Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30923 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

#31169 Jan 23, 2013
All should complain on all. What a wonderful topic it would be.
PHD

United States

#31170 Jan 23, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though Homo-ody 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."
Homo-ody CAN'T 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
And he WILL NOT answer WHY!
What a HOOT!
But, that IS THE AGW CULT in ACTION, exactly as I PREDICTED.
----------
There are no BILLIONS of Measurements, there are ZERO MEASUREMENTS....they DO NOT EXIST.
And, that is why the AGW CULT are OBVIOUS PATHOLOGICAL LIARS and SO PREDICTABLE.
Get it now "Joe Bob Attacks" ?
More useless babble cut and paste science fiction from a Topix monkey troll. I stand by my assertion that your posts resemble those "people" who have an average IQ of 59.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31171 Jan 24, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, "There ARE NO SUCH MEASUREMENTS in your Post, you IDIOT!"
Even though Homo-ody 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."
Homo-ody CAN'T 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
And he WILL NOT answer WHY!
What a HOOT!
But, that IS THE AGW CULT in ACTION, exactly as I PREDICTED.
----------
There are no BILLIONS of Measurements, there are ZERO MEASUREMENTS....they DO NOT EXIST.
And, that is why the AGW CULT are OBVIOUS PATHOLOGICAL LIARS and SO PREDICTABLE.
Get it now "Joe Bob Attacks" ?
SUXObama,

Thanks for the belly laugh, SUX. You do realize that you started this post attacking me but ended up attacking Joe Bob, right?

What's up with that? Are you confused? Disoriented? On drugs? Can't remember who you're talking to? Hmmm.

I probably shouldn't be surprised. Your ability to keep different people straight may correspond to your ability in assessing AGW/CC.

Or not. NOBOBY could be as clueless about which posters said what as you are about AGW/CC.
PHD

United States

#31172 Jan 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
SUXObama,
Thanks for the belly laugh, SUX. You do realize that you started this post attacking me but ended up attacking Joe Bob, right?
What's up with that? Are you confused? Disoriented? On drugs? Can't remember who you're talking to? Hmmm.
I probably shouldn't be surprised. Your ability to keep different people straight may correspond to your ability in assessing AGW/CC.
Or not. NOBOBY could be as clueless about which posters said what as you are about AGW/CC.
Haha, OSux is clueless. And anti-American.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31173 Jan 24, 2013
More PHD posers out there.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31174 Jan 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
SUX
My posts contain an abstract that STATES there are measurements, but you are WAY TOO STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOPID to underderstand what that means. It means that the COLDER atmosphere warms up the WARMER earth by re-emitting some IR EMR. VL EMR warms the earth, the earth radiates in IR, the cold atmosphere absorbs & re-emits some of that IR EMR back toward the earth.
I DID answer why the abstract doesn't contain the measurements: they are in the body of the paper, & the authors can't clutter up their abstract with raw numbers. They THINK people will understand that if they SAY the paper contains measurements, the paper will contain measurements.
It's CERTAINLY more logical that your INANE paper that makes an assertion that "all the textbooks are wrong" but explains NOTHING.
Do recall that Wallop10 listed 29 papers that support our view? All of them prove we're right & you're WRONG.
I pity your stunningly profound idiocy. Your cowardice is at least that profound as well, though. You'll never admit you're wrong, you'll just keep repeating your equine excremental nonsense.
You Say:
"My posts contain an abstract that STATES there are measurements, but you are WAY TOO STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOPID to underderstand what that means."

Total BS! And a LIE.

You also Say:
"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."

Total BS! And a LIE.

I say there there is NOT:

- 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

THEY DO NOT EXIST and that's why YOU CAN'T POST EVEN "ONE".

Come on, TELL US WHY YOU CAN'T POST EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT?
----------
If there really was "BILLIONS" of these Fantasy Measurements then it should NO PROBLEM FOR YOU TO POST "ONE" MEASUREMENT, you IDIOT.

Cold Objects should be HEATING-UP Warm Objects EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME.

Put an ICE Cube next to some room temperature water and according to your AGW CULT "science", the water should HEAT-UP!

But the FACTS are that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.

“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...

The 2nd Law is VERY SIMPLE to UNDERSTAND and even a CHILD knows that COLD objects DO NOT HEAT-UP WARMER objects....period.

So stop wasting my time by posting AGW BABBLE over and over again and JUST POST "ONE" MEASUREMENT out of the BILLION MEASUREMENTS YOU SAY EXIST!!
----------
Needless to say, I PREDICT that this AGW IDIOT will continue to POST more AGW BABBLE with NO MEASUREMENTS.

The AGW CULT rules of behaviour embedded his "brainwashed" CULT MIND is SO PREDICTABLE.

Watch and LEARN.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31175 Jan 24, 2013
Joe Bob Attacks wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're misinterpretting the laws of thermodynamics and twisting the IPCC's words. It's not a simple equation. Weather systems are very complex.
Have you ever considered that you may be interpretting the data incorrectly? What makes you so certain beyond any doubt? Do you have a scientific background? I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to know.
Joe Bob Attacks wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're misinterpretting the laws of thermodynamics and twisting the IPCC's words.
Really???

Do you think Cold Objects can HEAT-UP Warmer Objects?
Put an ICE Cube next to some room temperature water, does the water HEAT-UP?

“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...

What part of "NOT POSSIBLE" don't you understand and HOW AM I "misinterpretting the laws of thermodynamics" ?

The 2nd Law applies to the COLD Atmosphere HEATING a Warmer Earth Surface as well.

Now, here are DIRECT QUOTES from the IPCC AR4 REPORT describing the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect":

Here is a link to the The IPCC AR4 Report where the Greenhouse Effect is defined along with Trenberth's Earth Energy Budget Diagram.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/...
----------
On Pg. 115
Frequently Asked Question 1.3
What is the Greenhouse Effect?

"The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet)part of the spectrum.

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space.

The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere.

To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space.

Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1).

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth.

This is called the greenhouse effect."
----------
Figure 1 is also on Pg. 115

FAQ 1.3, Figure 1. An idealised model of the natural greenhouse effect. See text for explanation.

Quoted right from Figure 1...

"The Greenhouse Effect
Some of the infrared radiation passes through the atmosphere but most is absorbed and re-emitted in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds.

The effect of this is to warm the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere."
----------
What this is saying is this:

- A portion of the Sun's energy is absorbed by the Earths Surface and heats the Earths Surface.
- The warmed Earth Surface re-radiates this energy at IR wavelengths.
- The atmosphere, including clouds, absorbes the Earth's Surface radiation and then reradiates Back to the Earth Surface.
- The Energy reradiated Back to the Earth Surface from the Atmosphere (called Back Radiation) is absorbed by the Earths Surface and causes the Earths Surface to warm.
- This is the greenhouse effect.

Some additional information:
- The Average Earth Surface temperature is +15 deg C.
- The Average Atmospheric temperature is -20 deg C.

Thus we can correctly write the IPCC AR4 Report definition of the Greenhouse Effect as:

Greenhouse Effect: Back Radiation from a Average -20 deg C Atmosphere to a +15 deg C Earth Surface where the Back Radiation is absorbed causing the Earths Surface to warm.
----------
Continued...
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31176 Jan 24, 2013
Continuation...

Do you REALLY think that a COLD Atmosphere can HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth Surface?

There are ZERO MEASUREMENTS, EVER DONE in the history of Mankind, to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect".

That's why the AGW CULT NUTS can't Post even "ONE" Measurement.
----------
Joe Bob Attacks wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever considered that you may be interpretting the data incorrectly? What makes you so certain beyond any doubt? Do you have a scientific background? I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to know.
There are no Measurements to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" so what "data" am I supposed to interpret?

I am certain beyond any doubt because:

- The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says Cold Objects (like the Cold Atmosphere) CANNOT Heat-up Warmer Objects (like the Earth Surface)
- Every Measurement, ever done, confirms the Validity of The 2nd Law.
- There are no measurements to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"

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".

YES, I do have a scientific background.

I am a Professional Electrical Engineer and have been a Licensed Engineering Consultant for over 24 years.

I Consult on many aspects of Communications Systems including Electromagnetic Wave Propagation in the Optical, Infrared (that's the spectrum that Back Radiation is in), Microwave & Satellite, UHF TV, VHF TV and FM Radio.

I should point out that Electromagnetic Wave Propagation is in the Domain of Engineering for Public Licensed Practice.

"Climatologists" receive very little, if any, training in Electromagnetic Wave Propagation (even though it is the very BASIS of the so called "Greenhouse Effect") and ARE NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE in this AREA OF PHYSICS.

----------
Finally, perhaps you should take your own advice that you gave "Tina anne":
Joe Bob Attacks wrote:
<quoted text>
You see, assumptions do no one any good. I could assume that you're an idiot. But again, that would be an assumption and not fair, as I'm sure you're more than just words on a message board.
I have presented the FACTS complete with the easily understood and established 2nd Law that has never been shown to to be wrong and actual Quotes from the IPCC AR4 report that proves the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" has no basis in Science, violates the 2nd Law, and has Zero Measurements to support it.

It's up to you to decide whether the AGW Frauds are right or established Science and every Measurement ever made is the TRUTH.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31177 Jan 24, 2013
More scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31179 Jan 24, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
[edited]
What is the Greenhouse Effect?
"The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet)part of the spectrum.
Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space.
The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere.
To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space.
Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum
Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth.
This is called the greenhouse effect.

Some of the infrared radiation passes through the atmosphere but most is absorbed and re-emitted in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds.
The effect of this is to warm the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere."

What this is saying is this:
- A portion of the Sun's energy is absorbed by the Earths surface and heats the Earth's surface.
- The warmed Earth's surface re-radiates this energy at IR wavelengths.
- The atmosphere, including clouds, absorbes the Earth's surface radiation and then reradiates [SOME of it] back to the Earth's surface.
- The snergy reradiated Back to the Earth surface from the atmosphere (called back radiation) is absorbed by the Earth's surface and causes the Earth's surface to warm [somewhat more than it would have otherwise].
- This is the greenhouse effect.
Some additional information:
- The Average Earth surface temperature is +15 deg C.
- The Average atmospheric temperature is -20 deg C.
[Note: we are writing in English, not German. Proper names are capitalized, but not other nouns. Edited corrections have been made.]

Amazingly enough, this is exactly correct! What's incorrect is your confusion of molecular motion (heat) with various transitions caused by the interaction of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with molecules.

You claim you have a physics & electical engineering background. OK, why does spectroscopy work?

Presumably you'll agree that the sun is hotter than most physics labs. Yet the spectra of hydrogen & helium at low energies are the SAME on the earth & the sun. There are more transitions at higher temperatures (i.e. higher frequencies) on the sun, but the low energy transitions are at exactly the same places (frequencies) on the spectrum whether it's taken at room temp or sun temp.

THEY ARE NOT TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT. They function quite apart from molecular motion (heat).

Similarly, the transitions associated with the interaction of infrared (IR) EMR with greenhouse gases ARE NOT TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT. That is exactly how a colder atmosphere can HELP the sun warm up the earth more than it could without those GHGs.

This is not a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31180 Jan 24, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
Do you REALLY think that a COLD Atmosphere can HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth Surface?
There are ZERO MEASUREMENTS, EVER DONE in the history of Mankind, to support the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect".
That's why the AGW CULT NUTS can't Post even "ONE" Measurement.
OK SUXObama, I found the full text of the Vinnikov et al article online (without having to pay for it). Given the character limit, it would be problematic to post the whole thing here, but this is the link:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related...

The measurements therein prove I'm right & you're wrong. However, it's possible that the ONLY thing you'll accept is if we were to somehow remove ALL GHGs (greenhouse gases) from the atmosphere & see how much cooler the earth's surface gets.

That is of course impossible. But at present, we are doing an "opposite" experiment: we are raising GHGs & the earth is warming.

Eventually the signs of warming will be so strong that even you deniers won't be able to ignore them. Scientific facts are true no matter how many times you scream that they're not.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31181 Jan 24, 2013
Love it, HSL. Thanks much.
2 manygoats

Albuquerque, NM

#31183 Jan 24, 2013
How serious? It's cold! Right here! Right now!
Science in the dark ages........

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january...
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31185 Jan 25, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
OK SUXObama, I found the full text of the Vinnikov et al article online (without having to pay for it). Given the character limit, it would be problematic to post the whole thing here, but this is the link:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related...
The measurements therein prove I'm right & you're wrong. However, it's possible that the ONLY thing you'll accept is if we were to somehow remove ALL GHGs (greenhouse gases) from the atmosphere & see how much cooler the earth's surface gets.
That is of course impossible. But at present, we are doing an "opposite" experiment: we are raising GHGs & the earth is warming.
Eventually the signs of warming will be so strong that even you deniers won't be able to ignore them. Scientific facts are true no matter how many times you scream that they're not.
HAHAHA....What a HOOT!

Your Vinnikov et al article DOES NOT HAVE:

- 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

All they are Measuring is the UPWELLING EARTH RADIATION (Heat Flow from the WARM EARTH to the COLDER ATMOPHERE)

"Between calibration periods, the MSU views the
Earth and measures the upwelling thermal radiation, or
brightness temperature, at four frequencies within the oxygen
band."

And then they compare those MEASUREMENTS to Measurements of the COLD ATMOSPHERE, YOU IDIOT!
----------
And EXACTLY as I PREDICTED BEFORE:

"Needless to say, I PREDICT that this AGW IDIOT will continue to POST more AGW BABBLE with NO MEASUREMENTS.

The AGW CULT rules of behaviour embedded his "brainwashed" CULT MIND is SO PREDICTABLE.

Watch and LEARN."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----------
I PREDICT that this AGW IDIOT will continue to POST more AGW BABBLE with NO MEASUREMENTS.

Watch and LEARN.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31186 Jan 25, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
[Note: we are writing in English, not German. Proper names are capitalized, but not other nouns. Edited corrections have been made.]
Amazingly enough, this is exactly correct! What's incorrect is your confusion of molecular motion (heat) with various transitions caused by the interaction of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with molecules.
You claim you have a physics & electical blah blah
HAHAHA...HAHAHA....more AGW CULT BABBLE.

First, you HAVE NO CLUE what "HEAT" IS.

You said:
"What's incorrect is your confusion of molecular motion (heat) with various transitions caused by the interaction of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with molecules."

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...

Points:
- Heat is ENERGY IN TRANSIT (ie. Propagating Electromagnertic Fields which CARRY energy from one place to another), NOT "MOLECULAR MOTION"
- Heat is NOT EVEN DEFINED for movement from COLD to HOT, it is only "from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object."
- Once the Heat ENERGY IN TRANSIT is absorbed by a COLDER Object it increases the Objects INTERNAL ENERGY (Internal energy is defined as the energy associated with the random, disordered motion of molecules) to produce HEATING.

What a HOOT!....but Typical for the AGW CULT that has NO CLUE ABOUT ESTABLISHED SCIENCE.
----------
You asked:
"You claim you have a physics & electical engineering background. OK, why does spectroscopy work?"
"THEY ARE NOT TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT. They function quite apart from molecular motion (heat)."
---
All "spectroscopy" does is look at the Radiated Energy of an element, gas or object once it has Absorbed Energy.

Spectroscopy typically looks at the wavelength of Radiated Energy of an Object to determine what elements are contained in the Object.

Different elements have different characteristic Radiated wavelength signatures.
--
Futher....your BS about THEY ARE NOT TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT is just more IDIOTIC CULT BABBLE proven by Wiens's Displacement Law.

If a body, like the Sun, Radiates at a peak amplitude then the WAVELENGTH of the peak will reveal it's TEMPERATURE which can be determined from Wiens's Displacement Law.

In fact, I discussed this in a Post where I PROVED that the AGW CULT "scientists" have FALSELY LOWERED THE TEMPERATURE of the SUN to 5778K.

The Sun's Surface Temperature can be determined from Wiens's Displacement Law to be 6273K (which agrees with Other Text-Book sources)

The Result is that the Earth Surface Temperature (Albedo = 0, Black Body Earth WITHOUT AN ATMOSPHERE) changes from Trenberth's AGW QUACK temperature of +5.53 C to +29.40 C

*** This means that the ADDITION OF AN ATMOSPHERE AND ALL OTHER FACTORS ACTUALLY COOLED THE EARTH DOWN TO +15 deg C ***

The AGW "scientists" HAD to fraudulently LOWER the Sun's temperature so that they could use the fraudulent "Greenhouse Effect" that CREATES
ENERGY to overcome the lowered Sun temperature.

The PROOF and Calculations are HERE:

"Where is the AGW "science"?
E) How Does The Sun's Energy (the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE) raise the Earths Surface temperature to +15 deg C?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----------
Once again you have been shown to have the mind of a CLUELESS AGW CULT MEMBER that still CANNOT 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

Because THEY DO NOT EXIST.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31187 Jan 25, 2013
There you have it folks the commander of useless scientific science fiction cut and paste babble is going to make a prediction. Can you guess what that prediction could be? Oh more useless scientific science fiction useless cut and paste babble.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#31188 Jan 25, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHA...HAHAHA....more AGW CULT BABBLE.
First, you HAVE NO CLUE what "HEAT" I

TRASH

WHERE THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE HAS "HEATED-UP" A WARMER EARTH
Because THEY DO NOT EXIST.
OK, Gord, let me work with you here.

If the greenhouse effect is fantasy, what keeps the Earth at that constant +15C?

Awaiting an education from a really smart turd.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31189 Jan 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, Gord, let me work with you here.
If the greenhouse effect is fantasy, what keeps the Earth at that constant +15C?
Awaiting an education from a really smart turd.
First, the "Greenhouse Effect" is a Fantasy and that's why YOU have been RUNNING FOR THE HILLS for YEARS and CAN'T 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

THEY DO NOT EXIST and that's why YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO POST EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT....EVER.

Second, the Earth's temperature IS NOT CONSTANT at +15 C

Haven't you heard of ICE AGES....you AGW TURD?

What a HOOT!... and what an IDIOT!
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#31190 Jan 25, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the "Greenhouse Effect" is a Fantasy and that's why YOU have been RUNNING FOR THE HILLS for YEARS and CAN'T 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
THEY DO NOT EXIST and that's why YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO POST EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT....EVER.
Second, the Earth's temperature IS NOT CONSTANT at +15 C
Haven't you heard of ICE AGES....you AGW TURD?
What a HOOT!... and what an IDIOT!
Don't have an answer to my one question?

Yes, the Earth's temperature has deviated from 15C in the past. I knew that, you idiot. I was talking about NOW, fool, the only time that really counts to you and I.

What is it that keeps this planet warm NOW?

Can you answer that, or would you prefer to RUN FOR THE HILLS?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31191 Jan 25, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHA...HAHAHA....more AGW CULT BABBLE.
First, you HAVE NO CLUE what "HEAT" IS.
You said:
"What's incorrect is your confusion of molecular motion (heat) with various transitions caused by the interaction of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with molecules."
Heat
- Heat is ENERGY IN TRANSIT (ie. Propagating Electromagnertic Fields which CARRY energy from one place to another), NOT "MOLECULAR MOTION"

"THEY ARE NOT TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT. They function quite apart from molecular motion (heat)."

- 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.
Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

This quote is from a CalTech website. You think they know anything about science?

"The motion of atoms and molecules creates a form of energy called heat or thermal energy which is present in all matter..."

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_cla...

It is NOT the same as electromagnetic radiation. It is most assuredly NOT "...propagating electromagnertic fields which carry energy from one place to another..." (capitals corrected) like you claim. You are very, very confused about science.

As to Wien's Law, it applies to black body radiation. In case you didn't know, the sun is not a black body. Wien's Law doesn't predict absorption lines in the spectra of various substances, it predicts the frequency of EMR emitted from a black body at a given temperature.

You didn't answer my question: why does spectroscopy work on the earth & the sun, at wildly different temperatures? Why are the low energy absorption lines in the spectra of hydrogen & helium at EXACTLY THE SAME FREQUENCIES at ~300º K & ~6000º K?

I'll tell you: because the transitions of electrons from one "orbit" to another are not dependent on temperature. The transitions of greenhouse gases which absorb & re-emit IR EMR are not temperature-dependent either.

As to your nonsense that the temperature of the sun's surface was conspiratorially changed to a different value, & only YOU know the "correct" temperature, I guess that means you're smarter than all these people, who say it's ~5778º K:

http://planetfacts.org/temperature-of-the-sun...

http://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun...

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

http://www.universetoday.com/18689/color-of-t...

The last one only gives approximate values, but they're more consistent with the standad view than with yours.

Hey - maybe you should contact all these people & tell them how wrong they are. You could grow HALF a gonad & sign on to Wiki. In the small-D democratic environment there, if you have facts & logic on your side, you'll prevail.

Of course, Vinnikov's paper is FULL of temperature measurements. That's what the paper is ABOUT. The measured temps are consistent with radiative forcing by GHGs. Period.

You can scream & repeat (& scream & scream & scream, & repeat & repeat & repeat) all you want. You can call me whatever names you want.

Scientific facts are true no matter what nonsense you try to post here.

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 3 min Patriot AKA Bozo 5,087
News Hundreds Of Scientists Urge Trump To Pull Out O... 12 min Patriot AKA Bozo 164
global warming keeps on keeping on 1 hr jhnsn d-s 1
News Battery Power Gives Boost to Renewables 5 hr Into The Night 139
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 6 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 2,393
The Paradox of Contemporary Neo-Orthodox Climat... 10 hr don t drink the k... 1
News Prof at The Nation: CO2 'A Far More Deadly Gas'... Tue okimar 3
More from around the web