazing Case of ?Back-Radiation? | The Science of Doom

 

[PMZ]

Backradiation does not exist.

Classic SSDD. There really is no evidence at all - not even an experiment you could perform yourselfin your owm backgarden - that could get those blinkers off your eyes, is there?

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that backradiation does exist.

What do you get out of ignoring obvious facts?

There is an experiment that I can, and have performed in my back yard that would prove backradiation if it existed. You can do it as well for less than 25 dollars. Build yourself a small solar oven (I can provide plans). Aim it at clear sky on a sunny day. Place a thermometer at the focal point of the oven and watch the temperature decrease. If backradiation existed, the temperature would increase as it would be collecting backradiation.

Wait till nightfall when the temperature is above freezing but not more than 45 degrees F. Point your oven at clear sky and place a bowl of water at the focal point of the oven. Ice will form even though the ambient temperature is above freezing. If backradiation were happening, that could not happen. Observable, repeatable, positive proof that backradiation is not happening.

Aside from that, the second law of thermodynamics says that backradiation is not possible. How much more proof do you need? An experiment that produces the very result predicted by the second law of themrodynamics proving that backradiation is not happening...and I wager that you will continue to believe in backradiation.

Both your experiment, and the 2ond Law, deal with net energy flow. All of your apparatus is radiating away based only on its absolute temperature.

 

[SSDD]

Classic SSDD. There really is no evidence at all - not even an experiment you could perform yourselfin your owm backgarden - that could get those blinkers off your eyes, is there?

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that backradiation does exist.

What do you get out of ignoring obvious facts?

There is an experiment that I can, and have performed in my back yard that would prove backradiation if it existed. You can do it as well for less than 25 dollars. Build yourself a small solar oven (I can provide plans). Aim it at clear sky on a sunny day. Place a thermometer at the focal point of the oven and watch the temperature decrease. If backradiation existed, the temperature would increase as it would be collecting backradiation.

Wait till nightfall when the temperature is above freezing but not more than 45 degrees F. Point your oven at clear sky and place a bowl of water at the focal point of the oven. Ice will form even though the ambient temperature is above freezing. If backradiation were happening, that could not happen. Observable, repeatable, positive proof that backradiation is not happening.

Aside from that, the second law of thermodynamics says that backradiation is not possible. How much more proof do you need? An experiment that produces the very result predicted by the second law of themrodynamics proving that backradiation is not happening...and I wager that you will continue to believe in backradiation.

Both your experiment, and the 2ond Law, deal with net energy flow. All of your apparatus is radiating away based only on its absolute temperature.

Of course they are radiating out your moron that's exactly what the second law predicts. The atmosphere is colder than the ground. If however back radiation were happening sufficient to warm the surface of the earth which, by the way, Is the basis of the greenhouse effect hypothesis, then the solar oven would be collecting that back radiation and you wouldn't see a temperature drop to below the ambient.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I am sure that you know that you are wrong, but on the off-chance that sincrely don't get this - this article might help.

The Amazing Case of ?Back-Radiation? | The Science of Doom

How easily fooled You are. The instruments used to make those back radiation measurements are all cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere. That being the case the warmer atmosphere is radiating to the cooler instrument and there is no back radiation.

That's one of the problems with climate science. The practitioners are so poorly educated that they don't understand the instruments or what they are actually measuring.

 

[PMZ]

Let me ask. How much radiation would you expect to fall on land at night, and where would it come from?

 

[westwall]

Let me ask. How much radiation would you expect to fall on land at night, and where would it come from?

Don't know how much, but the stars, sunlight reflected from the moon, light reflected from the planets pretty much covers it...

 

[SSDD]

Let me ask. How much radiation would you expect to fall on land at night, and where would it come from?

Don't know how much, but the stars, sunlight reflected from the moon, light reflected from the planets pretty much covers it...

Not to mention that because of its heat capacity, there would be little difference between the outgoing radiation from the oceans from day to night. The claim from climate science has been all along that backradiation is happening, and warming the surface 24 hours a day.

Guess now they are going to try and weasel out of that claim...like trenberth first claiming that global warming was hiding below the oceans and now claiming that global warming is a roaming hot spot that never sticks around for long and then moves to some other location. Grabbing at straws....drowning men grabbing at straws.

 

[theHawk]

Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming

Um, its not warming

Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change

Corrected:
Ice Age
Ice Age
Ice Age

Uhh, its not cooling

Global Warming
Global Warming
Global Warming

Um, its not warming

Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change
Climate Change

 

[PMZ]

Let me ask. How much radiation would you expect to fall on land at night, and where would it come from?

Don't know how much, but the stars, sunlight reflected from the moon, light reflected from the planets pretty much covers it...

Not to mention that because of its heat capacity, there would be little difference between the outgoing radiation from the oceans from day to night. The claim from climate science has been all along that backradiation is happening, and warming the surface 24 hours a day.

Guess now they are going to try and weasel out of that claim...like trenberth first claiming that global warming was hiding below the oceans and now claiming that global warming is a roaming hot spot that never sticks around for long and then moves to some other location. Grabbing at straws....drowning men grabbing at straws.

You act like someone who has some data, some evidence, some theory that explains what GHGs do instead of what science has unequivocally proven that they do. That’s monumental. When will it be made public?

 

[SSDD]

Don't know how much, but the stars, sunlight reflected from the moon, light reflected from the planets pretty much covers it...

Not to mention that because of its heat capacity, there would be little difference between the outgoing radiation from the oceans from day to night. The claim from climate science has been all along that backradiation is happening, and warming the surface 24 hours a day.

Guess now they are going to try and weasel out of that claim...like trenberth first claiming that global warming was hiding below the oceans and now claiming that global warming is a roaming hot spot that never sticks around for long and then moves to some other location. Grabbing at straws....drowning men grabbing at straws.

You act like someone who has some data, some evidence, some theory that explains what GHGs do instead of what science has unequivocally proven that they do. That’s monumental. When will it be made public?

All science has proven unequivocally is that So called greenhouse gases absorb then emit. That is a far cry from proving man-made global warming. You apparently have no idea what climate science has been saying for the past 20 years..... Or should I say since the Ice Age scare died out