Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[Saigon]

I see that after demanding evidence of observable backradiation - and receiving it - SSDD chose to abandon the thread without comment.

That's a great way to learn about a topic.

 

[westwall]

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf

Hey, what do you know? An honest experiment and what does it show? Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Let me ask you a question. Why does the thermometer in all set ups reach a limit? It has energy coming in continuously, why doesn't it warm continuously?

"Cause that's how the Ideal Gas Laws work. Go take a physics class, you'll learn all sorts of things...

 

[westwall]

Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall?

No, because gravity always works consistently. There aren't any special exceptions about how gravity turns off in certain cases just because someone's political cult wants that to happen very badly.

In every example you quote, the mechanism is well-defined and consistent. That's what makes them all completely different from your retarded magical intelligent photon theory, which posits a single exception from the normal rules for no apparent reason, and which contradicts a couple other inviolate physical laws (conservation of energy and no-breaking-lightspeed-in-information-transfer would be two).

You've rewritten the basic physical laws of the universe. Given that you're not Einstein, it indicates you're a gibbering crank. That would be why everyone justifiably treats you like a gibbering rank. If you don't want to look like a crank, explain the mechanism behind your magical vanishing photons. Explain where the energy goes, and explain how light from a distant star get the information telling it to vanish just because a cold surface appeared light-years away.

Then how does a gravitometer work?

 

[Politico]

How did that work out for ya?

 

[daveman]

You're the one who believes that it should be possible to accurately model climate change in a single experiment.

You're really not paying attention.

I don't believe any such thing, which is why I'm mocking the AGW cult -- they believe it's possible.

When asked for a repeatable, verifiable experiment (you know, the basis of science) proving AGW, we're given a small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables and a screech of "See?! SEE?!!"

In fact what you model for us is how humanity would behave in the absence of science.

Or you could just stop being a moron. Your call.

I love science. It's awesome. Science is the way to get us off this rock. Humanity is vulnerable here, and if we're to survive, we need to spread out among the solar system.

AGW isn't science. It's politics wearing a mask. It fools idiots.

People who love science invest the time and energy in learning it, and respect others who demonstrate competence in it. You're way outside those parameters. You love political entertainers who tell you how smart you are. In science you have to actually be smart and objective and independent.

Maybe in your next life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Boy, unmerited arrogance is not attractive. And no, "being a liberal" is not an accomplishment worthy of arrogance.

Sorry I've gutted your CV. Grow up and DO something, then we can talk.

 

[PMZ]

That answer is not even in the right zip code.

There are three radiant heat sources in the experiment. Two bulbs and the thermometer apparatus. It stops warming when it reaches a temperature that requires it to radiate exactly as much energy as it's receiving.

 

[PMZ]

Grew up a long time ago and have been doing lots of stuff before and since including getting educated in science so that I don't have to guess like you do.

 

[daveman]

Grew up a long time ago and have been doing lots of stuff before and since including getting educated in science so that I don't have to guess like you do.

Then why do you sound like a smart-assed 14-year-old?

Oh, yeah -- you're a progressive. Sorry.

 

[PMZ]

Grew up a long time ago and have been doing lots of stuff before and since including getting educated in science so that I don't have to guess like you do.

Then why do you sound like a smart-assed 14-year-old?

Oh, yeah -- you're a progressive. Sorry.

And you are against progress.

Take a look at your avatar. Even by 14 most boys have outgrown your imaginary desperado image. Go read your comic books and leave adult things to adults until you become one.

 

[SSDD]

I see that after demanding evidence of observable backradiation - and receiving it - SSDD chose to abandon the thread without comment.

That's a great way to learn about a topic.

First, that was not observable evidence of backradiation. That was a demonstration of what happens if you irradiate very high concentrations of gas that emit radiation at a slightly lower wavelength than at which they absorb. It was in no way a demonstration of backradiation. The CO2 concentration in his experiment was close to 1 million parts per million.

Second, I don't hang around to post on the weekends.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

First, that was not observable evidence of backradiation. That was a demonstration of what happens if you irradiate very high concentrations of gas that emit radiation at a slightly lower wavelength than at which they absorb. It was in no way a demonstration of backradiation. The CO2 concentration in his experiment was close to 1 million parts per million.

I meant the experiment I posted.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

First, that was not observable evidence of backradiation. That was a demonstration of what happens if you irradiate very high concentrations of gas that emit radiation at a slightly lower wavelength than at which they absorb. It was in no way a demonstration of backradiation. The CO2 concentration in his experiment was close to 1 million parts per million.

I meant the experiment I posted.

I haven't seen an experiment you posted

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

No, of course you haven't.

After all, if you missed it three times on a previous thread, why would you see it now?

It's always great to see Climate Sceptics really trying to understand these topics, and to really understand the science involved.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

No, of course you haven't.

After all, if you missed it three times on a previous thread, why would you see it now?

It's always great to see Climate Sceptics really trying to understand these topics, and to really understand the science involved.

What thread? You make lots of claims to have posted one thing or another but when one looks, it isn't there.

I searched for any experiment you posted and surprise of surprises, it isn't there.

 

[PMZ]

I don't remember who posted the Science of Doom stuff but Part 1 outlined an experiment that demonstrated it quite clearly.

 

[SSDD]

I don't remember who posted the Science of Doom stuff but Part 1 outlined an experiment that demonstrated it quite clearly.

Actually it didn't, but it did show how easily you could be fooled by a side show hustler.

 

[mamooth]

Then how does a gravitometer work?

What does that question have to do with anything?

A gravitometer/gravimeter is just a specialized accelerometer. That doesn't require any special-case exemption from fundamental physical laws, as the "no backradiation!" claim does.

 

[mamooth]

The "No backradiation!" crowd seems unable to explain why a humid night remains hot for much longer than a low-humidity night. But then, given that backradiation is the explanation, they're naturally going to find it difficult to explain it without invoking backradiation. I do wish one would try, though, since the bizarre handwaving they'd attempt would no doubt be amusing.

 

[SSDD]

Then how does a gravitometer work?

What does that question have to do with anything?

A gravitometer/gravimeter is just a specialized accelerometer. That doesn't require any special-case exemption from fundamental physical laws, as the "no backradiation!" claim does.

But backradiation does require special case exemption from the fundamenal physical laws since the second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state...there is nothing within the statement of the law covering net flows or any other such nonsense...the second law is an absolute statement...NO energy or heat can move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state. In order for the AGW hoax/hypothesis to work energy must move from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.

 

[SSDD]

The "No backradiation!" crowd seems unable to explain why a humid night remains hot for much longer than a low-humidity night. But then, given that backradiation is the explanation, they're naturally going to find it difficult to explain it with invoking backradiation. I do wish one would try, though. The bizarre reasoning they'd bring forth would no doubt be amusing.

No moron, the high humidity night stays warm longer because unlike CO2, water vapor actually can trap and hold heat within the molecule. It's been explained to you a dozen times but you are just to f'ing stupid to get it.

There is no backradiation. Feel free to show an observable, repeatable lab experiment that proves its existence if you can.