Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30925 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.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#30997 Jan 18, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
For the SIXTH TIME.....
Here are the questions that I asked you :
"So now I have to ask YOU:
- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?
If YOU refuse to answer these simple questions then I have one more question for YOU for EVERYBODY TO WITNESS:
WHY DID YOU POST "Read on cooler objects can heat warmer objects", when it is an OBVIOUS LIE?
Come on, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!"
ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THESE SIMPLE QUESTIONS OR NOT???
----------
More questions:
You said:
"One I didn't say anything of the sort."
FOR THE 4th TIME....What the HELL does THAT REFER TO?
------
You said:
"Two if it's a lie than do write to the publisher."
I HAVE....DUH!
---------
You said:
"Three all science is flawed."
Really ???
FOR THE 4th TIME....Is the 2nd Law FLAWED???
Why don't YOU give an EXAMPLE and a MEASUREMENT?
----------
You said:
"Now do show us your own work the cut and paste BS you post daily has many issues."
Really ???
I have ALREADY told YOU and provided a LINK to my Calculations here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
FOR THE 3rd TIME....Now INSTEAD of BABBLING, SHOW YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS, POST these ISSUES, AND, show YOUR OWN WORK or STFU.
----------
You said:
"Same cut and paste scientific science that you put out there daily. The difference is that it disagrees with your useless cut and paste babble."
REALLY ???
For the 3rd TIME...SHOW ME WHERE and SHOW YOUR OWN WORK you Ahole!
----
HAHAHA...HAHAHA...YOU OBVIOUSLY CANNOT EVEN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR "OWN POSTS".
Hey A-HOLE, WHAT have YOU EVER POSTED on Topix THAT IS YOUR OWN WORK???
My GOD.....What a BABBLING IDIOT with an OBVIOUS SCREWED UP MIND!
What a HOOT and REALLY, REALLY....PATHETIC!
You need HELP from a REALLY GOOD Professional Psychologist.
Well maybe we can get a two fer discount. Will you join me? So any time now do show all your published work and maybe someone out there in cyber world will take notice of your scientific science fiction.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#30998 Jan 18, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well maybe we can get a two fer discount. Will you join me? So any time now do show all your published work and maybe someone out there in cyber world will take notice of your scientific science fiction.
For the SEVENTH TIME.....

Here are the questions that I asked you :

"So now I have to ask YOU:

- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?

If YOU refuse to answer these simple questions then I have one more question for YOU for EVERYBODY TO WITNESS:

WHY DID YOU POST "Read on cooler objects can heat warmer objects", when it is an OBVIOUS LIE?
Come on, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!"

ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THESE SIMPLE QUESTIONS OR NOT???
----------
More questions:

You said:
"One I didn't say anything of the sort."

FOR THE 5th TIME....What the HELL does THAT REFER TO?
------
You said:
"Two if it's a lie than do write to the publisher."

I HAVE....DUH!
---------
You said:
"Three all science is flawed."

Really ???

FOR THE 5th TIME....Is the 2nd Law FLAWED???
Why don't YOU give an EXAMPLE and a MEASUREMENT?
----------
You said:
"Now do show us your own work the cut and paste BS you post daily has many issues."

Really ???

I have ALREADY told YOU and provided a LINK to my Calculations here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

FOR THE 3rd TIME....Now INSTEAD of BABBLING, SHOW YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS, POST these ISSUES, AND, show YOUR OWN WORK or STFU.
----------
You said:
"Same cut and paste scientific science that you put out there daily. The difference is that it disagrees with your useless cut and paste babble."

REALLY ???

For the 4th TIME...SHOW ME WHERE and SHOW YOUR OWN WORK you Ahole!
----
HAHAHA...HAHAHA...YOU OBVIOUSLY CANNOT EVEN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR "OWN POSTS".

Hey A-HOLE, WHAT have YOU EVER POSTED on Topix THAT IS YOUR OWN WORK let alone PUBLISHED WORK???

HAHAHA...HAHAHA...that's HILARIOUS!

My GOD.....What a BABBLING IDIOT with an OBVIOUS SCREWED UP MIND and DELUSIONAL TOO !

What a HOOT and REALLY, REALLY....PATHETIC!

You need HELP from a REALLY GOOD Professional Psychologist.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30999 Jan 18, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well maybe we can get a two fer discount. Will you join me? So any time now do show all your published work and maybe someone out there in cyber world will take notice of your scientific science fiction.
Get out your hammer. It is Whack-a_Mole time.

Since: Aug 10

Rochester, NY

#31000 Jan 18, 2013
Its mid January in here Buffalo NY, and for the second year in a row we have no snow on the ground, and lake erie is not frozen.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31001 Jan 18, 2013
SUX/Gord

You are once again good at screaming & calling people names, but do not understand physics as well as you think you do. As I predicted, you could NOT admit how WRONG you are. I am amused but not surprised.

You said
"...- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?..."

I haven't read all of Dr Spencer's work, but have read some of it. He is considerably smarter than you are, but no less deceptive. He lies & distorts whenever he can. He is a creationist who is, at his core, PROFOUNDLY anti-scientific. His ideology is that AGW/CC is wrong, then he tries to find data that fit that Weltanschauung. His predictions for the climate have been profoundly wrong in the past.

What measurements support the FACT that a cold atmosphere can help warm the earth? Start with what John Tyndall did in the mid-19th century. He discovered that various gases in the atmosphere absorbed, then re-emitted, infrared radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

You should also try to understand radiative forcing, the mechanism by which a colder atmosphere can help the sun warm the earth. You should also try to read & understand spectroscopy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

(As always, Wiki is just the starting point. It is clear, though, that you don't understand the simplest ideas in Wiki, let alone the more complex ones found in their listed references. Read before you comment.)

The fact is that the VARIOUS TRANSITIONS measured in spectroscopy are INDEPENDENT OF TEMPERATURE. This is why hydrogen has certain spectroscopic lines of absorption (& re-emission) at ~300º K in the lab. On the sun, where temps are closer to ~6000º K, there are higher energies, so there are lots more lines at higher frequencies. But the LOWER ENERGY FREQUENCIES ARE THE SAME as in the lab. That's why spectroscopy works.

Helium got its name from the Greek word for sun, helios, because its spectrum was discovered by spectroscopy. After helium was discovered on the earth (where it is unusual), its lower energy frequencies could be seen in the lab as well.

The frequencies where molecular magnetic dipole transitions occur do not depend on temperature. Upon being heated by EMR from the sun, especially at visible light frequencies, the earth emits IR EMR. Some of that IR EMR causes molecular magnetic dipole transitions in greenhouse gases. As those nuclei "relax" they re-emit IR EMR in all directions. Some of that is directed toward the earth, further warming it.

This DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. In fact, molecular motion (heat) is still being transmitted from warmer to colder parts of the earth & atmosphere according to the 2nd law. That heat DOES NOT CHANGE SPECTROSCOPIC TRANSITIONS, including those that happen to GHGs with IR EMR.

Why don't you try reading more before you call me & others "babbling idiots"?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31002 Jan 18, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
For the SEVENTH TIME.....
Here are the questions that I asked you :
"So now I have to ask YOU:
- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?
If YOU refuse to answer these simple questions then I have one more question for YOU for EVERYBODY TO WITNESS:
WHY DID YOU POST "Read on cooler objects can heat warmer objects", when it is an OBVIOUS LIE?
Come on, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!"
ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THESE SIMPLE QUESTIONS OR NOT???
----------
More questions:
You said:
"One I didn't say anything of the sort."
FOR THE 5th TIME....What the HELL does THAT REFER TO?
------
You said:
"Two if it's a lie than do write to the publisher."
I HAVE....DUH!
---------
You said:
"Three all science is flawed."
Really ???
FOR THE 5th TIME....Is the 2nd Law FLAWED???
Why don't YOU give an EXAMPLE and a MEASUREMENT?
----------
You said:
"Now do show us your own work the cut and paste BS you post daily has many issues."
Really ???
I have ALREADY told YOU and provided a LINK to my Calculations here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
FOR THE 3rd TIME....Now INSTEAD of BABBLING, SHOW YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS, POST these ISSUES, AND, show YOUR OWN WORK or STFU.
----------
You said:
"Same cut and paste scientific science that you put out there daily. The difference is that it disagrees with your useless cut and paste babble."
REALLY ???
For the 4th TIME...SHOW ME WHERE and SHOW YOUR OWN WORK you Ahole!
----
HAHAHA...HAHAHA...YOU OBVIOUSLY CANNOT EVEN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR "OWN POSTS".
Hey A-HOLE, WHAT have YOU EVER POSTED on Topix THAT IS YOUR OWN WORK let alone PUBLISHED WORK???
HAHAHA...HAHAHA...that's HILARIOUS!
My GOD.....What a BABBLING IDIOT with an OBVIOUS SCREWED UP MIND and DELUSIONAL TOO !
What a HOOT and REALLY, REALLY....PATHETIC!
You need HELP from a REALLY GOOD Professional Psychologist.
So you really really don't know and you have no real published work just useless cut and paste babble. Now see you are the commander of screwed up. You don't rate a hoot just a PATHETIC NUT JOB!!!!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31003 Jan 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
SUX/Gord
You are once again good at screaming & calling people names, but do not understand physics as well as you think you do. As I predicted, you could NOT admit how WRONG you are. I am amused but not surprised.
You said
"...- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?..."
I haven't read all of Dr Spencer's work, but have read some of it. He is considerably smarter than you are, but no less deceptive. He lies & distorts whenever he can. He is a creationist who is, at his core, PROFOUNDLY anti-scientific. His ideology is that AGW/CC is wrong, then he tries to find data that fit that Weltanschauung. His predictions for the climate have been profoundly wrong in the past.
What measurements support the FACT that a cold atmosphere can help warm the earth? Start with what John Tyndall did in the mid-19th century. He discovered that various gases in the atmosphere absorbed, then re-emitted, infrared radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
You should also try to understand radiative forcing, the mechanism by which a colder atmosphere can help the sun warm the earth. You should also try to read & understand spectroscopy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
(As always, Wiki is just the starting point. It is clear, though, that you don't understand the simplest ideas in Wiki, let alone the more complex ones found in their listed references. Read before you comment.)
The fact is that the VARIOUS TRANSITIONS measured in spectroscopy are INDEPENDENT OF TEMPERATURE. This is why hydrogen has certain spectroscopic lines of absorption (& re-emission) at ~300º K in the lab. On the sun, where temps are closer to ~6000º K, there are higher energies, so there are lots more lines at higher frequencies. But the LOWER ENERGY FREQUENCIES ARE THE SAME as in the lab. That's why spectroscopy works.
Helium got its name from the Greek word for sun, helios, because its spectrum was discovered by spectroscopy. After helium was discovered on the earth (where it is unusual), its lower energy frequencies could be seen in the lab as well.
The frequencies where molecular magnetic dipole transitions occur do not depend on temperature. Upon being heated by EMR from the sun, especially at visible light frequencies, the earth emits IR EMR. Some of that IR EMR causes molecular magnetic dipole transitions in greenhouse gases. As those nuclei "relax" they re-emit IR EMR in all directions. Some of that is directed toward the earth, further warming it.
This DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. In fact, molecular motion (heat) is still being transmitted from warmer to colder parts of the earth & atmosphere according to the 2nd law. That heat DOES NOT CHANGE SPECTROSCOPIC TRANSITIONS, including those that happen to GHGs with IR EMR.
Why don't you try reading more before you call me & others "babbling idiots"?
That would require more than one brain cell from the SUX/Gord.See I do reply in kind.
2 manygoats

Albuquerque, NM

#31004 Jan 18, 2013
OMG! Denial is more than convenient.....it's easy.
Science can help us .....if we let it......if we deny it, well, the damage is mounting.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/11/1...
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#31005 Jan 18, 2013
former Farmingtonian wrote:
How can we pass legislation based on unproven theory?
Many scientests believe we are actually in a cooling stage.
Sure, we all have an impact upon this planet. But we should do the things we know are based on facts. Like recycling, developing alternative renewable energy sources.
But I do not believe "the sk s falling". It would be foolish to pass any laws based on unproven theory.
Your post is a beautiful example of denialist ignorance/deceit. It's merely a statement of cluelessness about science, followed by a bald-faced lie, followed by a distraction, followed by doubling down on your total ignorance of scientific concepts.

It's amazing that people as ignorant as you can be so arrogant in your opinions - "I'm smarter than a million PHD's, even though I don't understand concepts taught ibn the first week of 7th grade science."
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31006 Jan 18, 2013
2 manygoats wrote:
OMG! Denial is more than convenient.....it's easy.
Science can help us .....if we let it......if we deny it, well, the damage is mounting.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/11/1...
No need to deny science the scientist do it well with the term in my opinion.
2 manygoats

Albuquerque, NM

#31007 Jan 18, 2013
GOP on the brink of irrelevance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/opinion/sun... ;
2 manygoats

Albuquerque, NM

#31008 Jan 18, 2013
Denial is pretty strange....when facts are exposed.

http://thinkprogress.org/tag/climate-change-d...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31009 Jan 18, 2013
The GOP and Blue Dogs are already there.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31010 Jan 18, 2013
2 manygoats wrote:
OMG! Denial is more than convenient.....it's easy.
Science can help us .....if we let it......if we deny it, well, the damage is mounting.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/11/1...
Help us? Science put us in this climate mess!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31011 Jan 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
SUX/Gord
You are once again good at screaming & calling people names, but do not understand physics as well as you think you do. As I predicted, you could NOT admit how WRONG you are. I am amused but not surprised.
You said
"...- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?..."
I haven't read all of Dr Spencer's work, but have read some of it. He is considerably smarter than you are, but no less deceptive. He lies & distorts whenever he can. He is a creationist who is, at his core, PROFOUNDLY anti-scientific. His ideology is that AGW/CC is wrong, then he tries to find data that fit that Weltanschauung. His predictions for the climate have been profoundly wrong in the past.
What measurements support the FACT that a cold atmosphere can help warm the earth? Start with what John Tyndall did in the mid-19th century. He discovered that various gases in the atmosphere absorbed, then re-emitted, infrared radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
You should also try to understand radiative forcing, the mechanism by which a colder atmosphere can help the sun warm the earth. You should also try to read & understand spectroscopy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
(As always, Wiki is just the starting point. It is clear, though, that you don't understand the simplest ideas in Wiki, let alone the more complex ones found in their listed references. Read before you comment.)
The fact is that the VARIOUS TRANSITIONS measured in spectroscopy are INDEPENDENT OF TEMPERATURE. This is why hydrogen has certain spectroscopic lines of absorption (& re-emission) at ~300º K in the lab. On the sun, where temps are closer to ~6000º K, there are higher energies, so there are lots more lines at higher frequencies. But the LOWER ENERGY FREQUENCIES ARE THE SAME as in the lab. That's why spectroscopy works.
Helium got its name from the Greek word for sun, helios, because its spectrum was discovered by spectroscopy. After helium was discovered on the earth (where it is unusual), its lower energy frequencies could be seen in the lab as well.
The frequencies where molecular magnetic dipole transitions occur do not depend on temperature. Upon being heated by EMR from the sun, especially at visible light frequencies, the earth emits IR EMR. Some of that IR EMR causes molecular magnetic dipole transitions in greenhouse gases. As those nuclei "relax" they re-emit IR EMR in all directions. Some of that is directed toward the earth, further warming it.
This DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. In fact, molecular motion (heat) is still being transmitted from warmer to colder parts of the earth & atmosphere according to the 2nd law. That heat DOES NOT CHANGE SPECTROSCOPIC TRANSITIONS, including those that happen to GHGs with IR EMR.
Why don't you try reading more before you call me & others "babbling idiots"?
I believe it's them Van Allen belts that are causing all this warming. Has any scientists checked them laytly.

This might be what happened right before Earth became te planet of the apes. As in the eponymous movie.

If we all just shoot off into space, we won't have to worry about all this.

I love listening to two trolls fighting....

ER, not you, laptopicus, but PHuD and SuxObama.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31012 Jan 18, 2013
I believe it's them Van Allen belts that are causing all this warming. Has any scientists checked them laytly.

This might be what happened right before Earth became te planet of the apes. As in the eponymous movie.

If we all just shoot off into space, we won't have to worry about all this.

I love listening to two trolls fighting....

Not you, laptopicus, but those two idiots, GORED and PHuD.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31013 Jan 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
SUX/Gord
You are once again good at screaming & calling people names, but do not understand physics as well as you think you do. As I predicted, you could NOT admit how WRONG you are. I am amused but not surprised.
You said
"...- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?..."
I haven't read all of Dr Spencer's work, but have read some of it. He is considerably smarter than you are, but no less deceptive. He lies & distorts whenever he can. He is a creationist who is, at his core, PROFOUNDLY anti-scientific. His ideology is that AGW/CC is wrong, then he tries to find data that fit that Weltanschauung. His predictions for the climate have been profoundly wrong in the past.
What measurements support the FACT that a cold atmosphere can help warm the earth? Start with what John Tyndall did in the mid-19th century. He discovered that various gases in the atmosphere absorbed, then re-emitted, infrared radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
You should also try to understand radiative forcing, the mechanism by which a colder atmosphere can help the sun warm the earth. You should also try to read & understand spectroscopy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
(As always, Wiki is just the starting point. It is clear, though, that you don't understand the simplest ideas in Wiki, let alone the more complex ones found in their listed references. Read before you comment.)
The fact is that the VARIOUS TRANSITIONS measured in spectroscopy are INDEPENDENT OF TEMPERATURE. This is why hydrogen has certain spectroscopic lines of absorption (& re-emission) at ~300º K in the lab. On the sun, where temps are closer to ~6000º K, there are higher energies, so there are lots more lines at higher frequencies. But the LOWER ENERGY FREQUENCIES ARE THE SAME as in the lab. That's why spectroscopy works.
Helium got its name from the Greek word for sun, helios, because its spectrum was discovered by spectroscopy. After helium was discovered on the earth (where it is unusual), its lower energy frequencies could be seen in the lab as well.
The frequencies where molecular magnetic dipole transitions occur do not depend on temperature. Upon being heated by EMR from the sun, especially at blah blah
Once again, all you can do is RUN FOR THE HILLS and BABBLE more CULT-SPEAK.

Look I will explain it ONCE MORE for you and your Delusional AGW Cult.

You SAID:

"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."

NOW, CAN YOU POST:

- 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 ?

I say these Measurements DO NOT EXIST and that YOU ARE A JUST ANOTHER AGW CULT LIAR.

So, Either POST THEM or ADMIT that YOU ARE A LIAR and these PHANTOM MEASUREMENTS DO NOT EXIST.

It's THAT SIMPLE, DUMBASS.

----------
Watch as Homo-ody has another Panic Attack and RUNS FOR THE HILLS because he was CONFRONTED with the TRUTH again.

Homo-ody and the rest of the AGW CULT can't post the Measurements they LIE ABOUT because THEY DO NOT EXIST.

So, they will call me every name under the Sun, post more CULT BABBLE but NONE OF THESE CULT IDIOTS will be able to POST those PHANTOM MEASUREMENTS.

Like ALL CULTS, the AGW CULT cannot stand it when their LIES are EXPOSED BY THE TRUTH.

For the Normal People reading this, WATCH and LEARN about the AGW CULT.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31014 Jan 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
SUX/Gord
You are once again good at screaming & calling people names, but do not understand physics as well as you think you do. As I predicted, you could NOT admit how WRONG you are. I am amused but not surprised.
You said
"...- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?..."
I haven't read all of Dr Spencer's work, but have read some of it. He is considerably smarter than you are, but no less deceptive. He lies & distorts whenever he can. He is a creationist who is, at his core, PROFOUNDLY anti-scientific. His ideology is that AGW/CC is wrong, then he tries to find data that fit that Weltanschauung. His predictions for the climate have been profoundly wrong in the past.
What measurements support the FACT that a cold atmosphere can help warm the earth? Start with what John Tyndall did in the mid-19th century. He discovered that various gases in the atmosphere absorbed, then re-emitted, infrared radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
You should also try to understand radiative forcing, the mechanism by which a colder atmosphere can help the sun warm the earth. You should also try to read & understand spectroscopy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
(As always, Wiki is just the starting point. It is clear, though, that you don't understand the simplest ideas in Wiki, let alone the more complex ones found in their listed references. Read before you comment.)
The fact is that the VARIOUS TRANSITIONS measured in spectroscopy are INDEPENDENT OF TEMPERATURE. This is why hydrogen has certain spectroscopic lines of absorption (& re-emission) at ~300º K in the lab. On the sun, where temps are closer to ~6000º K, there are higher energies, so there are lots more lines at higher frequencies. But the LOWER ENERGY FREQUENCIES ARE THE SAME as in the lab. That's why spectroscopy works.
Helium got its name from the Greek word for sun, helios, because its spectrum was discovered by spectroscopy. After helium was discovered on the earth (where it is unusual), its lower energy frequencies could be seen in the lab as well.
The frequencies where molecular magnetic dipole transitions occur do not depend on temperature. blah blah
Once again, all you can do is RUN FOR THE HILLS and BABBLE more CULT-SPEAK.

Look I will explain it ONCE MORE for you and your Delusional AGW Cult.

You SAID:

"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."

NOW, CAN YOU POST:

- 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 ?

I say these Measurements DO NOT EXIST and that YOU ARE A JUST ANOTHER AGW CULT LIAR.

So, Either POST THEM or ADMIT that YOU ARE A LIAR and these PHANTOM MEASUREMENTS DO NOT EXIST.

It's THAT SIMPLE, DUMBASS.

----------
Watch as Homo-ody has another Panic Attack and RUNS FOR THE HILLS because he was CONFRONTED with the TRUTH again.

Homo-ody and the rest of the AGW CULT can't post the Measurements they LIE ABOUT because THEY DO NOT EXIST.

So, they will call me every name under the Sun, post more CULT BABBLE but NONE OF THESE CULT IDIOTS will be able to POST those PHANTOM MEASUREMENTS.

Like ALL CULTS, the AGW CULT cannot stand it when their LIES are EXPOSED BY THE TRUTH.

For the Normal People reading this, WATCH and LEARN about the AGW CULT.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31015 Jan 18, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
- 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 ?
SUX-
Do you read English? Are you capable of that? I'll say this AGAIN:
I TOLD you, John Tyndall, in the middle of the 19th century, showed how infrared radiation could be absorbed & re-emitted by atmospheric gases. That process happens when the gas is COOLER than the ground.
The earth emits IR EMR (electromagnetic radiation), some of the gases in the atmosphere, REGARDLESS OF TEMPERATURE, absorb & re-emit some of that radiation back toward the ground, warming it. The atmosphere can be freezing cold, yet because of this absorption & re-emission of IR EMR, it can still help the sun warm the earth.
This DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. PERIOD.
The FREQUENCIES one sees in spectroscopic measurements are not particularly affected by temperature. If you do spectroscopic measurements of a hot object like the sun, you see higher energies & "more lines," but the low energy lines are at the same frequency as you see at room temp in the lab. That's why spectroscopy works.
Did you read about spectroscopy? Did you read about radiative forcing? Did you read about John Tyndall?
Or was he part of the "AGW cult"? Keep in mind he died in 1893. Maybe Svante Arrhenius (look him up) was also part of the "cult"? He died in 1927.
You can call me an idiot, or a moron, or a cultist, all in capitals, as many times as you want, but that doesn't make any of those things true. Why don't you try to read before you post?
Scientific facts are true no matter how many times YOU claim they aren't.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31016 Jan 18, 2013
SUX,

Again, you can call me a dumbass idiot in capitals as much as you want, but it won't change scientific FACTS.

Did you actually READ the links I provided to you? Let's post them again. You're at your computer & have internet access. You're certainly capable of calling people names in English, maybe you can actually READ it also, IDK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

Let's thrown in a few more for good measure. If you read these carefully, you MIGHT actually understand a bit of the science. You'll know more than just insulting names to call people. You might actually LEARN something! Just think!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Again, there is still heat transfer from warmer to cooler parts of the earth & atmosphere, as one would expect from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Once AGAIN: cooler temps do NOT prevent the transitions one sees spectroscopically, in this case at the IR EMR energy level. A cold atmospheric gas can absorb IR EMR from the ground & re-emit it in all directions, some of which goes back to the ground, further warming it.

AGAIN: this does NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is a different process. It is not molecular motion (heat).

You can deny it a million times if you want, but you'll still be wrong. This science has been known for more than 150 years.

Scientific facts are true. You are wrong.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min American Lady 244,209
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min the deplorable Jo... 1,433,631
News Moderator Lester Holt under scrutiny during debate 5 min Cheat In The Pant... 7
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 46 min District 1 225,458
News Pence: Trump will "speak the truth" during debate 1 hr Mite Be 29
News The debate as seen through millennials' eyes 2 hr Bert 34
News Post-debate poll: Clinton takes round one 2 hr deplorable spud 303
More from around the web