|
Post by Andrew on Jan 17, 2016 22:32:12 GMT
So now it is back to G and T, the morons who had never heard of engineers heating curves. Is that your best? With you being so retarded it is difficult to justify more typing
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 17, 2016 23:57:17 GMT
With you being so retarded it is difficult to justify more typing Ditto with G&T to doctorate level physicists? Besides being a sycophant who can think for himself what other qualifications do you claim? I can certainly agree that Gerlich and Tscheuschner didn't falsify the greenhouse effect. But likewise the brightest in the warming camp failed to falsify G&T's skepticism. What we are left with is a notion of slowing of cooling that remains unmeasured except to the extent that is "aasumed" to be attributable to the entire extra warmth of the surface. I have suggested alternative mechanisms for such temperature differences. That being the reduced emissivity of the atmosphere compared to the surface. Such a system would suggest that the surface would be warmed by oxygen and nitrogen from the physical transport of hot oxygen and nitrogen up into the atmosphere where it is stored without energy losses (being non-emissive) at lower temperatures but with a great deal of potential energy. Short sighted greenhouse effect advocates have too small of brains to realize that when hot air convects in the atmosphere at noon that the surface is not warmed by stored energy in the atmosphere. It would be warmed because the warming atmosphere in contact with the surface would be a lot hotter on average. Now I have struggled with the idea that this would have huge effects on the surface, but certainly would have some effect. And once you accept that you then have to accept that the average temperature record we have of the globe is not of the surface but instead of the atmosphere somewhere around 2 meters above the surface. The slower conduction is the greater the temperature gradient from the real surface and where we measure it. So what we have is realistically (including atmospheric absorption of sunlight) many dynamic processes going on in the atmosphere. Its seems rather stupid to not consider them all. Of course a guy wielding the power of $5 billion in grants to investigate CO2 isn't stupid in advocating CO2 as the most important atmospheric gas. So what is your excuse?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 5:37:48 GMT
What we are left with is a notion of slowing of cooling that remains unmeasured except to the extent that is "aasumed" to be attributable to the entire extra warmth of the surface. After 4 years you should be able to write that down so it can be understood by another human being.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 6:13:01 GMT
What we are left with is a notion of slowing of cooling that remains unmeasured except to the extent that is "aasumed" to be attributable to the entire extra warmth of the surface. After 4 years you should be able to write that down so it can be understood by another human being. Sounds like we need somebody to check on that.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 6:18:48 GMT
What we are left with is a notion of slowing of cooling that remains unmeasured except to the extent that is "aasumed" to be attributable to the entire extra warmth of the surface. After 4 years you should be able to write that down so it can be understood by another human being. Sounds like we need somebody to check on that. If you can find somebody with a science education who can explain what it means please do that. Alternatively break it down into parts so when it is assembled, a typical mechanically minded person can understand it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 6:57:31 GMT
What we are left with is a notion of slowing of cooling that remains unmeasured except to the extent that is "aasumed" to be attributable to the entire extra warmth of the surface. After 4 years you should be able to write that down so it can be understood by another human being. Sounds like we need somebody to check on that. If you can find somebody with a science education who can explain what it means please do that. Alternatively break it down into parts so when it is assembled, a typical mechanically minded person can understand it. how would you know its not already done?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 7:14:37 GMT
If you can find somebody with a science education who can explain what it means please do that. Alternatively break it down into parts so when it is assembled, a typical mechanically minded person can understand it. how would you know its not already done? Why are you again talking in riddles? Surely if you have something important to say about the state of modern physics you can explain it in English so ordinary people can understand what you are thinking about?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 13:27:07 GMT
how would you know its not already done? Why are you again talking in riddles? Surely if you have something important to say about the state of modern physics you can explain it in English so ordinary people can understand what you are thinking about? OK, since you are so confident that you know that the radiative properties of certain gases are responsible for our climate temperature please tell us what the total radiative forcing is. And in the words of a physics teacher show all you calculations so we know you are not just guessing.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 14:52:02 GMT
Why are you again talking in riddles? Surely if you have something important to say about the state of modern physics you can explain it in English so ordinary people can understand what you are thinking about? OK, since you are so confident that you know that the radiative properties of certain gases are responsible for our climate temperature please tell us what the total radiative forcing is. And in the words of a physics teacher show all you calculations so we know you are not just guessing. I am not confidant of anything. I am skeptical of more or less everything. The greenhouse idea is a very very simple idea. I just want to understand what you are talking about. Surely you can put into words what you are objecting to so it can be understood by another human being??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 15:45:00 GMT
OK, since you are so confident that you know that the radiative properties of certain gases are responsible for our climate temperature please tell us what the total radiative forcing is. And in the words of a physics teacher show all you calculations so we know you are not just guessing. I am not confidant of anything. I am skeptical of more or less everything. The greenhouse idea is a very very simple idea. I just want to understand what you are talking about. Surely you can put into words what you are objecting to so it can be understood by another human being?? Indeed the greenhouse idea is a simple idea. However, it seems rather strange that it has not been demonstrated. The Woods experiment refuted the idea that greenhouses are warmed by radiation, though I agree it did not refute a greenhouse effect. But what Woods did was strip the greenhouse effect of any significance that the common man might mistakenly immediately grasp. So I find it interesting with all the debate that nobody has actually demonstrated the effect. When Svensmark came up with his theory he was laughed and and all the believers in the greenhouse theory insisted he prove it. Since Svensmark attracted the interest in a number of nuclear scientists that happened. Today the only question about the Svensmark theory is if in nature the effect is strong enough to explain temperature variations seen. Well the same question exists for the greenhouse theory. Let me ask you some questions and lets see where it leads us. 1) You stated that without greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be a lot hotter and the surface a lot colder. Do you think currently the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) is colder or hotter on average than the surface and why do you hold that opinion? 2) If there were no greenhouse gases would the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) be hotter or colder on average than the surface and why?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 16:08:19 GMT
I am not confidant of anything. I am skeptical of more or less everything. The greenhouse idea is a very very simple idea. I just want to understand what you are talking about. Surely you can put into words what you are objecting to so it can be understood by another human being?? Indeed the greenhouse idea is a simple idea. However, it seems rather strange that it has not been demonstrated. The Woods experiment refuted the idea that greenhouses are warmed by radiation, though I agree it did not refute a greenhouse effect. But what Woods did was strip the greenhouse effect of any significance that the common man might mistakenly immediately grasp. So I find it interesting with all the debate that nobody has actually demonstrated the effect. When Svensmark came up with his theory he was laughed and and all the believers in the greenhouse theory insisted he prove it. Since Svensmark attracted the interest in a number of nuclear scientists that happened. Today the only question about the Svensmark theory is if in nature the effect is strong enough to explain temperature variations seen. Well the same question exists for the greenhouse theory. Let me ask you some questions and lets see where it leads us. 1) You stated that without greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be a lot hotter and the surface a lot colder. Do you think currently the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) is colder or hotter on average than the surface and why do you hold that opinion? 2) If there were no greenhouse gases would the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) be hotter or colder on average than the surface and why? Why are you changing the subject for the second time today??? You should be able to explain your objections to the idea so that they can be understood by another human being.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 16:15:46 GMT
Indeed the greenhouse idea is a simple idea. However, it seems rather strange that it has not been demonstrated. The Woods experiment refuted the idea that greenhouses are warmed by radiation, though I agree it did not refute a greenhouse effect. But what Woods did was strip the greenhouse effect of any significance that the common man might mistakenly immediately grasp. So I find it interesting with all the debate that nobody has actually demonstrated the effect. When Svensmark came up with his theory he was laughed and and all the believers in the greenhouse theory insisted he prove it. Since Svensmark attracted the interest in a number of nuclear scientists that happened. Today the only question about the Svensmark theory is if in nature the effect is strong enough to explain temperature variations seen. Well the same question exists for the greenhouse theory. Let me ask you some questions and lets see where it leads us. 1) You stated that without greenhouse gases the atmosphere would be a lot hotter and the surface a lot colder. Do you think currently the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) is colder or hotter on average than the surface and why do you hold that opinion? 2) If there were no greenhouse gases would the atmosphere (pressurized to 1 bar) be hotter or colder on average than the surface and why? Why are you changing the subject for the second time today??? You should be able to explain your objections to the idea so that they can be understood by another human being. you asked me to explain my thinking. to do that i need to know what level you are at in understanding the basics. if we don't resolve base disagreements first its hopeless for me to explain anything. it would be like teaching physics to a pre-math child. one of the biggest criticisms of greenhouse warming theory is it compares the current conditions to a planet without any atmosphere at all. So if we are to make any progress we first need to resolve that problem to the extent we can.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 16:20:55 GMT
Why are you changing the subject for the second time today??? You should be able to explain your objections to the idea so that they can be understood by another human being. you asked me to explain my thinking. Yes. I have no idea what you are talking about. the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by); and 2) the "warm" bar has an insulation value due to its solidity and thickness (science has not established those values in uncontained gases); and 3) if the combined exposed surface area of the two bars is identical to when one bar was present the system will stabilize with the temperatures of the 2 bars identical to what the "hot" bar was originally (e.g. your greenhouse effect analogy suggests that the greenhouse effect is only temporary unless something significant is added) Number 3 suggests that your second brick in the sauna was too insignificant to capture any lasting effect. There is no "corollary". The fact that "thinning" of photons does not stop the ability of those photons to heat an object to the same temperature as the source object doesn't say anything about what happens if radiation from a colder object is incident on a warmer object.The Heck! Without work? Only if you suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics Steve or you can magically convert the photons of a 255K emitter into thinned photons from a hotter source! Which I don't think you can do. Perhaps you need to read a little Kelvin yourself and put some facts, observations, and numbers (otherwise know as a leash) on that imaginative mind of yours. I think if you can back that up you probably deserve a Nobel Prize. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 16:31:56 GMT
you asked me to explain my thinking. Yes. I have no idea what you are talking about. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about. Well from your response here I have to assume you know what I was talking about and you known why I asked the questions and you don't want to go there. If you weren't lying about that you would be curious and ready for a lesson.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 16:47:05 GMT
Yes. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about. Well from your response here I have to assume you know what I was talking about and you known why I asked the questions and you don't want to go there. If you weren't lying about that you would be curious and ready for a lesson. Bullshit. You had 3 objections to spencers thought experiment being applied to the real world. You should be able to explain those objections so a human being can understand them. I have no idea what you are talking about. the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by); and 2) the "warm" bar has an insulation value due to its solidity and thickness (science has not established those values in uncontained gases); and 3) if the combined exposed surface area of the two bars is identical to when one bar was present the system will stabilize with the temperatures of the 2 bars identical to what the "hot" bar was originally (e.g. your greenhouse effect analogy suggests that the greenhouse effect is only temporary unless something significant is added) Number 3 suggests that your second brick in the sauna was too insignificant to capture any lasting effect. There is no "corollary". The fact that "thinning" of photons does not stop the ability of those photons to heat an object to the same temperature as the source object doesn't say anything about what happens if radiation from a colder object is incident on a warmer object.The Heck! Without work? Only if you suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics Steve or you can magically convert the photons of a 255K emitter into thinned photons from a hotter source! Which I don't think you can do. Perhaps you need to read a little Kelvin yourself and put some facts, observations, and numbers (otherwise know as a leash) on that imaginative mind of yours. I think if you can back that up you probably deserve a Nobel Prize. You have been spouting this gibberish for at least 4 years. After 4 years of this stupidity you should by now be able to explain to somebody with a science background what the f**k you are talking about.
|
|