Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30820 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31220 Jan 26, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
EMR CARRIES ENERGY—sometimes called radiant energy—through space continuously away from the source (this is not true of the near-field part of the EM field).

Heat Radiation
"RADIATION is HEAT TRANSFER by the emission of ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES which CARRY ENERGY away from the emitting object."

The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROHIBITS heat flow directly from COLD to HOT systems, but with the aid of a heat pump external work can be used to transport internal energy indirectly from a cold to a hot body.

- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE DONE, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT
- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT WHERE THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE HAS "HEATED-UP" A WARMER EARTH
Because THEY DO NOT EXIST.

I am once again shown to be a CLUELESS AGW-denying IDIOT and a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
See SUXObama? I fixed your last sentence for you!!!

You really are good for a belly laugh, you know? And your repetitions are remarkably humorous. I love it when you call me names & attack me in all caps. Particularly funny was your attack on factologist, who clearly DOES understand the science, unlike you.

You are confusing heat transfer by conduction with heat transfer by radiation. The former involves "direct" contact when heat energy ALWAYS flows from a warmer to a colder object & does not use electromagnetic radiation (EMR) as a medium.

Infrared (IR) EMR, as you (correctly, for a change) point out, can transfer heat energy through a vacuum, without need for an intervening material. This is heat transfer by radiation.

I'm glad you FINALLY admitted that spectroscopy works because low energy transitions (which people call "changes in electron 'orbits'" even though they're really different energy states, as you - again, correctly, for a change - point out) occur at frequencies that do NOT change with temperature. The frequencies at which materials absorb (& re-emit) IR & VL EMR do NOT change with temperature.

As you also correctly (it's amazing that you're right again!) point out, matter above absolute zero emits EMR, & at earthly temperatures, this is in the IR spectrum. That process works in reverse, too, where IR EMR warms objects.

So, the warm earth emits IR EMR, & you admitted that the frequencies at which matter aborbs (& re-emits) EMR DO NOT DEPEND ON TEMPERATURE. You do realize what that means, right?

Atmospheric scientists, factologist & I are RIGHT!!! The earth emits IR EMR, & GHGs in the COLD atmosphere absorb & re-emit it, some back to the earth, further warming it.

This is heat transfer by radiation, not conduction, so colder objects CAN heat up warmer objects. The Second Law is not violated.

Let's try this another way. Imagine that the earth & its atmosphere are separated by a vacuum (of whatever convenient thickness you want), the boundaries of which are completely permeable to all frequencies of EMR. The point is that conduction can't occur, but radiation can.

The sun warms the earth by EMR in the UV, VL & (a bit of) IR. The earth re-emits IR EMR. which passes thru the vacuum. The atmosphere can be very, very cold (as long as it's still warm enough that its consituents are gases), but can still absorb & re-emit IR EMR, further WARMING the earth.

Why is a cloudy night warmer than a clear night? The answer is that water in the clouds is a greenhouse gas, & radiative transfer warms the earth.

You can scream in all caps all you want, but the Vinnikov is ABOUT temperature measurements & how to interpret them. No more, no less. Those measurements confirm radiative forcing as a correct mechanism.

Hey - since you're SO smart & know the REAL temp of the sun's surface, what are you doing wasting time on a silly blog? You should be on your way to see the King of Sweden to pick up that Nobel.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#31221 Jan 26, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a AGW Science Denier.....oh wait, ALL the AGW CULT MEMBERS are Science Deniers.
That's why I can POST Laws of Science and Physics Links to prove that AGW is a FRAUD and what can you POST?
I notice you didn't argue any of the points I made. I can only believe you are too stupid to understand the Science and Physics Links you have posted. Further, you haven't given any Science and Physics Links that prove AGW is a fraud. You only keep harping about an example of "WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT.(WTF does "HEATED-UP" mean to you any way. Heat, as defined by http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hf... , is, "Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object - this is properly called heating." "HEATED-UP", has meaning only to someone who doesn' understand the concept of heat. Of course, we all know hyperphysics is physics for dummies.
A better definition is available from wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat ; In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interactions. The transfer of energy can occur in a variety of ways, among them conduction, radiation, and convection. Heat is not a property of a system or body, but instead is always associated with a process of some kind, and is synonymous with heat flow and heat transfer.)
Can you understand the key term here, Stupo? It's ENERGY TRANSFER. Not "hotter to colder shite, but ENERGY TRANSFER.
You have previously cited links EM radiation so you must know that ALL objects, with a temperature- you do knomw what temp is, don't you, Stupo or do you need a citation?- above absolute zero, radiate ENERGY, SPONTANIOUSLY; EM energy called a photon- need a citation, Stupo?. The radiation can be in any direction. If something is in it's path, the photon will strike it. One of three things will happen. The photon will be reflected, pass through or be absorbed, depending upon the wave length and energy level of the photon. If the wave length is correct and the energy level is high enough ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/so... ) the photon will be absorbed.
Now, just for your pea-brain, we're talking atoms and molecules here. Since an objects measured temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the object, that means some of it's atoms electrons will be at a higher energy state than others. If the photon hits an atom of the correct energy state, it will be absorbed. Of course this is simplified, but then, you have a simple brain.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31222 Jan 26, 2013
SUXObama,

BTW, you need a grade-school level site from CalTech because you have a grade-school understanding of the science.

You should read factologist's post more carefully. He/she understands the science.

Do you finally understand that heat transfer by conduction & radiation are 2 different things?

Erratum: When I said "...the Vinnikov is ABOUT temperature measurements..." I actually meant "...the Vinnikov PAPER is ABOUT temperature measurements..."
2 manygoats

Albuquerque, NM

#31223 Jan 26, 2013
This Thread has worn thin.......
the verdict is in

If you are not taking global warming seriously
you should be taken

and recycled
into something useful

otherwise STFU
town idiot

Albuquerque, NM

#31224 Jan 26, 2013
Uh, duh
I be serious bout gums dough
litesong

Everett, WA

#31225 Jan 26, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
GOOD AGW NEWS.....Now you can watch Al Gore's Current TV on Al Jazeera.
Al Gore is now richer than Mitt Romney
Could watch Al Jazeera on Link TV.

Also, mitt is poor because he shot all his wad on purchasing the 'kinghood of the United States'. That's why mitt was bad-mouthing all the citizens of the U.S. He didn't think they counted for anything. The only people who voted for mitt were re-pubic-lick-uns who like to be hit over the head with 10 Wall Street Journals, while licking their pubics.

Anyhow, someone took off with all mitt's money before he found out there 'ain't no kinghood'!
litesong

Everett, WA

#31226 Jan 26, 2013
2 manygoats wrote:
If you are not taking global warming seriously
you should be taken
and recycled
into something useful......
toxic topix conservative, business, re-pubic-lick-un (Grumpy Outdated Party) AGW deniers are always beyond recycling technology.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#31227 Jan 26, 2013
Did you know that:
(since Stupo is in love with hyperphysics, I'll cite it as a reference for what I'm about to discuss-http://hyperphysics.ph y-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html #c4 the entire section)

1. Radiation is quantized such that for a given frequency of radiation, there can be only one value of quantum energy for the photons of that radiation.
2. That value, in electron volts, is given by
E = hc/&#955;,
&#955; = wavelength in meters (m)
c = the speed of light (299792458 m/s)
E = energy in electron Volts (eV)
h = Plank's constant (6.626068 × 10-34 m2kg/s)

3. What 1 & 2 taken together say is that the energy contained in a photon of a particular wavelength emitted by a substance is NOT dependent on the temperature of that substance.

4. It has been empirically determined that both the Earth and the atmosphere radiate the same IR wavelength.

5. IOW, the warmer Earth and the colder atmosphere both radiate IR photons of the same wavelength at the same energy level.

ALSO: Again from hyperphysics
1.The energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain quantized values.

2.Transitions between these quantized states occur by the photon processes of absorption, emission, and stimulated emission.All of these processes require that the photon energy given by the Planck relationship is equal to the energy separation of the participating pair of quantum energy states (E1 (upper energy state of electron) and E2(lower energy state of electron)
a.absorption-absorption of a photon can only occur when
Eproton= E2-E1
That is, an upward transition in energy state of the electron.An associated gain of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
b.emission-emission of a proton of the same energy will occur during a downward transition. An associated loss of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
c.stimulated emission- I encourage you to read this yourself.

What all this says is
1. The radiation of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause a decrease in it's temperature.
2. The absorption of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause an increase in it's temperature.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#31228 Jan 26, 2013
factologist wrote:
Did you know that:
(since Stupo is in love with hyperphysics, I'll cite it as a reference for what I'm about to discuss-http://hyperphysics.ph y-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html #c4 the entire section)
1. Radiation is quantized such that for a given frequency of radiation, there can be only one value of quantum energy for the photons of that radiation.
2. That value, in electron volts, is given by
E = hc/&#955;,
&#955; = wavelength in meters (m)
c = the speed of light (299792458 m/s)
E = energy in electron Volts (eV)
h = Plank's constant (6.626068 × 10-34 m2kg/s)
3. What 1 & 2 taken together say is that the energy contained in a photon of a particular wavelength emitted by a substance is NOT dependent on the temperature of that substance.
4. It has been empirically determined that both the Earth and the atmosphere radiate the same IR wavelength.
5. IOW, the warmer Earth and the colder atmosphere both radiate IR photons of the same wavelength at the same energy level.
ALSO: Again from hyperphysics
1.The energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain quantized values.
2.Transitions between these quantized states occur by the photon processes of absorption, emission, and stimulated emission.All of these processes require that the photon energy given by the Planck relationship is equal to the energy separation of the participating pair of quantum energy states (E1 (upper energy state of electron) and E2(lower energy state of electron)
a.absorption-absorption of a photon can only occur when
Eproton= E2-E1
That is, an upward transition in energy state of the electron.An associated gain of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
b.emission-emission of a proton of the same energy will occur during a downward transition. An associated loss of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
c.stimulated emission- I encourage you to read this yourself.
What all this says is
1. The radiation of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause a decrease in it's temperature.
2. The absorption of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause an increase in it's temperature.
We have been through this a hundred times but old Gordhead's head is too thick to get it. Either that or he just wants attention.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31229 Jan 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been through this a hundred times but old Gordhead's head is too thick to get it. Either that or he just wants attention.
Or gets paid. However, I'm pleased to find out that Gord is not a racist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31230 Jan 26, 2013
factologist wrote:
Did you know that:
(since Stupo is in love with hyperphysics, I'll cite it as a reference for what I'm about to discuss-http://hyperphysics.ph y-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html #c4 the entire section)
1. Radiation is quantized such that for a given frequency of radiation, there can be only one value of quantum energy for the photons of that radiation.
2. That value, in electron volts, is given by
E = hc/&#955;,
&#955; = wavelength in meters (m)
c = the speed of light (299792458 m/s)
E = energy in electron Volts (eV)
h = Plank's constant (6.626068 × 10-34 m2kg/s)
3. What 1 & 2 taken together say is that the energy contained in a photon of a particular wavelength emitted by a substance is NOT dependent on the temperature of that substance.
4. It has been empirically determined that both the Earth and the atmosphere radiate the same IR wavelength.
5. IOW, the warmer Earth and the colder atmosphere both radiate IR photons of the same wavelength at the same energy level.
ALSO: Again from hyperphysics
1.The energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain quantized values.
2.Transitions between these quantized states occur by the photon processes of absorption, emission, and stimulated emission.All of these processes require that the photon energy given by the Planck relationship is equal to the energy separation of the participating pair of quantum energy states (E1 (upper energy state of electron) and E2(lower energy state of electron)
a.absorption-absorption of a photon can only occur when
Eproton= E2-E1
That is, an upward transition in energy state of the electron.An associated gain of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
b.emission-emission of a proton of the same energy will occur during a downward transition. An associated loss of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
c.stimulated emission- I encourage you to read this yourself.
What all this says is
1. The radiation of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause a decrease in it's temperature.
2. The absorption of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause an increase in it's temperature.
I strongly doubt that SUXObama/Gord will accept this, but thank you anyway for saying this in a more scientifically accurate way than my attempts in simple English.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31231 Jan 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Or gets paid. However, I'm pleased to find out that Gord is not a racist.
He's a pretty lousy paid shill if he is one. Most of the others I've suspected of being paid are considerably more subtle & clever. They say something untrue, get refuted by someone with scientific knowledge, then go away for a while. When they come back, they'll try to say the same thing but in different language, or from a slightly different angle.

SUXObama/Gord isn't nearly that smart. He just keeps saying the same things, in caps, calling people names. It's not likely to impress those on the fence.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31232 Jan 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been through this a hundred times but old Gordhead's head is too thick to get it. Either that or he just wants attention.
Some of us newbies are eternal optimists & will keep trying to get thru, despite the lousy odds, which are already clear to me. Even if we fail, though, there are always lurkers here or there that might be inspired.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31233 Jan 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of us newbies are eternal optimists & will keep trying to get thru, despite the lousy odds, which are already clear to me. Even if we fail, though, there are always lurkers here or there that might be inspired.
I agree and support your attempts at communicating what's known.

Odds are much improved now than ever before in this forum because some notorious deniers are not posting this year. Without mentioning names, they would have polluted the air and raised the blood pressures considerably.

Hope you stay the course.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31234 Jan 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a pretty lousy paid shill if he is one. Most of the others I've suspected of being paid are considerably more subtle & clever. They say something untrue, get refuted by someone with scientific knowledge, then go away for a while. When they come back, they'll try to say the same thing but in different language, or from a slightly different angle.
SUXObama/Gord isn't nearly that smart. He just keeps saying the same things, in caps, calling people names. It's not likely to impress those on the fence.
Well, Gord's past performance was wider and with more variety.

You would not believe some of it.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31235 Jan 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing heat transfer by conduction with heat transfer by radiation. The former involves "direct" contact when heat energy ALWAYS flows from a warmer to a colder object & does not use electromagnetic radiation (EMR) as a medium.
Infrared (IR) EMR, as you (correctly, for a change) point out, can transfer heat energy through a vacuum, without need for an intervening material. This is heat transfer by radiation.
WRONG AGAIN as these Physics Links state:

Heat
"In physics and chemistry, HEAT IS ENERGY TRANSFERRED from one body to another by thermal interactions.[1][2] The transfer of energy can occur in a variety of ways, among them conduction,[3] radiation,[4] and convection. Heat is not a property of a system or body, but instead is always associated with a process of some kind, and is synonymous with heat flow and heat transfer.

Heat flow from hotter to colder systems occurs spontaneously, and is always accompanied by an increase in entropy. In a heat engine, internal energy of bodies is harnessed to provide useful
work.

The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROHIBITS heat flow directly from COLD to HOT systems, but with the aid of a heat pump external work can be used to transport internal energy indirectly from a cold to a hot body."

"When energy is transferred to a body purely as heat, its INTERNAL ENERGY increases. This additional energy is stored as kinetic and potential energy of the atoms and molecules in the body.[12] HEAT itself is NOT STORED within a body. Like work, it exists only as ENERGY IN TRANSIT from one body to another or between a body and its surroundings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
--------
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...
--------
Electromagnetic radiation
"Electromagnetic radiation is a particular form of the more general electromagnetic field (EM field), which is produced by moving charges. Electromagnetic radiation is associated with EM fields that are far enough away from the moving charges that produced them, that absorption of the EM radiation no longer affects the behavior of these moving charges. These two types or behaviors of EM field are sometimes referred to as the near and far field. In this language, EMR is merely another name for the FAR-FIELD.

EMR CARRIES ENERGY—sometimes called radiant energy—through space continuously away from the source (this is not true of the near-field part of the EM field).

EMR is classified according to the frequency of its wave. The electromagnetic spectrum, in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength, consists of radio waves, microwaves, infrared
radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_...
----------
Why don't YOU POST ANY Law of Science or Real Physics Link and MEASUREMENT to support your AGW CULT LYING BABBLE?

You CAN'T because THEY DO NOT EXIST....Isn't THAT RIGHT?

Watch as the Homo-ody, a PROVEN Pathological Liar and AGW CULTIST, RUNS FOR THE HILLS...AGAIN.

What a HOOT!...but SO PREDICTABLE!
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31236 Jan 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the warm earth emits IR EMR, & you admitted that the frequencies at which matter aborbs (& re-emits) EMR DO NOT DEPEND ON TEMPERATURE. You do realize what that means, right?
Atmospheric scientists, factologist & I are RIGHT!!! The earth emits IR EMR, & GHGs in the COLD atmosphere absorb & re-emit it, some back to the earth, further warming it.
This is heat transfer by radiation, not conduction, so colder objects CAN heat up warmer objects. The Second Law is not violated.
WRONG AGAIN as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law clearly shows the WELL KNOWN relationship between EMR POWER/Meter^2 and TEMPERATURE.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law
The energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by

P/A = BC*T^4 j/m^2*s (w/m^2)

BC = 5.6703 X 10^-8 watt/m^2*K^4

For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:

P/A = e*BC*T^4

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

P = e*BC*A(T^4 - Tc^4)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...
----------
Heat Radiation

"RADIATION is HEAT TRANSFER by the emission of ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES which CARRY ENERGY away from the emitting object."

"For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law"

P = e*BC*A(T^4 - Tc^4)

Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan's constant, A = area, T = temperature of radiator and Tc = temperature of the surroundings or another body.

..when rearranged gives

P/A = e*BC*T^4 - e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

This is a VECTOR subtraction of two Electromagnetic Fields.

P/A (watts/m^2) is the Magnitude of the Resultant EM field Vector and the direction of propagation is from the Hot Body to the Cold Body, ALWAYS!

There is ZERO watts/m^2 that can even propagate from the Cold Body to the Hot Body as the Heat Transfer Equation shows, the 2nd Law shows and ALL MEASUREMENTS CONFIRM.
----------
Once again you have PROVEN that YOU have absolutely NO CLUE about ESTABLISHED LAWS OF SCIENCE and can ONLY BABBLE your AGW CULT-SPEAK.

Why don't YOU POST ANY Law of Science or Real Physics Link and MEASUREMENT to support your AGW CULT LYING BABBLE?

You CAN'T because THEY DO NOT EXIST....Isn't THAT RIGHT?

Watch as the Homo-ody, a PROVEN Pathological Liar and AGW CULTIST, RUNS FOR THE HILLS...AGAIN.

What a HOOT!...but SO PREDICTABLE!
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31237 Jan 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey - since you're SO smart & know the REAL temp of the sun's surface, what are you doing wasting time on a silly blog?
As I have ALREADY POSTED MANY TIMES, I have USED LINKED REFERENCES for the REAL TEMPERATURE of the SUN.

I will REPEAT THEM AGAIN since you seem to suffer from AGW CULT MEMORY LOSS:

The sources FROM TEXT-BOOKS, BOOKS or PUBLICATIONS.
There are five sources for the surface temp of the Sun (6000,5500,5700,6000 and 5600 deg C).
The average is 5800 deg C or 6073 K and a max of 6000 deg C or 6273 K.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/GlyniseFi...
----
File:EffectiveTemperature 300dpi e.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EffectiveTe...

If you look closely at the Effective Temperature graph above you will see that the Green Light real peak is at about 462 nm and using Wein's
Displacement Law will produce a Sun temperature of 6273 K (thats 6000 deg C) and agrees with the link I quoted above!
----
Finally, I have seen a number of AGW'er papers and other sources that correctly state that the actual Sun temperature is much higher than 5778 K.
Here is one example:

HEATING THE EARTH

"3. If the Sun were a blackbody, this emissivity would correspond to a surface temperature of 5798°K. However, the wavelength of maximum
intensity is at 0.475 microns (green light). By Wien’s Law, this is the maximum that would be produced by a blackbody at a temperature of 6101°
K."
http://www.climates.com/SPECIAL%20TOPICS/GW/h...
----
So there you have the REFERENCES I USED AGAIN, including the one from a AGWer.

These are ALL PROOF that the AGW QUACK "scientists" have FRADULENTLY REDUCED the temperature of the SUN in an attempt to justify their "Greenhouse Effect" FRAUD that CLEARLY VIOLATES The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and has been PROVEN WRONG because:

- There ARE ZERO Laws of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"

- There ARE ZERO Measurements, EVER DONE in the History of Mankind, where a COLD Body has EVER HEATED-UP a WARMER Body.

- There ARE ZERO Measurements, EVER DONE in the History of Mankind, where a COLD Atmosphere has EVER HEATED-UP a Warmer Earth Surface

- In FACT EVERY MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE, confirms that the COLD Atmosphere CANNOT HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth Surface

And, that is why YOU, despite your LYING STATEMENT,:

"That is, THE ATMOSPHERE HELPS THE SUN WARM THE EARTH, even though it's significantly cooler than the surface. This is a scientific fact. There are not just thousands, but many millions,perhaps
billions, of measurements that support this."

CANNOT POST EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT !!!

Come on, TELL US WHY you CANNOT POST EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT ?

Watch as the Homo-ody, a PROVEN Pathological Liar and AGW CULTIST, RUNS FOR THE HILLS...AGAIN.

What a HOOT!...but SO PREDICTABLE!
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31238 Jan 27, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, we all know hyperphysics is physics for dummies.
A better definition is available from wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat ; In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interactions. The transfer of energy can occur in a variety of ways, among them conduction, radiation, and convection. Heat is not a property of a system or body, but instead is always associated with a process
of some kind, and is synonymous with heat flow and heat transfer.)
Can you understand the key term here, Stupo? It's ENERGY TRANSFER. Not "hotter to colder shite, but ENERGY TRANSFER.
HAHAHA....HAHAHA.....

Here is a quote from your Wiki link that PROVES YOU WRONG AGAIN and for some AGW CULT reason, you managed to leave completely OUT OF YOUR POST:

"The second law of thermodynamics prohibits heat flow directly from cold to hot systems, but with the aid of a heat pump external work can be used to transport internal energy indirectly from a
cold to a hot body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

Also notice it say's "cold to hot" ...the same "shite" that you BABBLED ABOUT ABOVE.

Your Wiki link says the same thing as the hyperphysics link you claim is for dummies.

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow
spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

As far as HEAT being an ENERGY TRANSFER, that's what I told Homo-ody who claimed HEAT was "molecular motion", YOU IDIOT!

Here is the link:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

And here is the Hyperphysics link.

Heat
"Heat may be defined as ENERGY IN TRANSIT from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an
object is internal energy. The INTERNAL ENERGY may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object - this is properly called HEATING."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...
------
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics probits a Cold Atmosphere from "INCREASING THE TEMPERATURE" of a Warmer Earth.

Quotes:
- No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.— Albert Einstein
- The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.— Karl Popper

REAL SCIENCE uses ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS for PROOF....and there are no Measurements to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"/ AGW "theory".

Now, let's see if you can answer:

WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "INCREASED THE TEMPERATURE" A WARMER OBJECT ???

Come on, tell us WHY YOU CANNOT POST even "ONE" MEASUREMENT ?

Watch as "factologist" RUNS FOR THE HILLS...AGAIN!
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31239 Jan 27, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The radiation can be in any direction. If something is in it's path, the photon will strike it. One of three things will happen. The photon will be reflected, pass through or be absorbed,
depending upon the wave length and energy level of the photon. If the wave length is correct and the energy level is high enough ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/so... )

the photon will be absorbed.
First, your Hyperphysics LINK does NOT SAY ANTHING about what YOU POSTED.

Photons do not Propagate by themselves.

- Electromagnetic Fields CARRY Photon Energy.
- Heat Radiation (Electromagnetic Radiation) is accomplished by propagating EM fields.
- EM fields are Force fields, in fact the Electromagnetic Force is one of the four fundamental forces.
- All Forces are VECTOR Quantities that have a Magnitude and a Direction, including EM Fields, and VECTOR MATHEMATICS MUST BE USED FOR VECTOR QUANTITIES.

----------
Heat Flux
"Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the heat rate per unit area. In SI units, heat flux is measured in [W/m2].Heat rate is a scalar quantity, while heat flux is a VECTORIAL quantity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux
---------
Photon
"In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force CARRIER for the electromagnetic FORCE.

The effects of this FORCE are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
----------
Here is the Radiative Heat Transfer Equation using The Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

"Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object."

P = e*BC*A(T^4 - Tc^4)

Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan's constant, A = area, T = temperature of radiator and Tc =
temperature of the surroundings or another body.

..when rearranged gives

P/A = e*BC*T^4 - e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Fields

It also complies with the VECTOR subtraction of Electromagnetic Fields which are Vectors.

P/A (watts/m^2) is the Magnitude of the Resultant EM field Vector and the direction of propagation is from the Hot Body to the Cold Body, ALWAYS!

There is ZERO watts/m^2 that can even propagate from the Cold Body to the Hot Body as the Heat Transfer Equation shows, the 2nd Law shows and ALL MEASUREMENTS CONFIRM.
----------
Like all Forces, the Electromagnetic Field (and the Fundamental Electromagnetic Force) are VECTOR quantities and must be treated as such.

If two opposing Forces are applied to a "Block of Wood", the Block will ONLY move in the direction of the larger Force.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the "Block of Wood" to move in the direction of the WEAKER FORCE.

Likewise, when two opposing Electromagnetic Fields CARRY Zero Mass Photon energy, the Photons will will ONLY be CARRIED in the direction of the larger EM Field and EM Force.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Zero Mass Photons to move in the direction of the WEAKER EM FIELD and EM FORCE.

This is also why it is IMPOSSIBLE for Heat Radiation to flow from Cold Objects to Hot Objects as the 2nd Law states, the Heat Transfer Equation shows and ALL MEASUREMENTS PROVE.
----------
Once again, you are shown to be just another AGW CULT BABBLER and CANNOT POST ANY Laws of Science, Physics or Measurements to support your CULT-SPEAK.

Now, let's see if you can answer:

WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "INCREASED THE TEMPERATURE" A WARMER OBJECT ???

Come on, tell us WHY YOU CANNOT POST even "ONE" MEASUREMENT ?

Watch as "factologist" RUNS FOR THE HILLS...AGAIN!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Blanco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 1 hr Roberta 6,401
Worse place I've ever lived 2 hr The Green Watch Dog 31
News Farmington Tea Party draws hundreds of protesters (Apr '09) 6 hr swedenforever 266
News Louis Joseph Fayad (Jan '09) Tue Jlsf 5
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) May 23 XandO 433
Disabled Parking May 22 Leaving 2
News New Mexico VA clinic among nationa s worst for ... May 16 Lupe 6
More from around the web

Blanco People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]