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.

ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31303 Jan 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again, Stupo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcin...
"In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space."
No mention of requiring a "COLD Atmosphere HEATING a Warmer Earth" as you assert.
You are so stupid!
Why didn't you POST IT ALL, Stupo ???

Radiative forcing
"In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the TROPOPAUSE in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active GASES and aerosols."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcin...

That means that the GASES (CO2) in the COLD Atmosphere (reference is the temperature of the COLD TROPOPAUSE) is HEATING a WARMER EARTH, you IDIOT!

Further, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Earth to Radiate any MORE or LESS than the Earth ABSORBS as the Stefan-Boltzman Law CLEARLY SHOWS and would also be a VIOLATION of The Law of Conservation of Energy that states "Energy Cannot Be Created or Destroyed" meaning that "Energy In = Energy Out", you IDIOT.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

P/A = BC*T^4 (w/m^2)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

If the temperature of the Earth is T then that means it has "Absorbed" P/A w/m^2 and will "Radiate" P/A w/m^2.(Energy In = Energy Out)

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and The Law of Conservation of Energy is so SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND except for STUPID AGWer's like YOU!
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31304 Jan 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>My answer to both questions is, no, not that I am aware of.
I am aware that you are too stupid to understand how a cold object, with the right physical properties, can influence the heat loss of a warmer object, with the right physical properties.
Now answer me a question, Stupo.
- Even one measurement where the Earth,at night,cools at the same rate no matter the cloud cover.
I'm pleased that you have at least admitted that you know of no measurements where a Cold atmosphere can Heat-up a Warmer Earth.

Of Course that means that the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" as described by the IPCC AR4 Report must be NOT BE SUPPORTED BY ANY MEASUREMENTS, right?
----------
No the Earth DOES NOT "COOL" at the same rate no mater what the cloud cover.

Clouds can keep some warm air that is less than the temperature of the clouds from rising above the clouds.

However, no change in the rate of COOLING can produce HEATING.

HEATING of the Earth requires additional ENERGY to be absorbed by the Earth and no Colder CLOUD can HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth as you now have admitted.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#31305 Jan 28, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pleased that you have at least admitted that you know of no measurements where a Cold atmosphere can Heat-up a Warmer Earth.
Of Course that means that the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" as described by the IPCC AR4 Report must be NOT BE SUPPORTED BY ANY MEASUREMENTS, right?
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Why do you think it does?

There are plenty of measurements showing the "GHE" here on Earth as well as other planets. All you have to do is look and read.
Try this one. You won't like the source, but then, I don't like many of yours. This should get you started.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php...
No the Earth DOES NOT "COOL" at the same rate no mater what the cloud cover.
Clouds can keep some warm air that is less than the temperature of the clouds from rising above the clouds.
How do the clouds manage to do that?
What happens when there are no clouds? What happens to the warm air then? Do you think it just escapes into space? Is there any experiment that you can point to to corroborate this information.
However, no change in the rate of COOLING can produce HEATING.
HEATING of the Earth requires additional ENERGY to be absorbed by the Earth and no Colder CLOUD can HEAT-UP a Warmer Earth as you now have admitted.
Yes, yes. That's why it's called cooling.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31306 Jan 28, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHA...HAHAHA...HAHAHA..
HOW are the AGW QUACK "climate scientists", who have little to ZERO TRAINING in Electromagnetic Field Physics and Thermodynamics qualified to even publicly discuss their Fantasy "Greenhouse
Effect" that relies on IR Back Radiation propagating from a Cold Atmosphere to HEAT a much Warmer Earth Surface ???
------
Here is a PHYSICS Paper that expains why the "Greenhouse Effect" is a FRAUD and why the POORLY EDUCATED "climatologists" are at least a CENTURY BEHIND in REAL SCIENCE:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global
climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively
euilibrated to the atmospheric system.
According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist."
GERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B23, 275 (2009). DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.114...
----------
HEY, Joe Bob Attacks, WHY CAN'T YOU or ANY of your AGW CULT MEMBERS 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
Come on, ANSWER the SIMPLE QUESTION.
--------
I PREDICT that Joe Bob Attacks will have a Panic Attack, crap his pants and RUN FOR THE HILLS.
The AGW CULT rules of behaviour embedded in their collective "brainwashed" CULT MINDS will PROHIBIT HIM from answering my SIMPLE QUESTION.
The AGW CULT is SO PREDICTABLE.
Normal People.....Watch and LEARN.
I'm not the idiot here. Your posts just get crazier and crazier. And no an electrical engineer is not a scientists or a climatologist. You're an electrical engineer. I'm not sure if I actually believe that either, but if you say so. Does electrical engineering require basic understanding of science and math, yes of course. Does that you make a scientist? NO!

As for your challenge about thermodynamics, you're still not making sense and have provided no evidence.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all processes proceed in one direction. Heat flows from a hot object to a cold object, never the reverse. While it is not possible to make heat flow from cold to hot, it is possible to slow down heat transfer without contravening the second law of thermodynamics.

The greenhouse effect would "only" violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics if the greenhouse effect had the sole result of transferring heat from a cooler to a warmer body, but that too would be an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the greenhouse effect.

The earth warms because some of the radiant heat from the earth is absorbed by the atmosphere.

There is a great explanation of the greenhouse effect and thermodynamics on this website. I challenge you to read it and free your mind.

http://junkscience.com/climate-features/is-th...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31307 Jan 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> No, it doesn't mean that at all. Why do you think it does?
There are plenty of measurements showing the "GHE" here on Earth as well as other planets. All you have to do is look and read.
Try this one. You won't like the source, but then, I don't like many of yours. This should get you started.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php...
<quoted text> How do the clouds manage to do that?
What happens when there are no clouds? What happens to the warm air then? Do you think it just escapes into space? Is there any experiment that you can point to to corroborate this information.
<quoted text>Yes, yes. That's why it's called cooling.
No sense batting your brain. Gordhead cannot get around the fact that IR escapes the Earth slower due to the properties of GHGS. He does not understand that all objects above absolute zero radiate and that all objects absorb radiation no matter what their temperature. He does not understand that heat transfer is a net reaction and that energy flows both ways no matter the temperatures. He cannot get around the fact that energy flows both ways between objects but the bulk of it flows to the cooler object. You will have to be patient with him. Perhaps some day he can understand.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#31308 Jan 28, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you POST IT ALL, Stupo ???
Radiative forcing
"In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the TROPOPAUSE in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active GASES and aerosols."
What a stupid idiot you are. You said there was no such thing and I showed you there was. No need to quote the rest of the discussion.
That means that the GASES (CO2) in the COLD Atmosphere (reference is the temperature of the COLD TROPOPAUSE) is HEATING a WARMER EARTH, you IDIOT!
More ignorance from you, Stupo. Radiant Energy from the Sun heats the Earth, you idiot, not CO2. We've already established that. But also, to a much lesser extent, the Earth receives radiant energy from other sources. Namely water vapor and GHG in the atmosphere. So radiant forcing is simply the total radiant energy received by the Earth minus the radiant energy radiated back to space. I suppose this is a difficult concept for an idiot like you to grasp. Nonetheless, radiant forcing occurs; with or without CO2 or even an atmosphere for that matter.
The rest of your screed is true- more or less- but has no bearing on the radiant forcing phenomena.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#31309 Jan 28, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
You will have to be patient with him. Perhaps some day he can understand.
Perhaps someday, mankind will be free from idiots like Stupo. NOT!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31310 Jan 28, 2013
So is there hope that the "pinheadlitesout,I got walloped10 and spaced out spacedoutblues will go along with their scientific science fiction?
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31311 Jan 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> No, it doesn't mean that at all. Why do you think it does?
There are plenty of measurements showing the "GHE" here on Earth as well as other planets. All you have to do is look and read.
Try this one. You won't like the source, but then, I don't like many of yours. This should get you started.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php...
<quoted text> How do the clouds manage to do that?
What happens when there are no clouds? What happens to the warm air then? Do you think it just escapes into space? Is there any experiment that you can point to to corroborate this information.
<quoted text>Yes, yes. That's why it's called cooling.
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> No, it doesn't mean that at all. Why do you think it does?
There are plenty of measurements showing the "GHE" here on Earth as well as other planets. All you have to do is look and read.
Try this one. You won't like the source, but then, I don't like many of yours. This should get you started.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php... blah blah
GEEZE, here are the QUOTES DIRECTLY from the IPCC AR4 REPORT describing the FANTASY "Greenhouse Effect" that I HAVE REFERENCE ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES NOW !!!
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

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.

Since YOU JUST POSTED:

"ObamaSUX wrote:
- 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
Come on, ANSWER the SIMPLE QUESTION.

My answer to both questions is, no, not that I am aware of."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

How the HELL can you say that the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" IS SUPPORTED BY "ANY" MEASUREMENTS ????

What a HOOT!
----------
If a Cloud at say -5 deg C is above an air mass that is -10 deg C then the Air at contact with the cloud will increase in temperature to -5 deg C and will not rise above the Cloud.
The Air has reached Thermal Equilibrium with the Cloud.

If there are no Clouds the Heat from the Air at -10 deg C will RADIATE TO COLD SPACE.
----------
This is also what happens when a Solar Oven is pointed at the Cold Sky.

A Solar Oven is parabolic mirror that concentrates all Electromagnetic Field Energy at a focal point.

If water is placed at the focal point and the Solar Oven is pointed at the Sun, the water will boil.

If the Solar Oven is pointed at the Cold Atmosphere, the water will COOL and even FREEZE.

continued...
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31312 Jan 28, 2013
continuation..

The following paper by The Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University measurements PROVES that that there was ONLY HEAT TRANSFER FROM THE WARM WATER TO THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE causing the water to COOL or FREEZE.
--------
Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives

"The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees.

These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker
needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky.

For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward.

Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.

The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C.
So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere."

http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jone...
----------
Did you read the part "These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects."...it is the same for CLOUDS.

This link also PROVES that heating of the Earth's surface cannot occur from the colder atmosphere.

In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY!
All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere!

It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C!

"If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved
ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F."

And, this also confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics....heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects and TOTALLY DISPROVES the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect".
----------
In fact, Trenberth's rediculous Earth Energy Budget Diagram, found in the IPCC AR4 Report, shows that the Solar Energy absorbed by the Earth Surface is just 168 w/m^2 while the Back Radiation from the COLD Atmosphere absorbed by the Earth Surface is 324 w/m^2 !!!

Here is Trenberths Earth Energy Budget Diagram that was included in the IPCC AR4 Report
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/imag...

That means that Solar Ovens, according to AGW Quack Science, should not only produce MORE heating from the Back Radiation, they should work at NIGHT.

That's the QUACK AGW "science" that you AGWer's worship in your CULT.

What a HOOT!
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31313 Jan 28, 2013
Joe Bob Attacks wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the idiot here. Your posts just get crazier and crazier. And no an electrical engineer is not a scientists or a climatologist. You're an electrical engineer. I'm not sure if I actually believe that either, but if you say so. Does electrical engineering require basic understanding of science and math, yes of course. Does that you make a scientist? NO!
As for your challenge about thermodynamics, you're still not making sense and have provided no evidence.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all processes proceed in one direction. Heat flows from a hot object to a cold object, never the reverse. While it is not possible to make heat flow from cold to hot, it is possible to slow down heat transfer without contravening the second law of thermodynamics.
The greenhouse effect would "only" violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics if the greenhouse effect had the sole result of transferring heat from a cooler to a warmer body, but that too would be an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the greenhouse effect.
The earth warms because some of the radiant heat from the earth is absorbed by the atmosphere.
There is a great explanation of the greenhouse effect and thermodynamics on this website. I challenge you to read it and free your mind.
http://junkscience.com/climate-features/is-th...
No Measurements Posted, just Typical AGW CULT BABBLE....while RUNNING FOR THE HILLS, AGAIN.

Do you know what a MEAUREMENT IS ???

Hey Joe Bob Attacks, instead of BABBLING JUST 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

Come on DO IT!

It's THAT SIMPLE, You IDIOT!
----------
I don't know what makes you and the rest of the AGW cult so anal... but it really works!
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31314 Jan 28, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
No sense batting your brain. Gordhead cannot get around the fact that IR escapes the Earth slower due to the properties of GHGS. He does not understand that all objects above absolute zero radiate and that all objects absorb radiation no matter what their temperature. He does not understand that heat transfer is a net reaction and that energy flows both ways no matter the temperatures. He cannot get around the fact that energy flows both ways between objects but the bulk of it flows to the cooler object. You will have to be patient with him. Perhaps some day he can understand.
HAHAHA....You AGW CULT MEMBERS are ALL THE SAME.

Do you know what a MEAUREMENT IS ???

Hey BOZO, instead of BABBLING JUST 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

Come on, stop RUNNING FOR THE HILLS (as you have for YEARS) and DO IT!

It's THAT SIMPLE, You IDIOT!
----------
I don't know what makes you and the rest of the AGW cult so anal... but it really works!

Since: Jan 13

Toronto, Canada

#31315 Jan 28, 2013
Well some people still test it seriously. This article tests 'global warming' and finds a pretty weak case for.
http://www.statisticsblog.com/2012/12/the-sur...
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31316 Jan 28, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text> What a stupid idiot you are. You said there was no such thing and I showed you there was. No need to quote the rest of the discussion.
<quoted text> More ignorance from you, Stupo. Radiant Energy from the Sun heats the Earth, you idiot, not CO2. We've already established that. But also, to a much lesser extent, the Earth receives radiant energy from other sources. Namely water vapor and GHG in the atmosphere. So radiant forcing is simply the total radiant energy received by the Earth minus the radiant energy radiated back to space. I suppose this is a difficult concept for an idiot like you to grasp. Nonetheless, radiant forcing occurs; with or without CO2 or even an atmosphere for that matter.
The rest of your screed is true- more or less- but has no bearing on the radiant forcing phenomena.
Radiant Forcing DOES NOT EXIST except in your SCREWED UP CULT MIND.

What part of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law or the Law of Conservation of Energy DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ?

Like I have ALREADY POSTED:

"Further, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Earth to Radiate any MORE or LESS than the Earth ABSORBS as the Stefan-Boltzman Law CLEARLY SHOWS and would also be a VIOLATION of The Law of Conservation of Energy that states "Energy Cannot Be Created or Destroyed" meaning that "Energy In = Energy Out", you IDIOT.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

P/A = BC*T^4 (w/m^2)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

If the temperature of the Earth is T then that means it has "Absorbed" P/A w/m^2 and will "Radiate" P/A w/m^2.(Energy In = Energy Out)

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and The Law of Conservation of Energy is so SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND except for STUPID AGWer's like YOU!"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----------
I don't know what makes you and the rest of the AGW cult so anal... but it really works!
SpaceBlues

United States

#31317 Jan 28, 2013
godlovemathlover wrote:
Well some people still test it seriously. This article tests 'global warming' and finds a pretty weak case for.
http://www.statisticsblog.com/2012/12/the-sur...
You lied at your first post.
:-(

The blogger agrees in conclusion.

"What did my analysis show for sure? Clearly, temperatures have risen since the 1880s."

Why can't you read what you post?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31318 Jan 28, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>

"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."

"HEY, WHY CAN'T ANY of you AGW CULT MEMBERS 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
You're still very amusing, SUXObama. Spectacularly, stubbornly, ridiculously, psychotically WRONG. But thanks for posting.

My quoted statement is EXACTLY correct. I've explained why way too many times, but you're too STOOOOOOOOPID to get it.

Perhaps factologist can get thru to you, but I personally doubt it. Why don't you prove me wrong about that? Just TRY to understand factologist's posts. You can prove me wrong!

Since you LIE when you say Vinnikov's paper doesn't contain measurements, here's another paper:

http://www.google.com/url...

It comes out as a pdf file. Presumably you can read it. It contains thousands of temperature measurements that are consistent with radiative forcing & AGW/CC theory.

A cold atmosphere CAN help the sun further heat a warmer earth. This does NOT violate the Second Law, because heat is being transferred by radiation (EMR), not conduction. Absorption & re-emission frequencies DO NOT DEPEND ON TEMPERATURE, as even you, in your occasional lucid moments, have conceded.

I don't expect you to get it, but perhaps lurkers will be inspired.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31319 Jan 28, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>

And, there is NO SUCH THING as "Radiative Forcing"
LOL.
Interesting that during one of your lucid moments you admitted that heat energy could be transferred by conduction, radiation or convection. You've also emitted that molecules absorb & re-emit EMR at frequencies that don't change with temperature.

Taken together, those things mean there is DEFINITELY radiatve forcing. Just remember, conduction doesn't work across a vacuum but radiation does.

If you take a moderately warm object that emits IR EMR, have a vacuum to separate it from a COLDER greenhouse gas (H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O or whatever), IR EMR will pass across the vacuum, be absorbed by the GHG, be re-emitted in all directions, & then some will pass back across the vacuum to warm the 1st object even further. These are experimental facts & they don't violate the Second Law.

“Polymath”

Since: Jul 08

Farmington

#31320 Jan 28, 2013
Who needs research? Go outside, try to find a glacier. They're gone. Watch for a tornado. They're everywhere, even out of season. Look at the number of billion-dollar damage weather events. They're skyrocketing.

A kindergartner could see that the Earth's climate is changing.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31321 Jan 28, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>

Let's use your 6000 K temperature for the SUN and findout what the temperature of a Black Body Earth, albedo = 0, no atmosphere, it will produce.
Equation Used (the same a the AGW "scientists" use)
TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D)))^0.5)
where:
TE = Temperature of the Earth Surface in K
TS = Temperature of the Sun (6000 K)
Rs = Radius of the Sun (6.96 X 10^8 meters)
D = Distance between the Earth and Sun (1.50 X 10^11 meters)
Results (Black Body Earth, albedo = 0, no atmosphere)
TE = 289.38 K
TE =+16.23 deg C !!
----------
That means that the addition of an ATMOSPHERE and ALL OTHER FACTORS has COOLED THE EARTH SURFACE to +16 deg C !!!
It also means that Trenberth and ALL the REST of the AGW "scientists" are PROVEN FRAUDS and LIARS since they HAVE repeated OVER and OVER again:
Greenhouse Effect
"If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effec...
The AGW "scientists" have FRAUDULENTLY LOWERED the temperature of the SUN to 5778 K to get a FRAUDULENT TE = 5.3 deg C.
Then they use the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" where HEAT FLOWS from a -20 deg C COLD Atmosphere to a Warmer Earth to produce a +15 deg C Earth Surface.
The Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" DOES NOT EXIST because:
1) It VIOLATES The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (along with OTHER Laws of Science)
“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...

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
SUXObama,
I already told you, you're talking to the wrong guy about the sun's surface temperature! Submit it to a scientific journal. If you're right you'll bask in the glory. What'll you call it? "The SUXObama theory of the sun's surface temperature"? Sounds pretty snappy.

Since you refuse to see Vinnikov, I posted another paper, this one by Lean & Rind. I can post more, or you can just look up Wallop10's post.

You'll never admit the truth, of course, but I'll keep pointing out where you're WRONG.

Again, why don't you see if you can "get" factologist's posts? Come on, prove me wrong by understanding them!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31322 Jan 28, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for POSTING this PROVEN LIE produced by NASA that I EXPOSED HERE:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/instrument/how_AIRS_... ----------
Wow, SUXGordObama! Now you're smarter than all those NASA scientists put together! I knew it! I mean, what do they know? What are they, just a bunch of rocket scientists?

Goodness, you won't even have to wait for that call from the King of Sweden. You can just head straight over, because you KNOW you'll be getting that Nobel.

Better make your travel plans soon. International flights should be booked ~81 days beforehand, domestic flights ~49 days. Better get your rezzie! LOL

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min USAsince1680 1,418,286
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 2 min Born USA 7,618
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 4 min Who is Radical 2
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 5 min barefoot2626 313
News Trump vows 'fair, but firm' approach to illegal... 7 min barefoot2626 18
No one wants to talk about the Central Park 5 10 min Postit 1
News Hillary Clinton tops Donald Trump in battlegrou... 10 min Reality Speaks 255
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr katrina 88 239,345
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr Sharrp Shooter 393,250
More from around the web